Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


08:55:57 Tampa City Council
08:55:59 Thursday, May 25, 2006
08:56:02 9:00 a.m. session
08:56:02
08:56:02 DISCLAIMER:
08:56:02 The following represents an unedited version of
08:56:02 realtime captioning which should neither be relied
08:56:02 upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
08:56:02 transcript.
08:56:02 The original of this transcript was produced in all
08:56:02 capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
08:56:02 result of third party edits and software compatibility
08:56:02 issues.
08:56:02 Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
08:56:02 proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
08:56:02
08:56:02
09:02:20
09:10:52 [Sounding gavel]
09:10:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:10:55 Chair will yield to Mr. Shawn Harrison.
09:10:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.
09:11:00 The invocation giver is working his way in.
09:11:03 Here he comes.
09:11:07 It's my pleasure this morning to introduce Mike
09:11:10 Horton, the associate pastor at First Baptist Church
09:11:13 of Tampa.

09:11:14 He will give our invocation.
09:11:16 If we could all please rise for the invocation and
09:11:18 remain standing for the pledge.
09:11:23 >> Heavenly father, we come to you today grateful for
09:11:25 this day, for the city you have given us.
09:11:28 Thankful, father, for those you put in positions of
09:11:31 governance in our city.
09:11:32 Today as we meet in this place we pray you give them
09:11:35 wisdom, give them guidance in all that they do.
09:11:38 Father, that our city might be one which prospers and
09:11:43 flourishes and which brings honor to you in all that
09:11:45 we do.
09:11:46 And we just thank you so much for the privilege that's
09:11:49 ours to be in this place today and to serve you.
09:11:53 These things we ask in your holy name.
09:11:55 Amen.
09:11:58 (Pledge of Allegiance).
09:12:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:12:18 [Roll Call]
09:12:23 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time I am going to yield to Mr.
09:12:25 John Dingfelder.
09:12:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

09:13:16 Since you organized this.
09:13:17 Good morning, council.
09:13:21 As council's chair of public works, it's really an
09:13:23 honor for me to participate in this.
09:13:25 What we are celebrating today is national public works
09:13:29 week.
09:13:29 And, chuck, why don't you start us off by telling us a
09:13:33 little about public works week and what it means to
09:13:36 you and your people.
09:13:37 >> public works week is an opportunity to recognize
09:13:40 all the departments that work with the department of
09:13:42 public works within the City of Tampa, Steve
09:13:45 Daignault, administrator for public works and utility
09:13:48 services.
09:13:48 We have got one of the largest departments combined
09:13:51 within the city.
09:13:52 And we really provide the basic services that
09:13:55 residents see day to day throughout the city, cleaning
09:13:58 the streets, providing water, taking away wastewater
09:14:01 and picking up the garbage every day.
09:14:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have the following
09:14:10 representatives of each of the six public works

09:14:11 departments.
09:14:13 Contract administration, we have Dave winegarr and
09:14:19 Wilson.
09:14:20 Department of public works, Jim Arnold from parking.
09:14:22 Anthony Imenez from transportation.
09:14:27 Welcome.
09:14:28 From solid waste, mark blocker and Shannon mainer.
09:14:33 And from stormwater, Bobby cotton and Gary May.
09:14:40 Wastewater, we have Bobby Richardson.
09:14:44 And we have Alan Decoster.
09:14:47 Alan recently returned from Iraq after a year tour of
09:14:51 duty with the Army as staff sergeant.
09:14:54 Welcome back.
09:14:55 (Applause).
09:15:00 And finally from the water department, we have Brenda
09:15:04 Ivy and A. Jenkins.
09:15:08 Welcome.
09:15:09 And in honor of national public works week, the mayor
09:15:12 has issued this proclamation.
09:15:15 Next year we'll catch up and do a resolution as well.
09:15:18 And I'll read the mayor's proclamation.
09:15:20 Whereas public works services provided in our

09:15:23 community are an integral part of our citizens' daily
09:15:26 lives and whereas the support of an understanding and
09:15:29 informed citizenry is vital to the efficient
09:15:32 operations of public works systems and programs, such
09:15:34 as water, sewer, streets, highways, public buildings,
09:15:37 solid waste, parks and canal maintenance, and whereas
09:15:42 the health, safety and comfort of this community
09:15:44 greatly depends on these facilities and services, and
09:15:47 whereas the quality and effectiveness of these
09:15:50 facilities as well as their planning, design and
09:15:52 construction is vitally dependent upon the efforts and
09:15:54 skill of public works officials, whereas the
09:15:57 efficiencily of the qualified and dedicated personnel
09:16:00 who staff public works department is materially
09:16:03 influenced by the peoples attitude and understanding
09:16:06 of the importance of the work they perform and whereas
09:16:07 the City of Tampa is so proud to recollect nice our
09:16:10 public works employees for their commitment to the
09:16:13 growth and quality of life in our community, now
09:16:15 therefore I, not me, Pam Iorio, by virtue of the
09:16:19 authority vested in me do hereby proclaim the week of
09:16:24 May 21-26 as national public works week in the city of

09:16:28 Tampa, Florida.
09:16:29 And we are just so proud of you folks, for all you do.
09:16:35 Pass the word on to those you work with.
09:16:37 Just a couple of weeks ago a water main broke out
09:16:40 right up at the corner in the middle of the night, and
09:16:43 water department was there.
09:16:46 The department was so responsive and does such a great
09:16:49 job and we are proud of you all.
09:16:50 Thank you.
09:16:52 (Applause).
09:16:54 And we have Roy LaMotte and some other department
09:16:59 heads here.
09:16:59 We appreciate all the work that the supervisors do as
09:17:02 well.
09:17:04 Thank you so much.
09:17:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to approve the agenda.
09:17:25 >> Move approval.
09:17:26 >> We need to move the committee reports.
09:17:28 And does anybody in the audience want to speak on the
09:17:30 committee reports, they will have an opportunity.
09:17:34 Mr. Shelby?
09:17:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Item number 44 which is the second

09:17:37 reading on the development board.
09:17:40 I'd like to move that forward prior to hearing from
09:17:43 the candidates, if we can do second reading first
09:17:46 before doing voting.
09:17:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:17:48 Any others?
09:17:51 Do you want to remove anything from the agenda?
09:17:54 We need to approve it.
09:17:57 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:18:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there was a memo on number
09:18:04 31.
09:18:04 >>THE CLERK: Item number 31 you had a memo requesting
09:18:07 it be withdrawn but prior to the meeting we received a
09:18:10 call from Darrell Smith's office requesting this be
09:18:14 carried over to June 1st.
09:18:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
09:18:17 >>THE CLERK: The only other thing, we received a memo
09:18:20 on item 54.
09:18:25 They are going to be requesting a 3-week continuance.
09:18:28 That needs to be heard at 10:00.
09:18:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So 31, continuance -- withdrawn?
09:18:33 >>GWEN MILLER: No.

09:18:34 >>THE CLERK: June 1st.
09:18:39 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:18:43 I might be able to help a little bit.
09:18:44 I think if we could just continue that a week, that
09:18:47 would be the ideal.
09:18:48 We were very close.
09:18:49 As a matter of fact, we had this item on the agenda
09:18:51 for you today.
09:18:52 There were a couple of issues that came up that dealt
09:18:55 with what I call ancillary improvements on both sides
09:18:58 of this roadway which are necessary for this road to
09:19:00 work.
09:19:01 We are working through that process now.
09:19:03 I think we are very close to resolving that but I
09:19:05 don't want to bring something to you that's so
09:19:08 disparate from -- from what will be addressed.
09:19:13 We'll have it for you real soon.
09:19:15 There's a need to move forward on this.
09:19:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you really think one week or
09:19:19 two?
09:19:19 One week gives you like one day to get it on the doc
09:19:23 agenda and everything else.

09:19:26 >>DAVID SMITH: I think we would rather try for the one
09:19:28 week if you don't mind and we'll ask for another if we
09:19:31 need it but there's a need for moving forward with
09:19:33 this.
09:19:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, David.
09:19:37 There is an absolutely crucial need for one week.
09:19:40 As we all know, with construction prices as they are,
09:19:43 every day that we delay this is a delay that it's less
09:19:47 likely to happen.
09:19:48 David, I would encourage us to even bring this in as a
09:19:52 walk-in next week, if you can't get everything through
09:19:55 the doc agenda process.
09:19:57 We need to get this in front of the expressway
09:20:00 authority board and get it taken care of.
09:20:03 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, sir.
09:20:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
09:20:10 >> Move to continue.
09:20:11 >> Second.
09:20:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue for a
09:20:14 week.
09:20:14 (Motion carried).
09:20:14 Anything else?

09:20:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the agenda with the idea that
09:20:18 we are going to allow public comment.
09:20:22 >> Second.
09:20:23 (Motion carried).
09:20:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to unfinished business item
09:20:28 number 1.
09:20:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think we all received a note from
09:20:43 Mr. Buckner, the new director of strategic technology,
09:20:46 and it's very helpful.
09:20:47 He showed us where on the city web site, on the front
09:20:50 page at the very top, there is an opportunity to click
09:20:53 on emergency numbers and directory.
09:20:56 This is something I had asked about in case there were
09:20:58 code enforcement crises, illegal tree cutting,
09:21:03 something that went on during the weekend to make it
09:21:05 easier for our citizens to know where to call.
09:21:07 And there it is, front and center, front page of Tampa
09:21:11 GOV.
09:21:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2.
09:21:17 Mr. Harrison.
09:21:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would appreciate if council would
09:21:23 consider taking item 44 at this time and then the

09:21:25 other opportunity to speak at 9:15.
09:21:33 >>THE CLERK: Item 44 is published for 9:30.
09:21:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
09:21:37 I didn't realize the time.
09:21:38 Thank you.
09:21:41 >>> Debbie Harrington, the city traffic engineer.
09:21:43 I'm here today to talk to you about item number 2
09:22:03 I'm not sure if that can be zoomed out.
09:22:05 You all should have a report in front of you in
09:22:08 reference to the motion that was made for us to look
09:22:10 at the parking on Ferdinand in a three-block area in
09:22:15 front of the Roosevelt elementary school.
09:22:19 There was a petition received from 17 residents
09:22:21 representing 12 different homes.
09:22:25 They live on pretty much the adjacent street with the
09:22:30 exception of one residence that actually lived on
09:22:33 Ferdinand.
09:22:37 Right now, there's an existing fire line in front of
09:22:44 Roosevelt elementary.
09:22:45 The street is very narrow, only 20 feet wide.
09:22:49 The ongoing problem with parents continuing to park in
09:22:53 the fire lane that's existing there.

09:22:56 And we did observe this happening when we were out
09:22:59 there watching the school in the morning, and when the
09:23:03 school was letting out in the afternoon.
09:23:08 Based on our findings, we are recommending to install
09:23:13 a no stopping, standing or parking anytime sign for
09:23:17 all three blocks.
09:23:19 The main school -- in front of the building and then
09:23:28 here and then the playground is down here in this
09:23:30 area.
09:23:32 We will be installing again, we are going to have to
09:23:35 remove some markings that have been put out there from
09:23:38 the school in the attempt to try to discourage the
09:23:46 parking there, put a double yellow to help discourage
09:23:50 people from parking in this three-block area and we'll
09:23:52 have it installed before school starts in August.
09:23:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's a great response and
09:24:01 a great idea.
09:24:03 Those are very tight streets.
09:24:04 I used to live over there.
09:24:08 As I mentioned to council, I attended that school, but
09:24:10 I wasn't driving at the time.
09:24:15 But anyway, I think that's a great response.

09:24:17 We appreciate your looking at it so promptly.
09:24:19 Thank you.
09:24:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Harrington, I was going to
09:24:25 suggest that you get with the school to publicize this
09:24:28 for the back-to-school packet and for the new kids who
09:24:30 will be starting and the new families that will be
09:24:33 beginning in the fall, that everybody is really clear
09:24:35 that this is the new policy and figure out another way
09:24:40 to drop the kids off.
09:24:44 >>> That's our goal.
09:24:44 We'll get with them.
09:24:45 Thank you.
09:24:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:24:46 Other questions?
09:24:48 Thank you, Mrs. Herrington.
09:24:49 Item number 3.
09:24:50 Land development.
09:24:51 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:24:58 I was here about 30 days ago and you asked me to come
09:25:01 back to address the sign issues, specifically.
09:25:04 I was going to get prices from the sign company that
09:25:08 we ordered them through.

09:25:10 And I had stated previously that the cost difference,
09:25:14 they were about twice as much for the larger size.
09:25:19 It is twice the size of the original.
09:25:22 I'll give you the evolution. This is the sign we
09:25:25 originally had.
09:25:26 Prior to us changing to uniform notice for all the
09:25:29 petitions became 30 days.
09:25:31 This is the sign we used.
09:25:33 We only required one sign per petition.
09:25:38 When we changed that regulation to one sign per
09:25:42 frontage to a smaller size sign, because the thought
09:25:45 was that there would be multiple signs on the
09:25:47 property.
09:25:48 To give you an example, the height project had 35
09:25:52 rezoning signs and 307 rezoning designs.
09:25:58 Anything of that magnitude would have many signs
09:26:00 posted.
09:26:01 Looking at the cost difference, they do do various
09:26:03 colors, red, blue, green, orange, ivory, silver,
09:26:09 black, brown.
09:26:10 They have primary colors.
09:26:11 The only two colors that they lighten, the yellow and

09:26:15 blue, and they have shower shades of blue.
09:26:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you go into colors what's
09:26:20 the basic difference cost between the big sign and the
09:26:24 little sign?
09:26:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: A 25-count quantity, which we order
09:26:28 between 25 and 50 at a time. The small size for white
09:26:33 is 5.50 and the small size color is 6.
09:26:39 The small size white at a larger size is 10.50 and
09:26:42 then in color it's 11.
09:26:44 So it doubled essentially in size.
09:26:47 The colors don't cost any additional money except just
09:26:49 for the sign itself.
09:26:52 >> Are we passing on this cost to the develop er?
09:26:54 >>> That is something we were going to suggest.
09:26:56 The money that we pay for signs comes out of the
09:26:58 general fund and we pay twice as much for the sign and
09:27:01 that's going to draw down for the budgetary funds that
09:27:04 we receive.
09:27:04 We would actually suggest creating a separate account
09:27:07 and champion separately for signs.
09:27:09 That way the account replenishes itself every year.
09:27:13 Not all petitions have the same number of signs.

09:27:15 Some single family properties just have one.
09:27:17 But you could have a block development which could
09:27:19 have four.
09:27:20 That's four times as much.
09:27:22 We also would suggest for now, the rezoning and
09:27:26 special use the 2nd case that is come before
09:27:28 council seem to be the most controversial out of the
09:27:31 items.
09:27:31 We would suggest either going with the light yellow,
09:27:34 the orange, or the light blue, a color itself, so they
09:27:39 both stand out.
09:27:43 What Gloria found in the past through the different
09:27:46 sign companies that white was actually shows better in
09:27:50 the larger size.
09:27:51 We don't mind switching to a different color to try at
09:27:54 least for the rezoning use to see how it goes.
09:27:57 We would have to get rid -- work through our current
09:28:00 inventory obviously because we spent a lot of money on
09:28:02 it.
09:28:07 We are fine with the large as long as we can pass the
09:28:09 cost on.
09:28:10 That would be the cost that we pay.

09:28:11 No more than that.
09:28:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Coyle, why don't you use a variety
09:28:17 of signs?
09:28:17 If you have a large, like you mentioned in Tampa
09:28:19 Heights is going to have 35 of those, then use the
09:28:22 smaller signs.
09:28:23 If you have the ones for just one parcel then use the
09:28:26 larger sign.
09:28:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's fine, too.
09:28:30 The minimum size you have in the code is the smaller.
09:28:32 So we went to the minimum.
09:28:34 We can use a variety of them and then it would be our
09:28:36 discussion, if it's a larger case it's going to be
09:28:39 multiple signs.
09:28:40 The single lot we would use the big signs.
09:28:42 >> I think it's a good idea to pass the costs on.
09:28:46 It's not feasible for us to continue to do that.
09:28:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: To do that I would need to have a
09:28:52 motion actually.
09:28:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To get things going I definitely
09:28:55 think that it should be borne by the petitioner
09:28:59 because they are the ones applying for the rezoning.

09:29:01 It definitely needs to be more visible.
09:29:03 And the larger signs are more visible.
09:29:07 So to me, my motion would be that we pass the cost
09:29:12 onto the petitioner, and that we use the larger signs.
09:29:15 >>GWEN MILLER: In color or black and white?
09:29:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would just go with white.
09:29:23 I think if it's larger people will see it.
09:29:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And it's their own discretion to use
09:29:29 it for the various parcels they need.
09:29:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If somebody needs more than ten
09:29:34 signs then they can use the smaller ones?
09:29:39 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
09:29:40 There won't be too many of them.
09:29:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Put that in your motion.
09:29:43 We have a motion and second.
09:29:45 All in favor say Aye.
09:29:46 Opposed, Nay.
09:29:47 (Motion carried).
09:29:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for coming back to us.
09:29:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There were some other issues on
09:29:53 item 3.
09:29:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I addressed those a month ago,

09:29:56 actually.
09:29:57 We agreed we would put the telephone number for land
09:30:00 development on the application.
09:30:02 Not the name of the staff member because as you know
09:30:05 they rotate.
09:30:06 You would never know.
09:30:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the computer link?
09:30:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Sorry.
09:30:14 I'm getting over something here.
09:30:19 (coughing)
09:30:20 Sorry about that. The computer language should be
09:30:22 uploaded onto the web tomorrow and we will be printing
09:30:25 those for public use and we'll e-mail them to all the
09:30:28 regular petitioners that we have.
09:30:29 There will be a gap of a few months of people getting
09:30:37 through the old one.
09:30:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only one I would consider
09:30:40 outstanding, and I don't know if it was Mr. Steenson
09:30:43 that brought it up --
09:30:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Excuse me.
09:30:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
09:31:08 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm so sorry.

09:31:09 >>GWEN MILLER: As long as you're okay.
09:31:10 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Oh, I'm crying, look at that.
09:31:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing outstanding is the
09:31:16 issue that the neighborhoods had requested that if
09:31:18 it's a PD or otherwise a site plan control
09:31:21 development, that when they get their notice that they
09:31:24 get at least the first version of the site plan.
09:31:29 They don't have to come downtown to the clerk or to
09:31:32 you guys to pull a copy of the site plan.
09:31:35 They can look at the site plan right when they get
09:31:37 their notice and see if they really care or not or
09:31:39 whatever.
09:31:40 >>> That would require a code amendment to do that.
09:31:43 It's only a letter at this point.
09:31:45 We are not sure.
09:31:46 If you do that for the neighborhood association, would
09:31:48 you want the same courtesy for the people within the
09:31:52 250 feet as well.
09:31:53 >> Why?
09:31:55 >>> They are on equal standing.
09:31:56 They are adjacent property owners.
09:31:57 And --

09:32:00 >> A policy decision that we make, I don't think it's
09:32:02 a legal requirement.
09:32:08 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:32:09 I think the concern would be if you codify, then it
09:32:12 becomes part of what the notice is and if you are
09:32:14 going to send the notice out and N that form which
09:32:16 includes the site plan it really should go to all the
09:32:18 people within the appropriate notice.
09:32:21 Whatever you are deciding would be appropriate.
09:32:25 I think that would be the concern.
09:32:26 I would agree that probably proper notice and probably
09:32:31 some policy, you would want to have it sent out to
09:32:34 everybody.
09:32:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's overkill.
09:32:37 Because if you're next to a condominium, and some
09:32:43 people are when they do this, they have to send out
09:32:45 200 notices.
09:32:46 So I'm not suggesting they have to make 200 site
09:32:48 plans.
09:32:48 Because most people don't care and this and that.
09:32:51 But at least if there's one to the neighborhood
09:32:53 association, the neighborhood association are usually

09:32:55 the one that is get the most involved, and I'm
09:32:58 actually seeing a neighborhood association president
09:33:00 in the back of the room agreeing with me.
09:33:02 But anyway, I just think it's an excellent idea, you
09:33:07 want to look at it a little longer and come to us,
09:33:10 that would be fine.
09:33:11 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I think that would be appropriate
09:33:13 to look at.
09:33:16 As well as are you suggesting that the large site plan
09:33:18 be sent out with a small 8 by 10 be sent out?
09:33:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, county be 11 by 17 or
09:33:25 something shrunk down perhaps to give an idea of what
09:33:31 we are talking about.
09:33:32 I have been told by developers that printing an extra
09:33:35 large one is not a big deal.
09:33:40 >>> We can look at it a little longer.
09:33:41 I didn't want there to be any more confusion at the
09:33:44 council hearing if they are looking at the old one.
09:33:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We talked about that.
09:33:48 And we said there would have to be a caveat with that,
09:33:50 that the preliminary site plan, it may change by the
09:33:53 time it gets to council.

09:33:54 But I think that what we have heard from the
09:33:56 neighborhood leaders is that this is really an
09:33:58 important issue for them.
09:33:59 And it gives them the information that they could use
09:34:02 to start off, evaluate it, and a lot of times it might
09:34:06 cut out some of the work on your part, Cathy, if they
09:34:11 look at a site plan and say we are okay with this,
09:34:14 they don't have to get involved with this, it's not a
09:34:16 big deal and then they don't even have to come down
09:34:18 and talk to you all.
09:34:19 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you're looking for the road
09:34:22 amendment the earliest would probably be August.
09:34:25 We have many others, the Channel District plan,
09:34:27 Westshore and everything else going.
09:34:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe just you and Julia work on it
09:34:31 and come back when you come back with that batch.
09:34:35 >> Okay.
09:34:35 I have an idea that might make it easier, and that is
09:34:39 many of our rezoning site plans are developed by the
09:34:42 architects, engineers, designers, in a computer
09:34:46 format.
09:34:46 Could it be -- do they provide you -- do stuff on a

09:34:53 computer format?
09:34:55 >>> No.
09:34:57 I can say there are a lot of neighborhood
09:34:59 associations, quite a few that do not have e-mail
09:35:01 access to computers and they prefer it that way.
09:35:04 Everyone with our news letters, we mail them out
09:35:06 because they prefer the hard copy.
09:35:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
09:35:13 Ms. Alvarez?
09:35:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Any neighborhood that wants a copy of
09:35:20 the site plan, all they have to do is come and get it.
09:35:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When the issue came up before,
09:35:29 Mary, they specifically, I can't remember which one --
09:35:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It was only one person.
09:35:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think they would all agree.
09:35:36 But what they said was that they are volunteers, and
09:35:39 they shouldn't have to come down here to do that,
09:35:44 because they are volunteers, and we should make it as
09:35:46 easy as possible to mail an extra copy out.
09:35:49 It probably costs the developer 50 cents to make an
09:35:52 extra copy, stick it in the mail to one neighborhood
09:35:55 association.

09:35:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And then cost about $32 to mail it.
09:36:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
09:36:02 So $100 that you worth of property.
09:36:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we are giving neighborhoods
09:36:08 more work to do.
09:36:09 And there could probably be a handful that got it.
09:36:16 Maybe ought to have a public hearing on that one too,
09:36:19 you know.
09:36:21 >>> Many of them are behind me.
09:36:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, maybe you ought to ask them.
09:36:25 It seems to me like it's a lot of work for a
09:36:28 neighborhood with volunteers.
09:36:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I was going to ask whatever council's
09:36:33 decision is do it in the form of a motion with
09:36:36 direction to staff.
09:36:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
09:36:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think one of the great positives to
09:36:44 this is if we did give the neighborhoods an additional
09:36:50 site plan, the neighborhood would either have one of
09:36:54 two opportunities.
09:36:57 To review it and decide whether they want to support a
09:37:01 particular petition.

09:37:02 And in some of our neighborhoods, we see that they
09:37:05 come out in droves to either support and or oppose
09:37:08 something.
09:37:09 And we also know in certain neighborhoods that if we
09:37:14 see no hue and cry and petitioner said we have already
09:37:19 spoken with the neighborhood and we know it's a very
09:37:21 active neighborhood, we know that it must be pretty
09:37:23 much okay.
09:37:26 If the petitioner spends an extra $5 on another site
09:37:29 plan, mail it to the neighborhood association, the
09:37:31 neighborhood association has -- not that they have to
09:37:34 get the final blessing.
09:37:37 We know that we do.
09:37:38 But at least if the neighborhood association has a
09:37:41 heads-up and they have a week to work with the
09:37:44 petitioner and say, hey, we think that's wonderful.
09:37:46 Or could you possibly, because of a neighborhood
09:37:50 concern we have, flip-flop your parking lot from one
09:37:55 side to the other and we will give you a letter of
09:37:57 support, run down to City Council, we don't have to
09:37:59 waste our time, council doesn't have to say, well,
09:38:02 what does the neighborhood association think of it?

09:38:05 I think it's just a courtesy more than anything.
09:38:07 Not only that but it would also give the petitioner
09:38:10 heads up to know if they are going to have opposition
09:38:12 from the neighborhood, and then all these continuances
09:38:15 might not continue to continue.
09:38:18 So I just think that it would probably be a courtesy
09:38:22 for the neighborhood as well as us, and a heads up for
09:38:24 the developer.
09:38:26 So I would be willing to support one extra site plan
09:38:31 for the neighborhood as a courtesy.
09:38:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:38:36 I would like to move to waive the rules to allow the
09:38:38 audience to weigh in on this before we move on with
09:38:42 this issue.
09:38:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Didn't we just ask legal to take a
09:38:50 look at it?
09:38:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then instead of that I will ask
09:38:55 Cathy and legal to stick around till the neighborhood
09:38:58 speaks.
09:38:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:39:00 We have 9:30.
09:39:03 You wanted to do the other before we do 45.

09:39:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 44.
09:39:12 >>GWEN MILLER: 44.
09:39:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It has to be opened.
09:39:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:39:31 >> Second.
09:39:31 (Motion carried).
09:39:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does anybody wish to speak on that
09:39:34 item?
09:39:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Agenda item number 44.
09:39:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ask the public is F there's anyone to
09:39:46 speak on that.
09:39:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
09:39:48 on item 44?
09:39:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this the opportunity for them
09:39:51 to --
09:39:54 >>GWEN MILLER: No, different item.
09:39:56 We need to close the public hearing.
09:39:58 Motion and second to close.
09:39:59 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
09:40:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What are we doing on this?
09:40:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It has to be read.
09:40:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, I didn't hear when the

09:40:12 candidates --
09:40:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Candidates will be heard right after.
09:40:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing we are doing is
09:40:19 planning at eleven?
09:40:20 >>GWEN MILLER: From nine to eleven is what this
09:40:22 ordinance is about.
09:40:24 Mr. Dingfelder, would you read it, please?
09:40:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance upon
09:40:29 second reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
09:40:31 Florida amending ordinance 2005-314 adopted by the
09:40:35 City Council of the City of Tampa on November 17,
09:40:38 2005, by amending section 3-A to provide for a board
09:40:41 consisting of eleven members, deleting section 3-F
09:40:44 that required the chairman and vice chairman to be
09:40:46 appointed by ordinance, providing an effective date.
09:40:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:40:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
09:40:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:41:17 Item 5.
09:41:17 Mr. Shelby.
09:41:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ferlita, Miller and Alvarez voting
09:41:26 no.

09:41:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At this time, per council's motion,
09:41:30 you have allowed one minute for anyone to ho has
09:41:33 applied to appear to speak as to their nomination for
09:41:39 the zone agency development board.
09:41:43 You have before you that ballot.
09:41:52 I believe also Mr. Collin has provided two written
09:41:57 statements that have been offered for council's
09:41:59 consideration for those people who are unable to
09:42:02 attend but who wish to offer a statement.
09:42:04 Finally, council, I believe there was an additional
09:42:08 application that was offered to council.
09:42:11 I believe council has received a copy of that.
09:42:14 And that's for council's consideration as to how it
09:42:16 wishes to proceed.
09:42:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Shelby with, the additional
09:42:24 application when we did this originally, we didn't
09:42:26 post any closing date on that, did we?
09:42:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I verified with Mr. Collins that in
09:42:31 fact there was in a closing date that had been
09:42:33 advertised or posted.
09:42:36 >>KEVIN WHITE: At this point in time we are going to
09:42:37 have to consider it, correct?

09:42:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's council's pleasure, yes. I
09:42:42 did not include that on the ballot because the ballot
09:42:44 was previously provided to you last week.
09:42:46 If you wish to consider that applicant, that should be
09:42:48 done as a write-in vote.
09:42:57 Emanuel Leto.
09:43:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: I know it's our option but it's my
09:43:04 opinion, there seemed to have been some concerns about
09:43:07 who is in an enter praise zone, a continuing one,
09:43:13 proposed one, and I think given what Mr. Leto has
09:43:21 submitted I'm certainly very comfortable adding him as
09:43:23 a write-in and I think we can do that anyway.
09:43:26 There was in a vote, no deadline that he didn't abide
09:43:29 by.
09:43:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I can't opine that there was any bar
09:43:33 to it because there was no deadline that was verified.
09:43:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Based on that, he's a very -- a very
09:43:43 credible candidate and I would like him included to
09:43:46 come up and tell us what he's about.
09:43:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to clarify, the
09:43:54 candidates, are they or are they not required to live
09:43:58 and work in an enterprise zone to serve on this board?

09:44:05 >>> Legal department.
09:44:05 They are not required to.
09:44:06 The statute says they would like to you look at those
09:44:09 people, look at certain categories of occupations but
09:44:12 you are not required to appoint people that live or
09:44:15 work in the enterprise zone.
09:44:17 >> And the category of occupation?
09:44:19 >>> I don't have the statute in front of me but there
09:44:21 was a group of bankers, developers, economists, it was
09:44:25 a large category of people that they said that you
09:44:28 would look at, and the statute would like to you look
09:44:31 at those that you are not required.
09:44:32 It was a may rather than shall.
09:44:36 You have total flexibility on who you choose.
09:44:39 >> Procedurally, we are going to hear from the folks
09:44:41 and then vote again?
09:44:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have a motion on the floor to add?
09:44:50 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion and second to do a write-in
09:44:52 for Mr. Leto.
09:44:53 (Motion carried).
09:44:55 Mr. Shelby?
09:44:59 Okay, thank you.

09:45:02 >> You wish to open the floor?
09:45:04 >> So moved.
09:45:05 >> Second.
09:45:05 (Motion carried).
09:45:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is anyone here who is a candidate for
09:45:10 the enterprise zone development agency board who
09:45:13 wishes to address council at this time?
09:45:16 One minute.
09:45:17 You don't have to be sworn.
09:45:22 (Laughter).
09:45:24 >>> Good morning. My name is Spencer Trask. I reside
09:45:27 at 3614 west devilla street.
09:45:31 I am the co-owner of landmark realty and our office is
09:45:35 located in West Tampa and within the enterprise zone.
09:45:41 Over the course of my background, in finance and
09:45:44 economics, I'm also an attorney.
09:45:46 I come from four generations of real estate people.
09:45:51 I have been working on the West Tampa economic
09:45:54 development plan, and I have been working with the
09:45:57 West Tampa volunteers over the past year, in
09:46:00 implementing that development plan in the West Tampa
09:46:03 community.

09:46:06 Over the past year, my brother and I have found West
09:46:10 Tampa on the verge of true growth and expansion and
09:46:15 feel that this enterprise zone and expansion
09:46:19 throughout more of West Tampa which it now covers
09:46:23 gives true opportunity for the local residents to have
09:46:26 an opportunity to have actual jobs, and extra
09:46:32 incentive to possibly consider West Tampa as a place
09:46:35 for them to live in.
09:46:37 I feel it's also essential that West Tampa be
09:46:40 represented on the agency board, especially now that
09:46:44 the board has been expanded to have more members on
09:46:47 it.
09:46:48 Thanks.
09:46:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, if all the folks that
09:46:54 are coming up to speak, if you could just say whether
09:46:56 or not you live or work in this enter praise zone that
09:47:00 we are creating.
09:47:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Don't have to work.
09:47:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I know you don't have to.
09:47:08 I just want to hear if you do.
09:47:10 Sal, do you have a map or something like that that
09:47:12 shows the enterprise zone boundaries that we are

09:47:14 creating here?
09:47:22 >>SAL TERRITO: Yes, we do.
09:47:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker, you may come up.
09:47:27 >>> Good morning.
09:47:28 I'm Essie Bapis.
09:47:30 For the past 18 years I have been working on economic
09:47:32 development issues and concerns, both nationally and
09:47:37 internationally.
09:47:37 Six months ago I relocated to Tampa, for the past
09:47:43 eight years, working with municipalities, all over
09:47:46 Europe and the Middle East.
09:47:49 My career as a policy association in New York, I have
09:47:52 accumulated board experience in diverse capacities.
09:47:59 I have served on boards.
09:48:01 I have served on Columbia university lum nigh
09:48:03 association board, developed their marketing plans and
09:48:06 funding.
09:48:07 While in Greece, I became the founding member of the
09:48:10 Greek Montenegro Chamber of Commerce and industry.
09:48:19 Throughout all might have projects, I developed enter
09:48:21 praise strategic plans and alliances.
09:48:23 Marketing and advertising.

09:48:25 And media and communication that support enterprise
09:48:30 and economic development issues.
09:48:33 I spent almost ten years at the United Nations, and my
09:48:37 professional experience is based on my theoretical
09:48:41 academic background which I acquired from Columbia
09:48:44 university, majoring in political science,
09:48:48 international affairs, and my bachelor's degree, and
09:48:51 New York university for my master's degree majoring in
09:48:56 media and culture analysis.
09:48:58 I'm committed and I believe in enterprise zones.
09:49:00 I would appreciate being given the opportunity.
09:49:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Time is up.
09:49:05 >>> To serve on the enter praise zone development
09:49:06 agency board and to serve for the City of Tampa's
09:49:10 economic development.
09:49:11 Thank you.
09:49:12 >>GWEN MILLER: You're welcome.
09:49:13 Next.
09:49:17 >>> I just want to let you all know that there are
09:49:19 other boards.
09:49:20 You guys are so talented.
09:49:22 This is so exciting that Tampa citizens are willing to

09:49:24 volunteer.
09:49:25 And obviously we can't vote for all of you.
09:49:27 But what we should do is have you go immediately to
09:49:30 the clerk's office after this and see if there are
09:49:32 other ways you would like to participate.
09:49:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Code Enforcement Board really needs
09:49:38 people.
09:49:40 >> We have many boards.
09:49:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: City Council has -- (Laughter).
09:49:45 >>> My name is Pamela Harris and I want to be on the
09:49:48 enterprise zone board because I think it would be an
09:49:50 excellent learning opportunity because I'm a student,
09:49:53 and go to USF to study geography because I want to be
09:49:59 an urban planner.
09:50:00 Most importantly I think it would be a great way to
09:50:02 help out in this community.
09:50:04 So it can be better for people who live and work
09:50:08 there.
09:50:11 And I hope that you will allow me the opportunity to
09:50:13 be on the board.
09:50:14 Thank you all for your time.
09:50:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

09:50:16 Next.
09:50:20 >>> I'm bill Duval, currently president of Tampa
09:50:25 homeowners and association of neighborhoods.
09:50:28 And I was asked to apply for this position.
09:50:35 I'm not sure I need another job.
09:50:37 But I live in Seminole Heights.
09:50:39 And I think most of you know some of my background.
09:50:42 And certainly East Tampa is our neighbor.
09:50:47 And I'm sort of a grassroots kind of a guy.
09:50:50 And anything that's good for my neighborhood, my
09:50:54 neighbors for Seminole Heights are in my neighborhood.
09:50:57 So I respectfully ask for your consideration.
09:50:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:51:00 Next.
09:51:03 >>> My name is Manny Leto from the Ybor City museum
09:51:08 society.
09:51:09 I'm here because of my interest in serving on the
09:51:12 agency board.
09:51:15 Community outreach structure for museum society for my
09:51:18 participation on this board would be beneficial for
09:51:21 Ybor City, except for direction for the district which
09:51:27 as we know is with enter praise community district,

09:51:29 and state enterprise zone.
09:51:33 The museum society, together with the state museum,
09:51:36 since its founding almost 23 years ago, has grown
09:51:39 considerably, encompasses over eleven different
09:51:43 properties in Ybor City, which include a piece of
09:51:45 property in central Ybor, it includes 19th street
09:51:49 Ybor, and it includes the Ferlita bakery.
09:51:53 So as we continue to grow, we would like to remain at
09:51:56 the forefront of what's happening in Ybor City.
09:51:59 And I think that we can be a voice for the cultural
09:52:03 evolution of Ybor City, and for other nonprofits and
09:52:08 cultural organizations working in the district.
09:52:10 Then on a personal note, also, I'm about an 8 minute
09:52:19 walk from my office every day.
09:52:21 So I hope you will consider my application.
09:52:23 Thank you.
09:52:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:52:24 Next.
09:52:30 >>> My name is Joseph Robinson.
09:52:34 Live in Sulphur Springs.
09:52:36 I am president right now of Sulphur Springs.
09:52:38 I am a member of T.H.A.N.

09:52:39 I'm a member of the CDBG.
09:52:42 A member of the CDC.
09:52:45 I'm a member of quite a few organizations that do
09:52:49 different things around the City of Tampa.
09:52:51 I would like to serve on the city economic development
09:52:55 board because of my love for Tampa.
09:52:58 Also, offers an opportunity for change in the lives of
09:53:05 residents and the merchants that are in the area that
09:53:09 the CDBG board is part of.
09:53:13 And to serve others, I have always had a calming
09:53:16 effect on my life.
09:53:17 I would like your consideration in this position and
09:53:23 Thank you.
09:53:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:53:25 Next.
09:53:27 >>> Russell VERSAGGI.
09:53:31 I do not live in the enter praise zone.
09:53:33 I'm a property owner in the enter praise zone,
09:53:35 however.
09:53:36 And when asked to volunteer to serve on the board, I
09:53:40 told him that I would be happy to serve.
09:53:42 I do have some experience with enter praise zone

09:53:45 applications.
09:53:47 I was interested -- this is the building in Tampa
09:53:54 Heights which is in an enter praise zone, and this is
09:53:57 a project that we initially became acquainted with
09:54:01 enter praise zone and the incentives.
09:54:03 And I have been a big proponent of using those and
09:54:06 told many people about it.
09:54:08 I have since had two other applications within the
09:54:12 enterprise zone and would be happy to serve if
09:54:14 elected.
09:54:14 Thank you for your consideration.
09:54:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:54:19 Next.
09:54:23 >>> My name is Robert blunt.
09:54:24 I am president of ministries, also chairman of the
09:54:28 land use committee for the East Tampa community
09:54:31 revitalization partnership.
09:54:33 I currently live in, work in and serve the community
09:54:37 within the 7 square miles that is termed East Tampa.
09:54:41 And I believe that I can help serve as the conscience
09:54:44 of this enterprise zone development agency board.
09:54:48 As you know, enterprise zones are often designated

09:54:52 based on geographical boundaries.
09:54:54 But the reality of it is that it's oftentimes
09:54:57 educational and cultural boundaries that really
09:55:01 comprise an enterprise zone.
09:55:03 So you can take the people out of the enterprise
09:55:05 zones, put them in a thriving community with a great
09:55:08 economy.
09:55:09 But if they aren't educated to get a job, equipped to
09:55:12 keep a job, and trained to manage their funds, it will
09:55:15 just be a matter of time before those areas become
09:55:20 blighted areas as well.
09:55:21 So to say that the many value-added incentives offered
09:55:25 in the enterprise zone are great, to the business
09:55:29 community and to the employers.
09:55:30 But we can't forget about the greatest asset to any
09:55:33 organization, the greatest asset to any business, and
09:55:37 the greatest asset to any community, and that is human
09:55:40 capital.
09:55:40 And so that's the perspective that I bring to the
09:55:45 enterprise zone.
09:55:46 And I ask that you would consider my application.
09:55:49 And thank you for that consideration.

09:55:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:55:52 Next.
09:55:56 >>> Tom Keating with Ybor Chamber of Commerce.
09:55:59 I was nominated for this but Vince Pardo, the YCDC.
09:56:05 I can say my only claim to fame is I make almost all
09:56:09 the meetings which is something that's really
09:56:10 important for a board like this, that you can make
09:56:12 those meetings and that you have the next step and to
09:56:14 get the job done.
09:56:17 If you want to know, I live in the zone, so to speak,
09:56:21 and I'm excited about the project because I think the
09:56:24 Pi 75 -- well, 275 corridor now is really an
09:56:27 interesting area, it's really simple.
09:56:29 Tampa has an identity.
09:56:31 When the paper tried to change our name back to South
09:56:33 Tampa everybody got up and said no, we are central
09:56:37 Tampa, got our own identity.
09:56:39 I would be glad to do it.
09:56:41 I would be glad to work with you otherwise.
09:56:47 Ybor City for about 15 months.
09:56:49 I would like to help with you. This I know a lot of
09:56:51 people that support this enterprise Florida.

09:56:57 The job is to maximize these tax incentives for the
09:57:00 businesses and get them as knowledgeable as possible,
09:57:03 it's going to take some technical assistance, and I
09:57:05 think wave some businesses in our district that could
09:57:10 really help to facilitate access to this resource.
09:57:13 So we just want to be the best enterprise zone in the
09:57:16 state and be most effective in applying the state tax
09:57:23 break.
09:57:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:57:24 Next.
09:57:25 >>> David Lamel, I want to thank everyone for allowing
09:57:30 me to speak today.
09:57:31 I do as a tax attorney throughout the state to help to
09:57:35 maximize the benefits available to the enterprise zone
09:57:38 program.
09:57:38 I believe it's important in order to attract or retain
09:57:41 businesses that are vital to our community to properly
09:57:45 apply those programs to the particular businesses, and
09:57:48 some of the problems that I have seen in the past,
09:57:50 widespread problems, and the reason I do some of the
09:57:52 work for a bunch of businesses locally as well is that
09:57:56 the message behind the programs and how to apply to

09:57:59 that particular business, it doesn't come across
09:58:03 clear.
09:58:03 So many businesses are intimidated by dealing with
09:58:07 local government.
09:58:07 So what I would like to do -- and I'm excited to do as
09:58:11 a Tampa resident -- is to lend my expertise and my
09:58:14 understanding.
09:58:15 Of how the enterprise zones throughout the state work,
09:58:18 to help attract other businesses.
09:58:20 Thank you.
09:58:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:58:21 Next.
09:58:25 >>> Christine Burdick with the Tampa downtown
09:58:28 partnership, which is in the zone.
09:58:29 So I work in the zone.
09:58:30 And I'm a Tampa resident.
09:58:34 I am actually flattered to be considered for this
09:58:37 board.
09:58:37 And I will be happy to serve if chosen.
09:58:40 I want you to realize, though, that it's most
09:58:43 important to choose a well qualified board, diverse in
09:58:47 age, race, expertise, in order to more fully utilize

09:58:54 the benefits and opportunities that this board will
09:58:55 have.
09:58:56 The opportunities for these neighborhoods to utilize
09:58:59 the economic development benefits is most important.
09:59:02 And I just want you to make sure that there's a board
09:59:04 that can do it well.
09:59:07 Thank you.
09:59:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Just a minute, Mrs. Burdick.
09:59:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Christine, I have a question because
09:59:15 certainly that drives how we support a candidate or
09:59:18 candidates.
09:59:20 It's my understanding from the last information
09:59:22 submitted that initially you were submitting your name
09:59:25 for consideration as an alternate.
09:59:29 Since names have been split, then that obviously would
09:59:32 sway my support, if you are committed to serving as a
09:59:36 board member, period, not as somebody's alternate.
09:59:40 >>> I will serve however best I can be utilized.
09:59:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: But do you think what I mean?
09:59:45 I think I interpreted that correctly.
09:59:47 Before you were coming in with Paul AYERS.
09:59:55 You are submitting yourself for consideration as a

09:59:57 board member, period?
09:59:59 >>> Yes.
09:59:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks.
10:00:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:00:02 Next.
10:00:06 >>> Good morning.
10:00:06 My name is Juan Davis.
10:00:09 My wife and I were asked to serve on this board as a
10:00:13 team.
10:00:15 We have had our business in Drew Park for the last 21
10:00:20 years.
10:00:20 Several months ago this council approved our rezoning
10:00:22 application so we could move our business to East
10:00:24 Tampa.
10:00:26 That is in the process now.
10:00:28 I think that we can bring to this board a whole new
10:00:32 and different perspective from the inside as business
10:00:36 owners working in that area.
10:00:40 And ensuring our experiences with other business
10:00:42 owners, which would be quite frequently.
10:00:45 We are currently members of the East Tampa
10:00:47 redevelopment partnership, serving on both economic

10:00:51 development boards and the education board.
10:00:57 So we think we can bring a lot of fresh ideas, and be
10:01:00 instrumental to the development of the board.
10:01:02 Thank you.
10:01:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:01:03 Next.
10:01:07 >>> I'm Lori Davis.
10:01:09 What he said.
10:01:10 Also, in addition to what he said -- (laughter) I was
10:01:14 an educate before I was an entrepreneur, and I agree
10:01:17 with Robert blunt that in order to develop enter
10:01:20 praise zones, education is important as the business
10:01:24 aspect of it.
10:01:25 And I also have a degree in horticulture.
10:01:28 And I think plants are an important part of
10:01:31 beautification of an area, sometimes it's neglected a
10:01:34 little bit.
10:01:35 But for less money than you think you can do a lot
10:01:41 with Florida agriculture and I think that will be an
10:01:44 important consideration.
10:01:45 Thank you.
10:01:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

10:01:50 Next.
10:01:51 >>> My name is Lena Young-Green and I live at 3406 N.
10:01:55 Cleveland Avenue in the enterprise zone.
10:02:00 I want to take this opportunity to thank City Council
10:02:04 this morning for taking this approach with all the
10:02:07 enterprise zone.
10:02:08 I think anyone who is involved in the initial drafting
10:02:12 of the enter praise zone under mayor sandy Freedman.
10:02:18 I believe over the years this is the first time that
10:02:21 City Council has come together and be more cohesive in
10:02:25 determining what's going to happen and who is
10:02:29 represented on the agency.
10:02:32 I think that the enterprise zone is a great
10:02:35 opportunity to connect many tools that local
10:02:38 governments and neighborhoods are allowed, either from
10:02:42 the state, federal or local level to be able to
10:02:45 develop communities.
10:02:46 And I think this is a wonderful opportunity to do
10:02:48 this.
10:02:49 I would be delighted to serve on this board, to help
10:02:53 to again publicize the benefits of an enterprise zone,
10:02:59 and also connect businesses and residents together, to

10:03:03 be able to take advantage of all the benefits that
10:03:06 come along with those.
10:03:07 Thank you.
10:03:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:03:08 Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
10:03:11 Mr. Shelby?
10:03:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a remainder, council.
10:03:14 You have ballots in front of you.
10:03:16 Of course you have that write-in opportunity.
10:03:18 You will notice that you have your name in a
10:03:22 particular column.
10:03:22 I would ask that you use it to vote.
10:03:24 The city clerk has graciously offered to tally them
10:03:27 during the meeting.
10:03:28 Also, council, this is a public record.
10:03:31 Would you please sign and date your ballots when you
10:03:33 do vote?
10:03:45 Dated the 26th.
10:03:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When will we announce that?
10:03:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: As soon as they are counted.
10:03:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Go on with our meeting and once
10:03:59 it's done we'll know.

10:04:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I just want to say given the
10:04:03 outpouring of interest I think we probably did the
10:04:05 right thing by increasing it to eleven.
10:04:07 And I have been very impressed with the fact that all
10:04:09 these folks are willing to come down here and speak
10:04:11 about this.
10:04:12 You never go wrong by opening up the process.
10:04:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe we should have opened it up to
10:04:23 14 and that would have been even better.
10:04:27 >>GWEN MILLER: While we are waiting we can go to item
10:04:42 number 4.
10:04:43 A resolution.
10:04:52 >>THE CLERK: Carried over from the May 11th agenda
10:04:55 per the request of council member Dingfelder.
10:05:00 >>: So moved.
10:05:01 >> Second.
10:05:01 (Motion carried)
10:05:06 Okay.
10:05:06 We are going to go to page 3.
10:05:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are we going to let the public
10:05:18 speak now?
10:05:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have an ordinance for first reading.

10:05:23 We are going to do committee reports.
10:05:26 Does anyone in the public want to speak on the
10:05:28 ordinance for first reading or committee reports, you
10:05:30 may come up and speak now.
10:05:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to specifically hear
10:05:37 about the signage thing that we just discussed about
10:05:39 whether neighborhoods get the site plans.
10:05:45 >>GWEN MILLER: That will come up public agenda.
10:05:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, this is the time.
10:05:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Anything not set for public hearing.
10:05:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:05:54 Is there anyone in the public that would like to
10:05:56 speak?
10:05:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Any item that is on the agenda but
10:06:02 not set for public hearing.
10:06:04 For agendaed public comments.
10:06:08 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherill.
10:06:11 I speak to the issue of the notice sign.
10:06:12 I do feel that the larger sign is better, especially
10:06:15 for those who don't see as well as we used to.
10:06:20 And it's very important that the printing on there be
10:06:24 bright.

10:06:24 And that's why I think that the white reflects the
10:06:28 black much easier than other colors.
10:06:31 So I think maybe the idea, if you have to put over
10:06:35 ten, you can use the smaller signs.
10:06:36 I think that I could go along with that.
10:06:39 But if it's only one sign, I think the bigger the
10:06:43 better.
10:06:43 As far as the issue of the including the site plan to
10:06:48 the neighborhood association, I fully agree.
10:06:51 However, if indeed it is a conflict because you have
10:06:55 to send it to all interested parties, I would suggest
10:06:58 that in the notice, it be written what they are going
10:07:02 to do.
10:07:04 All the notice usually says is go to PD, and from that
10:07:10 you don't know a thing.
10:07:11 So at least putting more information onto the notice
10:07:16 would even help.
10:07:17 And most assuredly, a phone number to the person at
10:07:24 the city who is handling it.
10:07:29 And if you call the regular number you can sit there
10:07:31 all day trying to get a response.
10:07:33 So I think another number other than the ordinary

10:07:36 number should be given.
10:07:41 Maybe a cell phone number or something else.
10:07:44 That's my comments.
10:07:46 On those two issues.
10:07:48 That's how I feel.
10:07:49 And Mr. Steenson has been at the meeting and told us
10:07:56 this was coming up.
10:07:58 So I hope you do as much as you can to give us as much
10:08:01 notice as early as possible.
10:08:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:08:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Vizzi, I have a question.
10:08:09 Am I hearing from you that it would be helpful if for
10:08:13 example the petitioner's contact number was on there?
10:08:17 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Usually, I remember that the
10:08:19 petitioner's number, but also it was mentioned that a
10:08:23 number for the staff person who is handling it, so
10:08:28 that you could contact that person directly to find
10:08:31 out, you know, what it's all about.
10:08:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:08:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is the petitioner's number required
10:08:41 to be on it?
10:08:42 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Usually the attorney or whoever is

10:08:50 handling it.
10:08:52 But I think they contact directly with the city, other
10:08:55 than the number to land development would be very
10:08:57 important.
10:09:00 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:09:01 The petitioner's phone number is placed on the notice.
10:09:06 There are also two or three lines where they are
10:09:08 supposed to describe the use in the PD that's being
10:09:10 asked for.
10:09:12 They are supposed to say townhouses or multifamily or
10:09:15 whatever it happens to be.
10:09:16 They also write it on the sign as well.
10:09:18 But the use that they requested.
10:09:20 We do have two phone numbers coming into land
10:09:22 development.
10:09:25 It's our inside policy not to give out direct lines.
10:09:28 We don't have voice mail in our office so there is no
10:09:31 way to take that message.
10:09:32 After four rings it goes back to the front anyway.
10:09:37 That's all I can say about giving individual phone
10:09:39 numbers.
10:09:39 We can put both land development numbers on there if

10:09:42 need be.
10:09:42 >>: How about e-mail address for the person?
10:09:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We can give all the e-mail
10:09:47 addresses to all the planners, I would say, at that
10:09:50 point.
10:09:51 I would hate to do -- because they switch.
10:09:53 From one meeting to the next, it changes planners.
10:09:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: How about just a general e-mail
10:09:58 address for your department, so that rather than
10:10:03 getting on the phone forever and maybe they'll get a
10:10:05 quicker response.
10:10:06 >>> We could put the link through the customer service
10:10:08 center which comes through as a request which we get a
10:10:11 lot of those.
10:10:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Cathy, I know that if I were a
10:10:18 neighbor it would make a difference to me if I saw
10:10:20 somebody applying for four townhouses or 16
10:10:23 townhouses, and the number of units.
10:10:29 I guess the more specific information the more helpful
10:10:32 it would be to the neighborhood.
10:10:33 And you can do this without any kind of ordinance in
10:10:36 City Council.

10:10:43 Quantity.
10:10:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And magnitude.
10:10:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If there's a proposed height if
10:10:52 that's relevant,
10:11:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What I can do, update the link to the
10:11:08 customer service center and when Julie and I look at
10:11:10 changing the uniform service policy, I'll just make
10:11:12 sure that maybe we would want to codify putting an
10:11:17 exact use and quantity.
10:11:18 I'll look at that with her.
10:11:19 Sure.
10:11:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:11:22 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department. The thing to remember
10:11:25 is when you put these items in the notice and the more
10:11:27 specific you are in the notice, if anything is wrong
10:11:29 with that notice, for example, that is a defective
10:11:37 notice.
10:11:38 That's just one thing to keep in mind, to look at
10:11:40 that, and essentially codify.
10:11:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For everyone to know what the
10:11:46 person is asking for and by the time they come down
10:11:48 and pay the money to apply they should know what they

10:11:50 are asking for.
10:11:51 >> I agree and I think that's probably why we do want
10:11:53 to look at codifying that and make it very specific in
10:11:56 the code.
10:12:01 >>> Young-Green, 3406 north Evan Avenue, Tampa,
10:12:05 Florida.
10:12:07 Come down to talk about this.
10:12:11 Glad to hear it was on the agenda this morning.
10:12:13 One of the processes in Tampa Heights when we receive
10:12:16 notices is that because we are getting so much
10:12:20 information that wave to deal with on a daily basis
10:12:28 from many angles and because we can't have meetings
10:12:31 every day and because the notices come in ongoing, we
10:12:36 have worked on developing a system of making sure that
10:12:40 we address these notices as they come in.
10:12:42 What we do is we'll take it, whatever comes in, send
10:12:49 it out to the community leadership, ask them to
10:12:54 comment.
10:12:54 We have some of the residents who have expertise in
10:12:59 more areas than others.
10:13:00 And those who have expertise in that area would have
10:13:04 the responsibility of looking at the request, and

10:13:08 giving some input, going by the property, and then
10:13:11 providing us back by e-mail information on and if it's
10:13:19 something that has to be addressed before board
10:13:20 meeting, we do a lot of work electronically.
10:13:24 So for us, while I don't want to add any more to the
10:13:28 discussion, it would be wonderful if we were able to
10:13:30 get that information electronically.
10:13:33 And able to send it out.
10:13:39 And on the properties, the larger ones, I think that's
10:13:45 a really good idea.
10:13:46 And then also that many times when we get the notices
10:13:54 again, if there is no concern in the community, we
10:13:58 just do not give any response.
10:13:59 But there's something that we follow through.
10:14:03 So I just wanted to put that on the table and have you
10:14:06 know how we handle that process within Tampa Heights.
10:14:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I saw you nodding when we had a
10:14:14 discussion about sending you a site plan.
10:14:16 Is it more helpful for you to get it in the mail or
10:14:19 would you rather come downtown to make a copy?
10:14:23 >>> Well, there are so many things that we are
10:14:24 addressing in Tampa Heights, and I guess without

10:14:29 saying specifically it would be wonderful to have that
10:14:33 with electronic mail.
10:14:37 That helps us addressing those sending them out and
10:14:42 then getting feedback.
10:14:43 So that would be helpful for us.
10:14:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:14:50 Next.
10:14:55 >>> Good morning.
10:14:57 Since I'm the one that kind of stirred this up I'm
10:14:59 very interested.
10:15:01 >> Name and address.
10:15:02 >>> I'm sorry.
10:15:02 Al Steenson, 4100 west LELA Avenue.
10:15:07 It is not my intention to make this thing difficult
10:15:10 for anybody in terms of additional copies.
10:15:16 It's my understanding that petitioner has to present
10:15:19 20 copies when he comes to land development.
10:15:22 Very simple.
10:15:25 Why can't the registered neighborhood association with
10:15:28 this project it was in, merely includes one of those.
10:15:33 Now, I want to reemphasis one of those things that Mr.
10:15:35 Dingfelder said.

10:15:36 We are doing this on a volunteer basis.
10:15:38 We are down here using our gas money parking across
10:15:42 the street, you know, gas at $3 or approaching $3 a
10:15:48 gallon.
10:15:49 The easier that the neighborhood associations can have
10:15:52 it, and those of us who are involved in the various
10:15:54 rezonings, and God only knows what we have been going
10:15:56 through down in South Tampa for the last favor years,
10:15:59 if you add it up, it's considerable expense for
10:16:02 someone, number one, who is retired, and number two,
10:16:06 doesn't get paid a dime for this.
10:16:07 So anything that we can do can make this an easier
10:16:10 process, not just for me, but for every one of the
10:16:14 members here, that are involved in the zonings within
10:16:17 their association.
10:16:18 And some of the issues that I've heard talked about
10:16:21 this morning, if that link to that Doc server is on
10:16:26 there, many of these questions are already answered.
10:16:29 The folio numbers are on there.
10:16:31 The e-mail addresses.
10:16:33 It's on the sheet, the front sheet where it has been
10:16:36 approved to become an agenda item.

10:16:38 And between leaders there.
10:16:40 So that portion of it is, I think, very, very
10:16:44 important, because if you study down the backup data
10:16:47 which is the same data that you all get, then these
10:16:50 things, these questions are answered.
10:16:52 But there's in a sense of us getting it ten days
10:16:55 before we ought to have it the day that it's been
10:16:59 approved at this council to become an agenda item on a
10:17:03 particular date.
10:17:06 And anything we can do to make life easier we would
10:17:10 certainly appreciate it and I think the site plan
10:17:13 recognizing the fact that it may change.
10:17:15 We understand that.
10:17:18 It's just not written in stone.
10:17:19 But at least it gives us an idea of something to look
10:17:23 at and say, okay, are we going to want to further
10:17:26 discuss this, or what we see on paper is perfectly
10:17:30 acceptable.
10:17:30 Thank you very much.
10:17:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:17:32 Next.
10:17:35 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Just a couple of points regarding

10:17:37 your request to send site plans out to neighborhood
10:17:40 associations.
10:17:41 The neighborhood association gets a list with the
10:17:44 e-mail address, and the folio numbers, on a complete
10:17:47 legal as well as the use in the notice that's required
10:17:50 to go out 30 days in advance of the hearing.
10:17:54 It also identifies the hearing date.
10:17:56 It also I had face the city staff phone numbers to
10:18:00 contact.
10:18:01 And so it's not ten days.
10:18:03 It's 30 days.
10:18:04 That's your notice requirement minimum.
10:18:06 As well as the signs that are going up on the site.
10:18:10 When you're asking for a site plan to be transmitted
10:18:13 to a neighborhood association, you're placing that
10:18:16 neighborhood association ahead of the surrounding
10:18:18 property owners and giving them further standing, like
10:18:22 their city staff.
10:18:24 The third element is you have a cost involved.
10:18:26 Some of these site plans are quite large.
10:18:28 You're not going to be sending them out in a letter
10:18:30 format.

10:18:33 Enables you to get them into the process and send them
10:18:35 out by certificate of mailing.
10:18:37 The third thing is, the city staff has access to those
10:18:40 site plans.
10:18:40 If you're going to doc agenda these, you can scan the
10:18:44 site plan and have them available on the same site
10:18:46 that you have the other information available, and
10:18:50 access via computer.
10:18:51 If that's what the point of the issue is.
10:18:54 The fourth point is, a lot of these people that are
10:18:57 getting these site plans don't know how to read them,
10:18:59 don't understand the notes on them, and they are going
10:19:01 to be back in front of the city staff anyway.
10:19:03 Or they can contact petitioners.
10:19:05 And get an explanation.
10:19:07 Many times we are already meeting with these
10:19:09 individuals and groups, so they have copies of the
10:19:12 site plan.
10:19:13 And we have already been through the discussions with
10:19:15 them.
10:19:16 But to place the site plans requirement for a mailing,
10:19:19 I think, is an extraordinary requirement.

10:19:21 And probably ought to look at that very carefully.
10:19:25 There are other alternatives that I think are much
10:19:28 more efficient and available to the neighborhood
10:19:29 association.
10:19:30 Thank you.
10:19:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Michelini, I haven't been over
10:19:35 to the blueprint shop up here near the interstate
10:19:39 recently.
10:19:39 But what does one page cost?
10:19:44 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I don't know exactly.
10:19:45 I think they are about 20, $25 a sheet.
10:19:51 >> I am going to have somebody call.
10:19:52 >>> I don't know what they are.
10:19:54 >> You don't do that?
10:19:56 >>> Well, we get the bills.
10:19:57 I don't know what the sheet costs are.
10:20:00 But you also have the mailing costs and the envelope.
10:20:03 If you send it out under certificate of mailing, it's
10:20:05 about -- I think about 90 cents an envelope.
10:20:11 Something like that.
10:20:12 And you're probably talking about 2 or $3 for the
10:20:22 sheet.

10:20:23 I don't know what it is.
10:20:25 >> I thought you might know since you do that a lot.
10:20:28 >> Well, we send it out.
10:20:29 I get the bill for all the copies.
10:20:30 Not one sheet.
10:20:31 And it's frequently not just one sheet.
10:20:42 >> They get multiple sheets.
10:20:43 It's adjusts the basic site plan.
10:20:45 Not necessarily everything else that goes with it.
10:20:49 >>> Usually when you go to city staff they have
10:20:51 technical expertise to go through and explain what it
10:20:54 means.
10:20:54 And there's a purpose behind that that helps to avoid
10:20:57 problems.
10:20:58 And as well, we are available to answer any questions
10:21:01 and certainly meet with the association.
10:21:03 Thank you.
10:21:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, is this a typical site
10:21:08 plan?
10:21:09 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, looks like one.
10:21:13 A couple of pages, two or three.
10:21:19 >> And it costs you a couple of dollars to put in?

10:21:23 >>> Well, the postage alone is probably about $3 to
10:21:27 mail something, the certificate of mailing.
10:21:31 >> So when you would send it, would you send it in
10:21:33 this format here?
10:21:34 Or would you reuse it?
10:21:37 >>> I don't know what would you require.
10:21:39 Normally --
10:21:39 >> How would you do it?
10:21:41 >>> I would prefer to do it a reduced copy, 8.5 by 11.
10:21:45 But again, they are still going to have to go to staff
10:21:49 for technical expertise in evaluating what's on that
10:21:51 plan.
10:21:52 >> So they would have to come in any way.
10:21:54 >>> I believe they would.
10:21:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:21:57 Next.
10:22:03 Juror Bill Duval, 5408 branch Avenue speaking on
10:22:07 behalf of T.H.A.N. as president of T.H.A.N.
10:22:09 As you recall, the good neighbor courtesy notice was
10:22:13 one of our inventions.
10:22:15 And I would like to say that I think it's working
10:22:17 quite well.

10:22:18 If a site plan in the mail helps some neighborhoods,
10:22:24 so be it.
10:22:24 In Seminole Heights, I can say as their immediate past
10:22:29 president, the presidents receive the notice.
10:22:34 Some of them are registered mail.
10:22:37 And for some people that let's say worked out of their
10:22:41 area, to actually go during postal hours just to pick
10:22:45 it up is -- that doesn't address the sign, that's
10:22:49 another issue.
10:22:50 But our remedy in Seminole Heights is to call the
10:22:53 petitioner.
10:22:54 All we need is the notice.
10:22:56 We call the petitioner.
10:22:57 And we qualify from that point on.
10:22:59 We may never get to the site plan.
10:23:01 But we have a land use committee.
10:23:03 And I'm currently the chair of the Seminole Heights
10:23:05 land use committee which could be a full-time job.
10:23:08 And we just sit this down till we decide that we need
10:23:12 to talk about it.
10:23:13 So we may never get to the site plan portion.
10:23:16 So in this case, I can understand that the developer,

10:23:21 there may be some cost was that, and there may be some
10:23:24 recipients at the neighborhood site that say what do I
10:23:27 do with the site plan?
10:23:29 I think the good neighborhood notice works when you
10:23:31 get it.
10:23:32 Call the petitioner.
10:23:35 Have the meeting.
10:23:36 We have a meeting of land use committee people before
10:23:39 we even take it to our full board so that we don't
10:23:43 take up a lot of time.
10:23:44 So I think it's working.
10:23:46 My problem with site plans is, the part you fill in,
10:23:52 you can walk up sometimes, have in a clue what it
10:23:56 says.
10:23:57 We call Cathy's office saying, we go frankly, they --
10:24:03 I'm sorry that other people are having trouble but we
10:24:06 get a return phone call and we ask about the petition.
10:24:08 And take it from that point on.
10:24:11 Thank you.
10:24:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:24:12 Next.
10:24:18 >>> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place, speaking

10:24:22 in what we are trying to do here.
10:24:25 The idea is to get more information.
10:24:27 And how that phone number can be so helpful.
10:24:30 Even a reasonably intelligent person has such a
10:24:33 difficult time understanding what's going on in Land
10:24:35 Development Coordination.
10:24:38 They are very, very receptive.
10:24:40 But opening a process, giving more access, giving more
10:24:43 information, I think it's always better just to have
10:24:48 somebody experience, difficulty sometimes figuring out
10:24:52 what the site plans entail.
10:24:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other issue that we are
10:24:56 discussing is about mailing the neighborhoods the site
10:25:00 plan as opposed to just letting them come downtown and
10:25:03 rely on the developer meeting with them or what have
10:25:06 you.
10:25:07 Any questions or comments on that?
10:25:09 >>> Yes.
10:25:09 And I am not speaking today on behalf of my
10:25:11 neighborhood.
10:25:11 I'm really here on another issue.
10:25:13 But I can see in my own personal experience that that

10:25:18 would be very, very instructive, because, yes, you do
10:25:22 have Land Development Coordination eventually and
10:25:27 understand what is going on.
10:25:28 But just because it's a hyper technical discussion
10:25:31 does not obviate the need to have that information
10:25:34 sent to the neighborhood association in the first
10:25:36 place.
10:25:38 As I said, you know, we are all busy.
10:25:40 It may seem like we like to come here every Thursday.
10:25:43 But we really don't.
10:25:44 So if we can have as much information at the outset,
10:25:47 then that's better and we can work with the petitioner
10:25:50 and maybe save time for you.
10:25:52 Thank you.
10:25:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
10:25:55 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700.
10:26:03 On the issue that we are discussing this morning, a
10:26:05 couple things I would like to point out.
10:26:07 We want to keep in mind.
10:26:08 I would ask maybe if Cathy could come back with kind
10:26:11 of a framework of what you are going to do.
10:26:14 Remember, you also have petitions to vacate,

10:26:16 rights-of-way that have site plans, wet zonings that
10:26:19 have site plans, various review boards that have site
10:26:29 plans.
10:26:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the discussion was limited
10:26:32 to the PDs and the --
10:26:35 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I realize that, John.
10:26:37 What I'm concerned about is you do that for the PD,
10:26:39 and then you don't do it for the other codes and then
10:26:43 you have neighborhood concerns that they are not
10:26:44 getting information about the various review board
10:26:47 application.
10:26:48 I think the concept is fine.
10:26:50 I just think you might want to think about harmonizing
10:26:54 that with all the land development codes to make sure
10:26:56 you have a one-step process for everyone, so the
10:26:58 petitioners know what the rules are and you have a
10:27:00 uniform process instead of the disjointed process
10:27:04 where you send one in one process and don't send one
10:27:07 in the other process.
10:27:08 Then the neighborhoods still, I think, when we get
10:27:10 caught in the middle that we are not sending the right
10:27:12 information.

10:27:22 I think once you deliver it and you start revising,
10:27:25 you probably ought to pop another one in the maim so
10:27:26 you don't get accused of changing the site plan 13
10:27:29 days before the hearing.
10:27:30 Once you get down that road, you need to make it
10:27:33 extremely fair and extremely detailed, so we don't get
10:27:37 hung up as being in the middle of this issue.
10:27:41 So just a suggestion.
10:27:42 I think it can be done.
10:27:46 As a process matter, I continue to send them
10:27:50 revisions.
10:27:51 Because I think that's just fair ball.
10:27:54 Another issue you have to keep in mind a lot of these
10:27:57 applications require traffic studies.
10:28:06 A lot of the issues turn on traffic issues. Again we
10:28:08 don't want to be accused of 13 days before the hearing
10:28:11 of having to fall on traffic and say we are now
10:28:14 required to send it and when you should have sent it.
10:28:16 So do we need to send those out?
10:28:18 Because you are supposed to file one with an
10:28:19 application.
10:28:22 >>> We hardly ever get those.

10:28:23 Surprised the neighborhood would want them.
10:28:28 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I don't want to have any land mines
10:28:30 when we are trying to communicate with neighborhood
10:28:32 associations.
10:28:32 Just a few ideas.
10:28:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The staff said that they were going
10:28:36 to take a look at all of this and come back to us.
10:28:38 I would like to make a motion that we hear back from
10:28:41 staff in 60 days so that we know that it's on our
10:28:44 calendar to hear back.
10:28:45 I move to put this discussion of providing
10:28:51 neighborhoods with site plans back on the City Council
10:28:54 agenda under unfinished business in 60 days.
10:28:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:29:00 (Motion carried).
10:29:02 >>THE CLERK: Alvarez, no.
10:29:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
10:29:08 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: I'm here to provide the vote
10:29:37 for the enterprise zone development agency board.
10:29:40 Receiving seven votes were Blout, Duval, Kinsey,
10:29:45 Robinson.
10:29:48 Receiving 6 votes, Burdick, Versaggi, Young-green and

10:29:55 Leto.
10:29:57 Five votes was Keating.
10:30:01 Four votes, Guzman and Hughes.
10:30:05 Three votes, Cass and stoke.
10:30:08 Two votes, Lambert, and receiving one vote, Juan
10:30:12 Davis, Shirley McGriff, David Rumell.
10:30:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you add up those that receive 6,
10:30:24 5, 4 votes, that totals eleven members.
10:30:26 That would be the top eleven vote getters.
10:30:29 Now, council, just to make things a little bit more
10:30:32 difficult, to refresh your recollection, the law
10:30:36 requires that one person receive a one-year term, two
10:30:45 people receive a two-year term, three -- excuse me,
10:30:49 two people receive a three-year term, and the balance
10:30:56 get a four-year term.
10:30:57 So the first issue that council faces is who does
10:31:00 council wish to have a one-year term, if you want to
10:31:02 do it, council, the last time was to work their way up
10:31:05 from the list.
10:31:06 But there are two -- four vote getters, and the
10:31:10 question is whether council wishes to do it
10:31:12 alphabetically, or whatever order council wishes.

10:31:15 But one person has to be designated for a one-year
10:31:18 term.
10:31:19 And I guess that would be the first order of business.
10:31:22 One person of the eleven has to have a one-year term.
10:31:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I think we either draw
10:31:29 a card or flip a coin.
10:31:31 I don't think there's really any other way to do it on
10:31:33 making a choice between those two.
10:31:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Card?
10:31:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Marty, you are going to have to do
10:31:43 the official coin flip.
10:31:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know if I have a cone.
10:31:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can we flip a credit card?
10:31:51 (Laughter)
10:32:05 >> Between Guzman and Hughes? Which one, Shirley
10:32:12 Guzman and -- there you go.
10:32:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then you require another person top
10:32:35 get a two-year term.
10:32:36 Mr. Keating.
10:32:37 And then you require two people to get a three-year
10:32:41 term.
10:32:54 Which two get the three-year term?

10:32:55 Young-Green and Leto.
10:32:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: She just may volunteer for a
10:33:01 three-year term.
10:33:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: What are the rest of the terms?
10:33:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then the rest of the terms going up
10:33:06 the list, Versaggi, Burdick, Blout, get four year
10:33:11 terms.
10:33:13 Council, I would ask that two items.
10:33:17 This has to be done by resolution.
10:33:19 Council has previously selected by motion Bill Duval
10:33:24 as chair and Joseph Robinson as vice chair that.
10:33:27 Motion still stands.
10:33:29 Does that stand?
10:33:30 That's fine.
10:33:31 The other thing then is just a motion to accept this
10:33:36 count and direct me to prepare a resolution
10:33:37 consistent.
10:33:39 >> So moved.
10:33:39 >> Second.
10:33:39 (Motion carried).
10:33:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
10:33:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I thought it was

10:33:46 appropriate to wait till we finished this to see what
10:33:48 the outcome was.
10:33:49 I do want to just give a little brief explanation to
10:33:52 the process.
10:33:54 One of the candidates that was not chosen, Ms.
10:33:57 Lambert, sent us some correspondence and didn't
10:34:00 understand what we that had not supported increasing
10:34:05 it to eleven were doing, and I think the accusation
10:34:07 was maneuvering.
10:34:09 And I think I have an issue with the term
10:34:13 "maneuvering."
10:34:15 The fact that I didn't vote for the expansion had
10:34:18 nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the candidates,
10:34:21 nothing to do with what majority rules here.
10:34:23 But simply, if you expand the list, and each of us get
10:34:27 two more votes, obviously depending where each of
10:34:31 those votes for each of the colleagues is banked, it
10:34:34 will affect the outcome.
10:34:36 So if we did choose to expand it, which we did as a
10:34:40 majority, then we also had to look at revoting,
10:34:43 because in fairness to one candidate, we don't want to
10:34:47 be unfair to the rest.

10:34:48 So I just wanted to put that on record.
10:34:51 The issue about maneuvering from council members is, I
10:34:54 think, very inappropriate, and certainly we wish all
10:34:57 the candidates that won well.
10:34:59 But we certainly did not have any particular objection
10:35:01 to anybody who submitted it in this process.
10:35:04 But I think that rendered some clarification.
10:35:08 And I wanted to put that on the record.
10:35:09 I was a little bit offended at the letter, actually.
10:35:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that I am so
10:35:14 impressed by the caliber of citizens who were willing
10:35:17 to serve.
10:35:18 And I would like to ask the city clerk to share with
10:35:22 the people who are not selected, the other
10:35:24 opportunities for public service, because these are
10:35:27 some talented folks.
10:35:28 They have expressed a willingness to show up at the
10:35:30 meetings for no money and for the good of the
10:35:33 community.
10:35:34 And I would like to capture their energy on another
10:35:36 venue.
10:35:37 But there are some terrific people.

10:35:38 And if you wouldn't maned doing that, that would be
10:35:42 great.
10:35:43 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our committee reports.
10:35:51 Rose Ferlita.
10:35:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would like to move resolutions 9 and
10:35:56 10, please.
10:35:57 >> Second.
10:35:57 (Motion carried).
10:35:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Mary Alvarez.
10:36:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move items number 11
10:36:07 to 14.
10:36:09 >> Second.
10:36:10 (Motion Carried).
10:36:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
10:36:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I spoke to Ralph Metcalf yesterday
10:36:21 about number 15.
10:36:23 He's a little under the weather and we wish him well.
10:36:25 Move 15.
10:36:27 >> Second.
10:36:27 (Motion carried).
10:36:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Kevin White.
10:36:29 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move 16 through 22.

10:36:32 >> Second.
10:36:33 (Motion carried).
10:36:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda
10:36:37 Saul-Sena.
10:36:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Rose, I just want to share with you
10:36:41 that Lee Duncan called Melinda Sal-SENA.
10:36:49 There's in a hope.
10:36:52 I would like to move resolution 27 through 28.
10:36:56 >> Motion and second.
10:36:57 (Motion carried).
10:36:59 Transportation, Shawn Harrison.
10:37:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move items 29, 30 and 32.
10:37:05 >> Second.
10:37:06 (Motion carried).
10:37:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And I think we already continued 31.
10:37:10 But if we didn't, move that.
10:37:13 And then I would like to set the public hearings,
10:37:16 items 33 through 43.
10:37:20 >> Second.
10:37:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:37:22 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
10:37:25 We go back to our ordinance for first reading.

10:37:28 Item number 6.
10:37:29 Mr. White, would you read 6, please.
10:37:42 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance repealing section 2
10:37:44 ordinance number 2004-161 which amended section
10:37:48 24-120, City of Tampa code, to revise the occupational
10:37:52 license tax, amounts for businesses, professions and
10:37:59 occupations within the City of Tampa to allow the rate
10:38:01 to remain at the current level, providing for
10:38:04 severability, providing an effective date.
10:38:06 >> Second.
10:38:06 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?
10:38:12 Opposed?
10:38:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.
10:38:15 This is one of those issues that I think the
10:38:17 department head is doing a wonderful job.
10:38:19 However, when we looked at the effect we didn't
10:38:23 support it and I'm so sorry, and I neglected bringing
10:38:25 it with me.
10:38:26 But I did some research.
10:38:27 And I'm looking at different categories of different
10:38:30 occupations.
10:38:31 And even staying at the -- not having this reflect an

10:38:35 increase just staying at the same as where we are rate
10:38:38 now, you know, if we want to encourage people to start
10:38:41 their businesses, and exercise their professions in
10:38:43 the city, we look not very far away and look into the
10:38:47 county, the difference in the fees that they charge
10:38:49 versus what we charge for occupational license tax
10:38:52 amounts is just phenomenally different.
10:38:54 So I did meet with Ms. Wise, and I agree that the
10:38:58 department has certainly made some wonderful strides.
10:39:02 But the fact that our prices are so inflated in terms
10:39:05 of fee versus what the county is doing, it kind of
10:39:07 sends a message.
10:39:09 Pharmacists, hardware owners, this occupation, that
10:39:13 occupation, if you want to pay less fees for your
10:39:16 occupational licenses then go to the county.
10:39:19 And I don't think it's an issue that the city should
10:39:23 continue.
10:39:24 For that reason, and certainly again not because of
10:39:25 the fact that the department is not doing better, but
10:39:28 certainly doing outstanding -- and Mr. Slater has just
10:39:36 done incredible stuff in terms of morale, in terms of
10:39:40 equipment, in terms of that department acting and

10:39:43 looking like a professional department.
10:39:45 But based on the comparisons, I think we are just --
10:39:49 we are just not where we need to northbound terms of
10:39:51 increases.
10:39:52 That's why I can't support it.
10:39:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, as a small business
10:39:58 owner, in fact she is as well, to make a pall payroll
10:40:00 to keep your employees with insurance, to do all that
10:40:03 kind of stuff, is becoming exponentially more
10:40:06 expensive today than it has been in the past.
10:40:08 And I think that if we do anything with respect to
10:40:12 occupational licenses we ought to be looking at the
10:40:16 gradual roll back given the economics we are in today.
10:40:18 I think the policy message we will send to small
10:40:22 businesses in this community, if we were to just offer
10:40:24 a small rollback in this, would be astounding.
10:40:28 And I think that we are going in the wrong direction.
10:40:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: I want to speak to the issue, not a
10:40:40 small business owner.
10:40:42 I think one of the main issues that brought the
10:40:44 increase about was the cost of the revenue that was
10:40:47 not being generated.

10:40:49 We were sending out the -- it's unfortunate that
10:40:53 taxpayers, the small business owners that are paying
10:40:56 their fair share, the ones that weren't, we had such a
10:41:01 disproportionate amount that we were billing and work
10:41:06 collected, that because of lack of revenue it was
10:41:10 generating, we had to do something.
10:41:12 I think at one point in time, when we catch up, that
10:41:16 that may be a very good Avenue to look at increasing
10:41:22 but right now these fees are putting Mr. Slater's
10:41:27 department on the map has gotten computers, has gotten
10:41:30 them cars, has gotten them the actual staff.
10:41:34 One of the reasons that he's been able to do such a
10:41:36 wonderful job in bringing this particular department
10:41:38 around, but I'm not for hire taxation on anyone that's
10:41:46 undue and unneeded.
10:41:47 I think that once this department really gets up and
10:41:49 running and we start collecting the revenues, that we
10:41:54 should, and do apply for these licenses to pay,
10:41:59 instead of being three and four years behind and
10:42:02 delinquent and still operating, I think we able to
10:42:05 roll back at that point in time.
10:42:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I see this as being one of the

10:42:10 things that Bonnie Wise has been very, very
10:42:15 professional in doing, which is looking at fees and
10:42:21 things that have not been addressed in a number of
10:42:23 years.
10:42:23 And I believe it was like seven years since it's been
10:42:30 revisited and sort of brings it up to what
10:42:34 contemporary standards are.
10:42:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The reason I am going to go ahead and
10:42:40 support this is because we are keeping this at the
10:42:41 same rate.
10:42:42 And when I did talk to Ms. Wise and Mr. Slater they
10:42:46 were elated at the way the department was coming back
10:42:53 into a black situation again, as far as the -- and
10:43:00 looking back at the fees, they were nominal.
10:43:03 It wasn't anything that was a big jump as far as the
10:43:11 rates were concerned.
10:43:12 So I'm really glad that we are able to continue this
10:43:20 rate for another two years.
10:43:22 So I'm happy to support this.
10:43:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: And Mr. Slater, I'm glad you came in
10:43:29 because this is the same kind of discomfort I had when
10:43:32 we were talking about raising solid waste rates.

10:43:37 It was kind of vote against the process but respect
10:43:40 and support the department head.
10:43:42 And what I said before you came in was that I think my
10:43:47 conversations with individual personnel under your
10:43:49 watch, they love their jobs, the morale is incredible,
10:43:54 the professionalism of the department is -- you can't
10:43:57 even compare it.
10:43:58 I mean, you have done wonderful things, and made great
10:44:01 steroids.
10:44:01 But after you and Bonnie met with me, I started
10:44:04 looking at the different exhibits, and I started doing
10:44:06 a little further investigating, and I'm just concerned
10:44:08 that we are shooting ourselves in the foot in the
10:44:11 sense that -- and you need the revenue to continue
10:44:13 doing what you're doing, Jake.
10:44:15 That is not even part of this conversation.
10:44:17 But when I look at what the rates are, and then I turn
10:44:20 around and la at the county in, some areas we are kind
10:44:22 of competing with them and there's nothing wrong with
10:44:25 that, it's a healthy competition.
10:44:26 You want people to open businesses here or over there.
10:44:29 I checked with some of my colleagues in the

10:44:31 pharmaceutical arena.
10:44:32 And write pay hundreds of dollars based on my
10:44:35 inventory, I forget, it was here and I did a lot of
10:44:38 research and I'm so sorry I left it at the office, but
10:44:41 like $50 or something.
10:44:43 I mean, it's just monumental differences.
10:44:45 So I think it leads to sending the wrong message.
10:44:48 We want small businesses here.
10:44:50 We want businesses to pick us versus the county.
10:44:53 But at least rate now I have to say that because I'm
10:44:55 defending the people that I'm supporting.
10:44:57 If it were the opposite way and I say the county's
10:45:00 rates are too high and we need to compete with the
10:45:02 city let's see what we can do to attract new business,
10:45:04 new personnel, new owners.
10:45:06 So it's obviously for no other reason except that.
10:45:10 I just think that we are way over their fees now and
10:45:13 if we don't allow this, and go back, that we are
10:45:16 sending an additional bad message particularly for
10:45:18 small businesses.
10:45:19 It is a struggle.
10:45:20 I know it.

10:45:20 I have done it for 20 years.
10:45:22 And any help or relief that can be given to them, they
10:45:25 I'm sure are most appreciative. Anyway, I've said
10:45:28 that and that's just a reiteration.
10:45:30 The second point that I forgot about awhile ago, Madam
10:45:32 Chairman, so thank you for allowing me to speak again.
10:45:37 Mr. Slater, I don't think you can do anything about
10:45:39 this nor can Bonnie Wise although you have done your
10:45:42 homework wonderfully through the issues.
10:45:45 If I paid my taxes, and Mr. White doesn't -- I pay my
10:45:49 occupational fees and he doesn't, or vice versa -- I'm
10:45:52 not banging him for anything, he's not even in this
10:45:56 category -- is it my understanding from our
10:45:59 conversation that so long as you send another bill out
10:46:01 for 2006 fees, if I didn't pay 05, 04, 02, 01 or
10:46:08 anything I didn't want to pay, the state statute does
10:46:10 not give this municipality opportunity to say, you pay
10:46:13 your occupational tax, or you don't operate, because
10:46:16 it's not fair to the other six that pay a tax, and you
10:46:19 don't.
10:46:20 I don't understand it.
10:46:21 As we go forward, whatever is delinquent is forgiven.

10:46:24 And if I understood our conversation correctly, our
10:46:28 hands are tied.
10:46:29 And I don't understand if that's an issue with you the
10:46:31 state, is there anything we can do as a local agency
10:46:34 to do anything about that?
10:46:36 Bonnie, maybe you can come up.
10:46:39 I'm sure he talked to the rest of you all.
10:46:40 If somebody is delinquent, it's like the nice little
10:46:44 neighborly remind theory you stick a green tag or red
10:46:46 tag on your window, or some case.
10:46:50 So what? I didn't pay the fee and somebody else did
10:46:53 and I still get to operate that. Just seems that
10:46:55 whoever is not paying continues to operate on the back
10:46:57 of good taxpayers.
10:47:00 That's something that is certainly an inequity that I
10:47:03 don't understand.
10:47:06 Ms. Wise, maybe you can add to that.
10:47:09 I'm struggling and frustrated.
10:47:11 That sends a bad message.
10:47:13 What can we do?
10:47:14 Maybe that's something for our legal department to
10:47:15 research and I'll ask that now.

10:47:16 >>BONNIE WISE: Director of revenue and finance.
10:47:21 The legal constraints that we operate under, and yes,
10:47:24 unfortunately in the city there are some who still
10:47:25 don't pay their tax.
10:47:26 That number has reduced significantly.
10:47:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: You're right, I acknowledge that.
10:47:32 >> In 04 with 895 businesses, in 05, 758, now we are
10:47:36 down to 546.
10:47:37 So we are really making an effort.
10:47:39 The other thing we are doing is starting in the next
10:47:42 billing cycle is if you have not paid last year, you
10:47:46 will see the previous balance going forward.
10:47:48 So yes, we have to work with them in our legal
10:47:51 constraints.
10:47:51 We are doing whatever we can to get everybody to
10:47:53 comply.
10:47:55 Most people do comply.
10:47:56 There are a few unfortunately --
10:47:59 >> But we are still talking about the a 5th 46
10:48:01 that don't.
10:48:02 And even if it shows as a balance in arrears we can't
10:48:05 do anything about it.

10:48:07 >>> Not at this time.
10:48:08 >> And I understand another thing that Mr. Slater has
10:48:09 done under your watch, of course, instead of them
10:48:12 going out to collect a bill or make a visit, in the
10:48:19 2002 Chevrolet or something, they are taking city
10:48:22 cars, which sets a pace of more professionalism.
10:48:25 So maybe in that sense, with a little more of an
10:48:28 underlying intimidation.
10:48:30 But still the bottom line is, unless these 546 want to
10:48:33 pay, the rest of us get to pay and they don't.
10:48:35 And Mr. Shelby, I don't know FHP that's something that
10:48:38 you or the legal department can research.
10:48:40 I mean, at state level, what can a local municipality
10:48:45 do?
10:48:45 They are doing everything they can.
10:48:48 It's come 5,000% over what Mr. Slater had when he
10:48:52 inherited it.
10:48:53 I know that.
10:48:54 But it sends a bad message.
10:48:56 You get to be a good citizen and pay them.
10:48:59 What can we do?
10:49:00 Can you just research that?

10:49:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: How long would you like?
10:49:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: As long as you need.
10:49:04 As soon as we can and as long as you need.
10:49:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: September.
10:49:10 (Laughter).
10:49:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe you and Mr. Smith can look at
10:49:13 that and see if there's any kind of message on
10:49:15 endorsement, something we can communicate to our
10:49:18 colleagues at the state level.
10:49:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'll do that.
10:49:23 >>GWEN MILLER: A motion or just a request?
10:49:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: No, that's a motion.
10:49:27 >> Second.
10:49:27 (Motion carried).
10:49:28 >>KEVIN WHITE: if these 546 had paid we could
10:49:34 seriously look at doing what Mr. Harrison was
10:49:36 suggesting, either rolling this back.
10:49:38 If everybody was paying their proportionate fair
10:49:42 share, we wouldn't have had to increase.
10:49:46 We could go back to what it was or looking at a
10:49:49 rollback, that's correct?
10:49:51 >>> I don't think that 546 --

10:49:56 >> No, but if everyone had continued when they were
10:49:59 supposed to, Mr. Slater could have his cars, the tax
10:50:09 could have been in City of Tampa polo shirts rather
10:50:12 than T-shirts.
10:50:14 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe could you add a $500 that you
10:50:17 late fee if they don't pay on time.
10:50:21 (Laughter).
10:50:23 >>> A late fee for those that don't pay on time.
10:50:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: Can we give those to collection
10:50:30 agencies?
10:50:31 >>> That's a good idea.
10:50:34 The statute is so specific here.
10:50:36 We have very unusual circumstances in occupational lay
10:50:40 sense.
10:50:40 And so really we put a tag on a business. This is our
10:50:49 enforcement mechanism.
10:50:51 But we have very, very persistent collectors and the
10:50:55 collection rate has gone up significantly.
10:50:57 We are really -- the thing that we are doing hear,
10:51:00 it's better customer service.
10:51:02 We have thank you notes written from our businesses
10:51:04 who are paying this fee, because we have given such

10:51:07 good customer service.
10:51:08 And so as you mentioned, this department has gone
10:51:12 through a complete transformation.
10:51:13 We are so proud.
10:51:15 We have done all the things that we told you and more
10:51:18 from when we were here two years ago.
10:51:20 So we are just asking you to keep this fee.
10:51:26 >>KEVIN WHITE: As a novel idea, can we look at not
10:51:29 renewing someone's license if they haven't paid last
10:51:32 year's?
10:51:33 >>ROSE FERLITA: No.
10:51:34 You can't.
10:51:34 Because the state doesn't allow them.
10:51:37 That's what I'm asking him to look at.
10:51:42 >>> At the state level, and we don't seem to be
10:51:45 getting very far.
10:51:46 But every earlier always trying to get back.
10:51:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: The flip side, I want to say as a
10:51:51 compliment to you, because you are watching the
10:51:52 dollars, you all have used that mechanism of
10:51:55 collection agency on false alarms.
10:51:57 And weapon I met with the gentleman that was in charge

10:52:00 of that, they have the amounts have decreased
10:52:04 immensely.
10:52:05 But I can't guess you can't do that.
10:52:07 You can't force them to pay anyway.
10:52:09 >> We do use a collection agency.
10:52:11 But we want to be very careful.
10:52:13 We want to give people ample time to mach their
10:52:15 payments and be sensitive.
10:52:17 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think a year is a good time.
10:52:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You put a late payment fee.
10:52:22 >>> We do that all the time.
10:52:24 >> Do you put a late payment fee on the occupational
10:52:26 license?
10:52:27 >> yes, we do.
10:52:28 >> I need to ask you a question.
10:52:29 How did you all come up with the fortune teller?
10:52:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Rubbed the crystal ball.
10:52:41 (Laughter).
10:52:42 >>> I would agree some of those categories are quite
10:52:44 odd.
10:52:46 An equity study was done years ago.
10:52:48 And we are bound by that equity study.

10:52:51 What has also occurred is that there are new
10:52:54 occupations that didn't exist when the equity study --
10:52:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: When you do the --
10:53:02 >>> We can't just add categories because of our
10:53:05 limitation.
10:53:06 So we do struggle with this.
10:53:08 Of course, in the age of computers, and all these new
10:53:11 consulting and computer services.
10:53:15 So we really have to work with our customers to make
10:53:17 sure that what we charge is fair and reasonable
10:53:24 And consistency is the one thing that's very
10:53:26 important.
10:53:27 We have, for example, a drugstore, a chain of drug
10:53:31 stores, a chain of drug stores is a chain of drug
10:53:34 stores, so we are really getting our categories in
10:53:38 order.
10:53:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Again to your benefit, that's true.
10:53:41 Because the smaller the drugstore like main, we have
10:53:44 to pay a pharmacy occupational license, a drugstore
10:53:46 occupational license for nonlegend drugs, and then if
10:53:50 you have two pieces of deodorant and something else
10:53:54 that is considered cosmetic, you would have to pay a

10:53:57 cosmetic occupational.
10:53:59 So you pull those two things out because you pay 400
10:54:01 for that, you are never going to make that on one
10:54:04 thing of ban and one thing of hair spray.
10:54:06 You know that's true, Jake.
10:54:08 We talked about that last time.
10:54:10 Where did these fees come from?
10:54:11 So you have tried to be more efficient in that.
10:54:13 And I'm sure that the other small business owners
10:54:16 appreciate it.
10:54:18 >>> And we had a small business owner in College Hills
10:54:20 basically in tears and Mr. Slater removed a category
10:54:23 of electronics because they had a few clock radios in
10:54:26 their inventory.
10:54:27 So even though some individuals are actually paying
10:54:31 less than they previously paid, this has brought in
10:54:34 more revenue because of their professionalism,
10:54:37 consistency and customer service.
10:54:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:54:39 We are going to go to item number 7.
10:54:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did we vote on that?
10:54:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We voted on it a long time ago.

10:54:48 Number 7.
10:54:55 This is first reading.
10:54:57 >>ROSE FERLITA: Number 7.
10:54:58 Move an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2
10:55:01 approving a church in an RM-16 zoning district in the
10:55:03 general vicinity of 2912 north CARIOCA street in the
10:55:08 city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly
10:55:10 described in section 1 hereof reducing the rear
10:55:13 setback from 40 to 10 feet waiving the direct access
10:55:16 to a collector or arterial street, allowing grass
10:55:20 parking spaces with the exception of the drive aisle
10:55:24 and handicapped parking providing an effective date.
10:55:26 (Motion carried).
10:55:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 8.
10:55:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: First reading.
10:55:34 Move an ordinance repealing ordinance 2002-151 an
10:55:37 ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages,
10:55:40 containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content,
10:55:42 beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP), for consumption on the
10:55:46 premises and in sealed containers for consumption off
10:55:50 the premises in connection with a restaurant business
10:55:52 establishment on that certain lot, plot or tract of

10:55:54 land located at 450 Channelside Drive Tampa, Florida
10:55:58 as more particularly described in section 3 hereof
10:56:01 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
10:56:04 certain findings, imposing certain conditions based
10:56:07 upon the location of the property, providing for
10:56:09 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
10:56:11 effective date.
10:56:12 >> That's number 8.
10:56:13 (Motion carried).
10:56:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:56:17 would like to $-- ask for reconsideration?
10:56:20 Anyone in the public that would like to ask for
10:56:21 reconsideration?
10:56:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just for the record, because of the
10:56:27 schedule for placing the advertisements, items number
10:56:30 6, 7 and 8 are being set for second reading and public
10:56:36 hearing for June 15th which is three weeks instead
10:56:39 of the usual two weeks.
10:56:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:56:41 We go to page 10.
10:56:45 Public hearing to be read for second reading.
10:56:48 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on

10:56:51 item 45 through 52?
10:56:57 Would you please stand and raise your right land.
10:57:00 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
10:57:03 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
10:57:09 Pa.
10:57:10 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to open 45 through 52.
10:57:18 (Motion carried).
10:57:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all written communications
10:57:20 relative to today's hearings that everybody available
10:57:22 to the public at council's office be received and
10:57:24 filed into the record at this time.
10:57:26 A motion, please.
10:57:28 >> So moved.
10:57:28 >> Second.
10:57:28 (Motion carried).
10:57:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Secondly reminder about ex parte
10:57:33 communications.
10:57:33 Please disclose the identity of the person, group or
10:57:36 entity with whom the verbal communication occurred,
10:57:37 and the substance of that verbal communication, and
10:57:40 finally, when you state your name, please reaffirm for
10:57:42 the record that you have been sworn.

10:57:44 Thank you.
10:57:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:57:48 wants to speak on item number 45?
10:57:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
10:57:51 >> Second.
10:57:51 (Motion carried).
10:57:52 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
10:57:57 upon second reading, an ordinance of the city of
10:58:00 Tampa, Florida approving the 24th amendment to a
10:58:02 development order rendered pursuant to chapter 380,
10:58:05 Florida statutes, filed by St. James united Methodist
10:58:10 church of Tampa Palms, a previously approved
10:58:13 development of regional impact, DRI, and providing an
10:58:16 effective date.
10:58:18 >> Second.
10:58:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
10:58:22 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:58:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Item 46.
10:58:33 I need to abstain.
10:58:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:58:39 wants to speak on item 46?
10:58:40 >> Move to close.

10:58:41 >> Second.
10:58:42 (Motion carried).
10:58:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I think that we have discussed
10:58:47 the bank putting in as much dense foliage to protect
10:58:51 the neighbors to the north as possible.
10:58:54 Move the following ordinance upon second reading, an
10:58:56 ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 approving
10:58:59 a bank with a drive-in window in a CI zoning district
10:59:03 in the general vicinity of 4820 south Himes Avenue in
10:59:07 the city of Tampa, Florida as more particularly
10:59:09 described in section 1 hereof reducing the drive-in
10:59:12 setback to residentially zoned property from 50 feet
10:59:15 to 5 feet 6 inches providing an effective date.
10:59:18 >> Second.
10:59:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
10:59:20 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Alvarez abstaining.
10:59:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:59:27 wants to speak on item number 47?
10:59:29 >> Move to close.
10:59:29 >> Second.
10:59:30 (Motion carried).
10:59:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.

10:59:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
10:59:38 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance approving
10:59:40 a special use permit S-2 approving a drive-in facility
10:59:43 in a CG zoning district in the general vicinity of
10:59:47 3251 west Hillsborough Avenue in the city of Tampa,
10:59:49 Florida and as more particularly described in section
10:59:51 1 hereof providing an effective date.
10:59:54 >> I have a motion and second.
10:59:55 Vote and record.
11:00:00 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:00:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:00:04 wants to speak on item 48?
11:00:05 >>: Move to close.
11:00:06 >> Second.
11:00:07 (Motion carried).
11:00:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move the following ordinance upon
11:00:14 second reading, move an ordinance rezoning property in
11:00:16 the general vicinity of 12.5 acres at the south west
11:00:20 corner of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and cypress
11:00:22 preserve road in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
11:00:25 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
11:00:26 district classifications PD neighborhood commercials

11:00:29 and public facility to PD-A, neighborhood commercial
11:00:32 and public facility, providing an effective date.
11:00:34 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:00:38 Vote and record.
11:00:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:00:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:00:48 wants to speak on item 49?
11:00:50 >> Move to close.
11:00:50 >> Second.
11:00:51 (Motion carried)
11:01:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My agenda doesn't say how we voted.
11:01:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
11:01:17 the general vicinity of 3418 west arch street, in the
11:01:20 city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in
11:01:22 section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
11:01:25 residential single-family to PD, office and all CG
11:01:29 uses, providing an effective date.
11:01:34 And I do that on second reading.
11:01:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
11:01:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no.
11:01:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say that I voted
11:01:52 against this because being a representative in

11:01:54 intrusion of commercial uses into a residential
11:01:56 neighborhood, and I hope that this doesn't establish a
11:02:02 precedent for commercial intrusion.
11:02:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:02:05 wants to speak on item 50?
11:02:07 >> Move to close.
11:02:08 >> Second.
11:02:08 (Motion carried).
11:02:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to adopt the following ordinance
11:02:13 upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in
11:02:15 the general vicinity of 420 south Rome Avenue, 1616
11:02:19 West Platt street, 311 South Dakota Avenue and 502
11:02:24 South Howard Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and
11:02:26 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
11:02:29 district classifications CI and PD commercial
11:02:32 intensive and multifamily residential to PD
11:02:36 multifamily residential, providing an effective date.
11:02:38 >> Motion and second.
11:02:39 Vote and record.
11:02:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
11:02:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:02:47 wants to speak on item 51?

11:02:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
11:02:52 >> Second.
11:02:52 (Motion carried).
11:02:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
11:02:57 ordinance on second reading, an ordinance rezoning
11:02:59 property in the general vicinity of 3308 Iowa Avenue
11:03:02 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
11:03:04 described in section 1 from zoning district
11:03:06 classifications RS-60 residential single family to
11:03:10 RS-50 residential single family, providing an
11:03:12 effective date.
11:03:14 >> Second.
11:03:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Vote and record.
11:03:20 >>THE CLERK: Not registering.
11:03:32 Motion carried unanimously.
11:03:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:03:36 wants to speak on 52?
11:03:39 Come on and speak.
11:03:40 >>HEATHER LAMBOY: Land development.
11:03:42 I would just like to make a clarification, that we
11:03:45 struggled at the first public hearing regarding this
11:03:47 issue.

11:03:50 Legal and I, together with the petitioner, have come
11:03:54 up with a clarification that might help the
11:03:56 neighborhood.
11:03:56 The developer shall pay $25,000 to the neighborhood
11:04:00 assessment fee as defined in the Westshore DRI over
11:04:03 and above the required assessment as part of the DRI.
11:04:06 So we feel using that neighborhood assessment fee will
11:04:11 help the neighborhood direct that money in the manner
11:04:14 they see fit.
11:04:16 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Do you wish me to respond to
11:04:28 everything now?
11:04:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Everything.
11:04:41 52 is everything.
11:04:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Speaker waiver form, Madam Chair.
11:04:49 Please wave your hand so I know you're here.
11:04:52 Roberta Ann.
11:04:55 Thank you.
11:04:57 Maria Sullivan.
11:04:59 Thank you.
11:04:59 Barbara Hudson.
11:05:00 Three extra minutes, please.
11:05:03 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherrill.

11:05:06 If I can quickly respond to what was just said.
11:05:09 If that money is put into the Westshore neighborhood
11:05:11 fund it could be used from Dale Mabry to the bay to
11:05:17 boy scout Boulevard, to Kennedy -- I mean, to Beach
11:05:24 Park.
11:05:25 In other words, there are six neighborhoods that could
11:05:28 potentially benefit from -- from that and the impact
11:05:32 is not on any of them, any of the others, because they
11:05:37 are not near a location of this.
11:05:40 The only neighborhood that would be affected is Beach
11:05:42 Park.
11:05:43 So I have a great concern about the wording of that.
11:05:47 That's why specifically for the Beach Park area and
11:05:51 Yale go now into why I am saying this.
11:05:56 You were given quite a bit of information by the
11:05:58 transportation department last week.
11:06:03 As far as the cut-through traffic, yes, there are
11:06:07 three speed tables on Azeele, which are streets that,
11:06:12 the one that would be most traveled, and Cleveland.
11:06:18 Number one, the six stop lights versus those three
11:06:22 speed tables, getting to the intersection that was
11:06:26 referred to most often is Azeele and Westshore.

11:06:29 You have to go through six stop lights.
11:06:33 Or signal lights to get to that point.
11:06:37 The people who cut through are going over the 25
11:06:41 mile-an-hour speed, and much more over the 15 that's
11:06:44 supposed to go to the table.
11:06:46 Most of them -- and there is traffic study after
11:06:49 traffic study regarding this neighborhood.
11:06:54 And transportation didn't have more information to
11:06:57 give you.
11:06:57 I think it's because Melanie is so new to the
11:07:01 position, she doesn't know how many studies have been
11:07:03 done.
11:07:03 That's why there are two more tables that are now
11:07:06 supposed to be put in that area, and one additional on
11:07:11 Azeele.
11:07:13 The cut-through traffic also, I want to explain,
11:07:17 doesn't end at Westshore.
11:07:19 It goes on through all of the streets, east of
11:07:23 Westshore.
11:07:23 That's why they just take the speed tables on Swann.
11:07:27 And we are begging to have speed tables put on
11:07:30 beachway, because that cut-through traffic uses those

11:07:34 streets.
11:07:34 When you are Westshore they cut over to Neptune, and
11:07:41 they can do that, and avoid two of the speed tables on
11:07:45 Azeele.
11:07:46 So it's misconception just to think we are concerned
11:07:51 about this traffic cutting through on that part of
11:07:54 Beach Park.
11:07:56 It's much more extensive area, that it would happen.
11:08:00 I think most of you knew that the hotel is no longer
11:08:03 in this plan.
11:08:04 It would strictly be two condominium units.
11:08:08 And that's the concern that we have, that all
11:08:14 residents of the area.
11:08:15 There is not a hotel now listed in the PD.
11:08:18 And we know it's not included.
11:08:23 Ms. Sullivan and I made a quick run to see how at
11:08:28 11:00 o'clock yesterday which is peak time and we
11:08:33 saved minutes by going from that designated area where
11:08:37 it talks with Westshore and Azeele, it took us 27
11:08:42 minutes 30 seconds by doing the cut-through, and by
11:08:46 going the -- 2 minutes and 30 seconds, and to catch
11:08:51 the lights at Kennedy and Memorial where we were

11:08:54 stuck, because that light is a very long light.
11:08:57 It takes a lot for them to reach the site.
11:09:04 The other big thing that came out of all of this is
11:09:07 the model that is used, which is the regional
11:09:13 transportation model.
11:09:15 This does not have local streets on it.
11:09:18 Therefore, their report would not show the impact on
11:09:25 the local streets.
11:09:26 And that's a major issue, which I hope to get council
11:09:31 to change that they would use a more local model for
11:09:38 all, and this brought out something that none of us
11:09:41 ever realized, that when you use regional planning, it
11:09:45 doesn't put in the local streets.
11:09:46 So that's why it doesn't reflect what could happen.
11:09:53 The fees that they talked about, the major roads,, as
11:09:59 I understand, that's what the impact fees do.
11:10:04 They are not used on local streets.
11:10:06 That's why it's important for this to be put into the
11:10:09 ordinance.
11:10:12 I have six minutes, don't I?
11:10:14 Have I gone that?
11:10:18 I have a lot more to say.

11:10:19 I hope all of you read Ms. Reynolds' letter to you.
11:10:25 It basically says that we did turn notary public a H
11:10:31 transportation information in a timely manner going to
11:10:34 Mr. LaMotte.
11:10:36 He spoke with Ms. Reynold yesterday afternoon but said
11:10:39 to her the transportation because of their overworked
11:10:41 time has not had time to review it.
11:10:48 That was about 5:30 yesterday afternoon.
11:10:53 >>GWEN MILLER: You have time, Ms. Vizzi.
11:10:57 >>MARGARET VIZZI: And that he would try to do it
11:10:59 overnight.
11:11:00 But that is a big thing that was sent to him, that the
11:11:04 e-mail that was associated with that, which was sent
11:11:09 the week before on Friday, and then an additional
11:11:13 amount sent last Sunday, was only opened as we were
11:11:21 talking about 5:00 yesterday afternoon.
11:11:24 So we do not feel that city staff has had time to
11:11:27 review the information that was said to them.
11:11:30 As far as who cuts through, I think even the gentleman
11:11:32 who lives in the condos on Kennedy Boulevard now on
11:11:39 the south side of the street everyone said he felt
11:11:42 that there would be additional traffic.

11:11:45 As far as cut-through people, I'm going to say it
11:11:48 right now.
11:11:50 He can stand up here and promote this, tells me
11:11:53 directly, he comes from Davis Island and goes through
11:11:57 Beach Park to get there.
11:12:02 So there's so much more to say and I'm sorry could not
11:12:08 be here today.
11:12:09 I can't believe that's six months.
11:12:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't have a question for Margaret
11:12:13 but I do have a question for transportation staff.
11:12:15 The way we are doing this, I guess, Roy, have you
11:12:19 looked at it?
11:12:20 Do we have an opinion as to the evidence that was put
11:12:24 in the record last week by the neighborhoods, or two
11:12:27 weeks ago by the neighborhood?
11:12:30 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Transportation manager.
11:12:32 I did take a review of the report.
11:12:35 And I did study it in detail for what was presented.
11:12:39 I basically have a number of issues with the report of
11:12:42 what's presented and the first was a determination of
11:12:45 occupied room instead of complete occupancy.
11:12:48 Second was the inability to suggest alternate routes

11:12:50 and a T failed intersections.
11:12:54 >>: Which report are you commenting on?
11:12:56 >>> This is the initial transportation report done by
11:12:59 links and associates.
11:13:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's not the neighborhood's
11:13:03 report.
11:13:04 >>> Well, I did review their two tables and the
11:13:06 comments provided by their neighborhood traffic
11:13:08 engineer as well, who is a certified traffic engineer
11:13:11 in the area.
11:13:11 And thirdly the assignments are based on existing
11:13:14 conditions taken during summer season, and they were
11:13:18 low, and they needed seasonal adjustments.
11:13:20 However, for the council's benefit, the total number
11:13:23 of adjusted trips is less than the proposed use.
11:13:26 And again, I have some concerns about that.
11:13:30 But the fact of the matter is, over a network there's
11:13:37 a congestion factor that occurs here and the it's
11:13:43 judgment.
11:13:43 You heard the use of a regional transportation model.
11:13:46 We will correct that and it will be over a more
11:13:48 extended network as we require reports in the future.

11:13:52 The assessments of the areas that are affected outside
11:13:55 the network is, I want to say, minorly affected but we
11:14:03 don't have those complete levels of service done
11:14:05 because they were never analyzed.
11:14:07 As I look through the numbers I haven't done a
11:14:10 complete network analysis over the extended network.
11:14:12 But I can tell you that there will be some impact to
11:14:15 what degree wave not completed that analysis.
11:14:19 I do feel that 25 that you could be contributed
11:14:22 towards traffic calming measures that we may find that
11:14:26 are necessary due to the impact here.
11:14:29 But the proposed use is -- it's just from generation
11:14:35 rates.
11:14:35 And it's just based on generation of studies that I.
11:14:41 T. has done from somewhere else.
11:14:43 I really believe in this situation here, the
11:14:45 suggestion for a solution is a good one.
11:14:47 And I'm recommending that to you as well.
11:14:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. LaMotte, thank you.
11:14:53 It's actually a question for Julia.
11:14:55 Julia, I understand what Mr. LaMotte is saying.
11:14:58 I understand in terms of comprehensive reading and

11:15:01 understanding and recommendations there.
11:15:02 But I did read the communication that Mrs. Reynold
11:15:05 says.
11:15:06 And I do agree from the standpoint of what the
11:15:08 petitioner presented is that this petition is less
11:15:11 intense than what was there or what could have been
11:15:13 there before.
11:15:14 But my question is this.
11:15:16 The petitioner is happy to accommodate that $25,000
11:15:21 offering.
11:15:22 I know it's not part of the transportation component
11:15:24 as such because there's less impact.
11:15:28 It's not a requirement, and shouldn't be in terms of
11:15:30 what's presented today.
11:15:31 But in many cases, Mr. Stefan can look at a lot of
11:15:37 things in our wonderful budget and nobody is going to
11:15:39 convince me that he can't find some mechanism, some
11:15:42 line item in his transportation budget, that would
11:15:45 allow us to move forward, to be able to --
11:15:51 >> Earmark this.
11:15:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, yes, to get this thing $25 that
11:15:55 you and make sure at dresses the important issues that

11:15:58 Ms. Vizzi accurately addressed.
11:16:00 They are the ones impacted on it, instead of just that
11:16:02 whole area.
11:16:03 If we are affecting a certain area that's wanting to
11:16:05 be good neighbors with the project, and we want them
11:16:08 all to be compatible, if you would, then I don't
11:16:11 understand why we can't earmark transportation dollars
11:16:14 to use in that area.
11:16:16 I understand that if somebody says, okay, well,
11:16:18 25,000, we want this.
11:16:19 Well, if it doesn't meet warrants or doesn't do that,
11:16:22 I don't want to take away from the professionalism and
11:16:26 the expertise in Mr. LaMotte's capability.
11:16:29 But at least it is earmarked for them to be able to
11:16:32 address some of these components, that Ms. Vizzi wants
11:16:35 addressed, and Mr. LaMotte and some transportation
11:16:38 from Beach Park, period, can look at things that can
11:16:41 be done to accommodate or alleviate the anticipated
11:16:44 cut-through that's going to -- to add to what Mr.
11:16:49 Rotella already does.
11:16:54 >>> In speaking with Calvin and speaking with Heather,
11:16:56 we have added some language in the condition which

11:16:59 would address having this money earmarked.
11:17:03 And I'll read it out to you.
11:17:05 The developer shall pay $25,000 to the neighborhood
11:17:09 assessment fee as the Westshore DRI to be earmarked
11:17:13 for use in the Beach Park neighborhood over and above
11:17:16 the required assessment as part of the DRI.
11:17:19 The reason that it's important to tie it to this
11:17:22 neighborhood assessment is because that is where the
11:17:24 funding mechanism is, and with this condition we are
11:17:27 also able to earmark it, and Calvin can explain a
11:17:31 little more about how that works if you wish to
11:17:33 understand.
11:17:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I don't mean to interrupt your
11:17:37 presentation but if you are start big describing that
11:17:39 DRI area but you are specifically saying it can only
11:17:42 be spent -- and the language and terminology is up to
11:17:44 you guys in the legal department.
11:17:45 But that language specifies and just allows it to be
11:17:50 used in Beach Park area, I don't have a problem with
11:17:53 that.
11:17:54 Ms. Vizzi, that's not what you were trying to do?
11:17:57 I'd like to hear, Madam Chairman.

11:18:02 >>MARGARET VIZZI: The chairman has put together the
11:18:05 six neighborhoods.
11:18:06 And we have always been told that the funds that are
11:18:09 put into that fund must be used through that whole --
11:18:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Not if we are making them say only
11:18:19 Beach Park.
11:18:20 Ms. Vizzi, they can't say that in front of you and
11:18:23 this council and then let it die in that whole money
11:18:25 over there.
11:18:26 >>MARGARET VIZZI: I don't know if that's going to need
11:18:28 a change in the ordinance that created that group,
11:18:30 because in the past, we have asked, with other issues,
11:18:35 if that could be done.
11:18:36 And we were always told that any fund that go into
11:18:40 that pot has to be used in this general --
11:18:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Vizzi.
11:18:48 We are going to make sure rate now.
11:18:50 Because Julia, if that's addressing our request about
11:18:54 a line item -- Julia?
11:18:58 If what you're saying absolutely 100% assures me that
11:19:02 that's addressing that line item idea that I had in
11:19:04 the transportation budget, won't get lost anyplace

11:19:08 else in that DRI, will only be used for Beach Park, we
11:19:11 can be comfortable and assured that's the case, if
11:19:13 that's what you're telling us, is that right?
11:19:15 >>> I understand that this can be done but maybe I'll
11:19:17 make another suggestion, that pay $25 that you to the
11:19:20 neighborhood assessment fee as defined in the
11:19:23 Westshore DRI, or through any other appropriate --
11:19:27 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well now you get vague again.
11:19:30 >>> But tell them if this is appropriate it could be
11:19:36 separated out of the line item.
11:19:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: With all due respect to Calvin, I
11:19:41 think this is going to be a Beach Park and Jim Stefan
11:19:45 issue if it's not --
11:19:50 >>> Maybe we can table this to the end of the meeting
11:19:52 to make sure that we are comfortable with that being a
11:19:56 line item that will only be used for the Beach Park
11:20:00 area.
11:20:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: And we probably should continue it
11:20:05 until you come back with that.
11:20:06 And Ms. Vizzi, courtesies are fair to both sides.
11:20:09 And Mr. Radnor, totally in support of your project.
11:20:14 However, you are making the nice gesture, as a partner

11:20:18 in this whole project, to Ms. Vizzi and to Beach Park
11:20:21 residents that you want to dop this.
11:20:22 So all I am trying to make sure is what you are
11:20:25 wanting to do is in fact what happens.
11:20:34 >> Truett Gardner, 101 South Franklin. That is our
11:20:38 intent and exactly what we are trying to do.
11:20:41 >>MARGARET VIZZI: I'm sorry I cannot stay after your
11:20:43 noon break.
11:20:46 So if this comes up this afternoon, I hope that it is
11:20:50 very clear in some way as to how it could be used
11:20:53 anywhere in the Beach Park area, because as I said
11:20:56 earlier it's not just the little streets.
11:20:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I am probably going to get a
11:21:00 motion and if somebody doesn't beat me to the motion
11:21:04 that we appoint like say one member of Beach Park like
11:21:07 you, Ms. Reynold, Ms. Vizzi, and if Mr. Reynold wants
11:21:12 to have input, that's fine.
11:21:14 >>> We are making the gesture.
11:21:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had some other questions, not
11:21:20 about this.
11:21:21 There are two things.
11:21:22 One is, this is for Mr. LaMotte.

11:21:26 The issues raised by Ms. Vizzi today are issues that
11:21:32 she's been raising consistently for 20 years, and that
11:21:34 is traffic.
11:21:38 Has the city developed any effective mechanism to
11:21:40 prevent that?
11:21:45 Mechanism, whether cul-de-sacking the side streets
11:21:48 south of Kennedy, so that the commercial traffic
11:21:51 doesn't go through the neighborhood?
11:21:55 >>> We do not have a comprehensive plan to address
11:21:57 that at this time.
11:21:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And it seems when this comes
11:22:03 unusually to council that the transportation planner
11:22:06 for the petitioner said some things that just didn't
11:22:09 make sense.
11:22:09 I'm not a transportation planner but I can tell you
11:22:11 that a hotel has most of its traffic going to and from
11:22:16 the airport as opposed to the completely residential
11:22:19 development with local folks living there who are
11:22:22 going to be going places other than the airport.
11:22:25 And their conclusion, which was that these new
11:22:28 proposals will generate less traffic and less impact
11:22:30 on the neighborhood, just didn't make sense.

11:22:38 So I am very concerned the city didn't question that,
11:22:40 didn't have an issue with you that.
11:22:42 And I feel like this neighborhood has taken did T $25
11:22:45 because that's the best they can do but what they
11:22:47 really came up to us and said at the public meeting is
11:22:50 that they don't believe that what's before us is going
11:22:52 to have less of an impact on them, and they want
11:22:55 protection.
11:22:56 And coming to this council for 20 years we decide to
11:23:04 decide away to keep all the traffic from going through
11:23:07 the neighborhood.
11:23:08 $25,000 as both you and I know provides a couple of
11:23:12 speed bumps.
11:23:13 That is not a thorough solution.
11:23:15 And we need to come up with a way to protect Beach
11:23:18 Park to monitor traffic.
11:23:26 >>> We don't disagree with your comments, councilman
11:23:29 Saul-Sena.
11:23:29 We are in agreement that the evaluation of this
11:23:33 particular proposal and the way it was laid out could
11:23:41 have been handled differently and we will take more
11:23:43 comprehensive review in our projects in the future.

11:23:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have -- can we -- could we
11:23:49 look at a way which is going to require a way to
11:23:55 protect this neighborhood?
11:23:57 >>> Yes, we can.
11:23:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The one thing that I think is clear
11:24:02 is that $25,000 will not protect this neighborhood.
11:24:09 And this is not a few neighborhood folks coming up
11:24:11 here saying you are going to create more traffic for
11:24:13 us.
11:24:13 You had a professional engineer two weeks ago that
11:24:15 came in and said, we have differences with the study
11:24:20 that was presented.
11:24:21 Roy, you looked at it last night and you said on the
11:24:25 record, we have some issues with the study that was
11:24:27 presented.
11:24:28 There is in a comprehensive solution to this right
11:24:32 now, other than everyone is just thinking, okay, we'll
11:24:35 throw 25 grand at it and hope that it will just go
11:24:39 away.
11:24:39 And I don't think that's the right way to go.
11:24:43 I don't know what $25,000 will do.
11:24:46 I would feel most comfortable with someone, one of our

11:24:49 city transportation engineers, to look at this and
11:24:52 say, here's what we think we can do that will help
11:24:56 your neighborhood, and this is what it's going to
11:24:59 cost.
11:24:59 And we don't have that in front of us right now.
11:25:02 And one thing universal that we do know is that
11:25:05 $25,000 isn't going to do anything.
11:25:08 And that number just kind of appeared out of the air.
11:25:17 And I was hoping what we would have when you come back
11:25:19 is, council, here's what we think we can do to
11:25:21 alleviate the traffic impacts, which all of the
11:25:24 professional engineers know are going to occur.
11:25:30 >>> Well, part of it is conjecture when we doctor Do
11:25:34 distribution based on assignments.
11:25:36 I can say that 20%, somebody else could say 10,
11:25:40 somebody could say 5 and do their analysis around it.
11:25:42 What we have to be is in agreement with the from the
11:25:45 onset that that percentage split is agreeable.
11:25:47 And that's where we'll change it in the future and
11:25:49 that's where we will make the assignments and that
11:25:52 will drive it through a more comprehensive network.
11:25:54 And that way we'll be able to do a better job at

11:25:57 determining level of service at some of these exterior
11:26:02 intersections and develop countermeasures around that.
11:26:04 I hear you loud and clear.
11:26:06 I believe that 25,000 will buy us some particular
11:26:08 measures.
11:26:09 Maybe limited because of the extent.
11:26:12 But I believe that this will help solve the problem in
11:26:18 the future to be exactly occurring at a particular
11:26:21 location.
11:26:21 I have to say that to you because the network hasn't
11:26:23 been drawn out completely.
11:26:25 I heard Ms. Vizzi say that we looked at it.
11:26:27 I gave it the bests evaluation I could.
11:26:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No one is arguing that. You're
11:26:34 shorthanded.
11:26:35 We all know that.
11:26:35 We need to be respectful of that.
11:26:37 But what we are also doing, I think, is we are forcing
11:26:40 something through here right now that we all agree
11:26:43 needs to have a little bit more study.
11:26:45 And I'm just not comfortable doing it.
11:26:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: You know, Mr. LaMotte, that brings up

11:26:52 a good point and I'm going to reach back into the last
11:26:54 term of office here when I started in 1999.
11:26:57 Chief Holder was the chief then.
11:27:01 And some neighborhoods that are able to do so --
11:27:04 nothing to do with transportation -- some of the
11:27:06 neighborhoods that can afford to do so, like we in
11:27:08 Hyde Park, pay an additional amount of money for help,
11:27:13 police officer.
11:27:14 And there was some conversation going on in civic
11:27:16 associations and in neighborhoods and in meetings in
11:27:18 that area that if we paid the extra money for the help
11:27:23 police officer, that was fine.
11:27:25 And the intent for that was more visibility.
11:27:28 So that if we wanted an additional help, it wouldn't
11:27:30 be taking at way from other neighborhoods that deserve
11:27:34 police visibility, too.
11:27:35 And they wanted to make sure that it was not in lieu
11:27:37 of regular visibility and representation.
11:27:42 But we were just paying extra.
11:27:43 So I thought it went without saying that this 25,000
11:27:46 is an extra amount of money, given the case, given the
11:27:51 generosity of the petitioner and given the

11:27:52 understanding that Beach Park is having some
11:27:55 additional problems, continued to be added to because
11:27:59 of projects coming in.
11:28:00 So unless I was very, very naive, I was assuming that
11:28:04 the 25 that you goes to some improvement projects that
11:28:08 you and representation from Beach Park will look at
11:28:10 but not to discount them being on the list of things
11:28:13 that are already a problem.
11:28:14 If the 25 that you doesn't go, if the project failed,
11:28:17 if we weren't having this conversation or this
11:28:19 petition, still, the 25,000 -- and I guess it's a yes
11:28:23 or no from you, and I think I know what the answer
11:28:25 is -- but doesn't discount the fact that they are
11:28:28 entitled to be looked at in terms of the neighborhood,
11:28:31 with transportation handicapped, that you are going to
11:28:34 try to address based upon staff, based on budget,
11:28:37 based on timing, based on priority.
11:28:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to continue this for at
11:28:44 least two weeks till transportation has additional
11:28:48 time to make some very concrete analysis and come back
11:28:51 with us.
11:28:53 If you don't think two weeks is enough time then I

11:28:55 will listen to it.
11:28:56 I don't feel that we have at the first public hearing
11:29:00 adequate information and I don't think council -- I
11:29:03 don't feel comfortable making a decision until we are
11:29:05 provided that information from our transportation
11:29:08 staff.
11:29:10 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, that's okay and Yale support it
11:29:12 but I think while we are taking this opportunity to
11:29:15 discuss some of the details of this case and this
11:29:16 petition, let's be fair to both sides.
11:29:19 And if there are any other concerns, let's not wait
11:29:21 for two weeks in terms of the petition, where we also
11:29:25 have a problem with this.
11:29:26 If there's anything else we need for them to be
11:29:28 looking at while they are looking at transportation,
11:29:30 let's not put something of a barricade in the way for
11:29:32 us to look at that, oh, now we need to look at this.
11:29:37 I'm very comfortable with the project.
11:29:38 I could go forward with it today as long as Ms.
11:29:40 Vizzi's needs are addressed.
11:29:42 But if you gays want to continue -- if there's
11:29:46 something else let's use this arena now to let

11:29:48 everybody know so we don't delay it any further.
11:29:53 >>> The note that was read to you and crafted is over
11:29:57 and above the 25 that you.
11:29:58 There's that money plus eleven cents a square foot.
11:30:03 >> I'm aware of that.
11:30:05 >> Let him finish.
11:30:06 >>> It's also going directly to the Beach Park
11:30:08 neighborhood association.
11:30:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, it's not.
11:30:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you finish?
11:30:21 Okay, Mr. Dingfelder.
11:30:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
11:30:27 I think staff needs more time.
11:30:31 In order to wrestle with these issues.
11:30:37 I think the $25,000 number seemed to be rather
11:30:40 arbitrary.
11:30:40 I think where it came from, it was the number that
11:30:43 came out of the last PD, and it was just carried over
11:30:45 to this PD.
11:30:46 I think what really needs to happen is I think staff
11:30:49 needs to take these two reports, you need to figure
11:30:52 out where that traffic is going to go, and if it's

11:30:56 going in fact through the neighborhood, we need to
11:30:58 figure out how we are going to mitigate it as it's
11:31:00 going through the neighborhood and how much money it's
11:31:02 going to cost to mitigate it and then come back to us
11:31:04 and say what is the appropriate number?
11:31:08 25025th thousand?
11:31:09 Fine.
11:31:09 If it's 50,000, feign.
11:31:11 If it's 100,000, fine.
11:31:13 I think we need to find out what the appropriate
11:31:15 number is to adequately mitigate it.
11:31:18 That's my opinion.
11:31:20 >>JULIA COLE: Thank you.
11:31:21 I apologize, I was running in and out dealing with the
11:31:24 condition issue.
11:31:25 But as you recall, and maybe I should have started
11:31:28 with this, this issue of the $25,000 was in the
11:31:31 previous approval because it was determined in a
11:31:34 previous approval that there was an increased amount
11:31:37 of traffic generated as a result of the rezoning.
11:31:42 With this new application that's in front of you, it
11:31:45 has been -- the petitioner has provided a traffic

11:31:49 analysis, that staff has reviewed, that indicates
11:31:52 there is no additional traffic generated, if I can
11:31:56 finish my sentence, generated as a result of this
11:31:59 rezoning.
11:32:00 But does not -- and way understand, it doesn't
11:32:02 necessarily take into consideration the distribution
11:32:05 question, because I understood -- and I went back and
11:32:08 I read the transcript as it related -- and I'm sorry
11:32:11 that she is not here, but the evening necessary who
11:32:13 attended, her comments related to distribution, and
11:32:17 that there was not necessarily a question of
11:32:20 generation.
11:32:21 And those are two separate issues.
11:32:23 And I think that that is the point.
11:32:27 Now, the petitioner has indicated to me -- and in some
11:32:31 correspondence, you even though it is their belief
11:32:38 this does not have any traffic generation, that they
11:32:40 were willing to stand by the $25 that they previously
11:32:44 committed in the prior rezoning.
11:32:46 And for the record, understand where that $25,000 came
11:32:49 from, it was because of the previous approval, and
11:32:53 previous commitment by this petitioner.

11:32:56 But I did want to make that clear for the record so
11:32:58 that you understood that.
11:33:00 I think the petitioner has the right to say whether or
11:33:02 not they agree or disagree to the continuance because
11:33:06 certainly every petition theory comes in front of you
11:33:08 has the right to have the project voted up or down and
11:33:10 I would ask for them to say whether or not they agreed
11:33:13 to the continuance, and let you all know whether
11:33:17 that's something -- he and if they don't, whether or
11:33:20 not they agree to it or not on the record.
11:33:23 I also will tell you, we are still discussing the
11:33:25 conditions.
11:33:26 So even if it doesn't get continued, I would need
11:33:28 additional time.
11:33:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think way said was exactly that,
11:33:34 that I realize where it came from, and it came from
11:33:36 the prior petition.
11:33:37 The prior PD called for $25.
11:33:40 The prior PD had different transportation issues.
11:33:43 The prayer PD was about a hotel.
11:33:46 And you come to a hotel.
11:33:47 You do different things.

11:33:48 You come and go at different hours, et cetera, as
11:33:50 compared to this new project, which is residential.
11:33:53 Residential, you go to the grocery store at different
11:33:56 times.
11:33:56 You know, you take your kids to school at different
11:33:59 times.
11:34:00 It's a different deal.
11:34:01 I'm not a transportation person.
11:34:02 I don't know what the answer is.
11:34:04 But I do know that we have Mr. LaMotte and we have
11:34:08 other senior staff here that can take these studies,
11:34:12 both studies, analyze them and find out if -- if it's
11:34:16 appropriate, to consider an increase over and above
11:34:19 the 25,000.
11:34:20 If staff concludes that 25,000 is adequate, or that it
11:34:24 shouldn't even be 25 that you, then we'll stick with
11:34:26 the 25 that you and go from there.
11:34:28 That's my whole point.
11:34:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think we need to be fair here, Mr.
11:34:32 Dingfelder.
11:34:32 If they decide that it's not 25,000, which it's not
11:34:35 going to be, because it's less additional traffic

11:34:38 generation or in a generation.
11:34:39 So I think -- and maybe my comments to you are a
11:34:42 little premature.
11:34:43 But if you're saying if it's more than 25 that you we
11:34:45 stick these guys with it.
11:34:46 If it's less, we stick these guys with 25.
11:34:50 That is unconscionable.
11:34:52 >>> We stick them with 25 because they volunteered.
11:34:56 >> But they are not volunteering to say -- certainly,
11:35:00 it's Mr. Gardner's choice.
11:35:02 But I will tell you, if we can assign this 25 that you
11:35:04 to the neighborhood, if Mr. LaMotte assures me -- and
11:35:07 I believe that he has -- that they are in line for
11:35:09 anything that's coming their way because of traffic
11:35:12 concerning unrelated to this, and these guys are
11:35:14 willing to give 25,000 and we seal that up, I think it
11:35:18 is grossly, grossly, grossly unfair given the traffic
11:35:23 transportation information that we have had to say,
11:35:25 hold it.
11:35:26 And Mr. Gardner, you come back.
11:35:28 And hit you for 20,000.
11:35:30 Maybe we'll hit you for 100,000 that. Is absurd and I

11:35:33 won't support that.
11:35:34 And I don't many to speak for you.
11:35:36 That's getting way out of bounds.
11:35:41 >>GWEN MILLER: I agree, I would not support that.
11:35:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: If his intent was to let
11:35:45 transportation study it and finance we need more than
11:35:48 20 -- let me finish, pleas.
11:35:50 Wait a minute, wait a minute.
11:35:52 You had your turn.
11:35:53 Listen.
11:35:55 If he means the transportation to go and let them seek
11:36:00 more than $25 that you is needed to alleviate some of
11:36:04 this and mitigate some of that, that's fine.
11:36:06 To me that would mean if it's so important that
11:36:08 transportation is coming back with their expertise,
11:36:10 with their dollar data with, their research, maybe we
11:36:13 need $7,567,000 to alleviate some of the problems of
11:36:16 Beach Park.
11:36:17 And I'm supportive of Beach Park too.
11:36:19 I'm a South Tampa resident that. Would many 25 from
11:36:22 you gays and 507 out of our line item transportation
11:36:25 budget.

11:36:25 You can't allow the petitioner -- you should not allow
11:36:29 the petitioner to take the risk of we come back and
11:36:31 say, you owe us more.
11:36:33 You don't even owe us 25.
11:36:35 Downtown have to do that.
11:36:36 You have reduced the impact from the first one to the
11:36:38 second one.
11:36:39 Now we are going to do more research.
11:36:40 Boy, if I were on the other side of that podium, I
11:36:43 would say, this is just -- I know it's some words we
11:36:46 used before from my colleague here and I'm starting to
11:36:49 reiterate the same thing -- that is not a fair process
11:36:51 for the petitioner.
11:36:52 We are trying to be fair to both but not just fair to
11:36:54 one.
11:36:55 I'm sorry.
11:36:55 I apologize for that attitude but that's where we are
11:36:58 going.
11:36:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to call the question
11:37:01 on the motion which is to continue this.
11:37:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Wanted to know if the petitioner wanted
11:37:07 to continue.

11:37:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: But wave to specify what I said
11:37:10 before, Madam Chairman, what is he looking at if we
11:37:12 are continuing it?
11:37:14 Just where the 25 goes?
11:37:16 Or he comes back and takes a chance, rolls the dice,
11:37:18 flip the coin like we did awhile ago, maybe come back,
11:37:21 maybe owe us 25, maybe 100 that you.
11:37:24 What do you want to do?
11:37:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
11:37:28 >>> My intent on this whole thing -- the prior
11:37:30 application did consider condos.
11:37:32 160 condos.
11:37:35 168 hotel rooms.
11:37:36 328 total units.
11:37:38 This is 25250 units. The $25,000 was completely
11:37:41 arbitrary.
11:37:42 It is now less traffic generating.
11:37:44 But we thought, absolutely, it is.
11:37:47 Ms. Saul-Sena, 100%.
11:37:49 We have experts here to testify to that.
11:37:51 And I know -- are going to go to the airport.
11:37:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The --

11:37:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr --
11:38:00 [Sounding gavel]
11:38:01 [Sounding gavel]
11:38:02 Mr. Dingfelder.
11:38:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He used my name.
11:38:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder Mr. Dingfelder.
11:38:07 Let him finish his statement.
11:38:12 >>> Our traffic study was based on true data.
11:38:14 Not because this is close to the airport.
11:38:15 We feel these people will be going to the airport.
11:38:18 How do we know these people aren't going to be
11:38:20 visiting their neighbors in Westshore and cutting
11:38:22 through?
11:38:22 Same type of thing. The only evidence, it is
11:38:24 competent, substantial evidence.
11:38:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I respond because you used my
11:38:28 name?
11:38:29 >>GWEN MILLER: You can respond.
11:38:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
11:38:32 Hears my point.
11:38:33 Are there conflicting studies?
11:38:35 Yes.

11:38:36 Okay, yes, there are conflicting studies.
11:38:38 You put your study forward.
11:38:40 And the neighborhood hired or whatever, put their
11:38:44 study forward.
11:38:45 Mr. LaMotte indicated -- and I don't think he's been
11:38:48 able to fully analyze both studies.
11:38:52 I'm not a traffic engineer.
11:38:53 You're not a traffic engineer.
11:38:55 And rose, you're not a traffic engineer, with all due
11:38:57 respect, okay?
11:38:58 So the bottom line is, my only point was, that the
11:39:01 continuance is appropriate for Mr. LaMotte to go back
11:39:04 and take a look at full detailed in-depth look at both
11:39:08 traffic studies, because they are competing studies.
11:39:11 That's my whole point.
11:39:12 Okay?
11:39:13 And yes, I realize the 25,000 was arbitrary.
11:39:15 I used that word.
11:39:16 It was arbitrary to start with a year ago and it's
11:39:19 still arbitrary.
11:39:20 Okay?
11:39:22 Where it goes, I have got a feeling Mr. LaMotte is

11:39:24 probably going to come back and say that just like his
11:39:28 assistant said last week, the $25 that you was not
11:39:32 necessary but you guys were gratuitously offering that
11:39:35 and I think that's fine.
11:39:37 But my point is I'm not a traffic engineer.
11:39:39 We should use our traffic evening nears to play
11:39:42 referee to see which of these traffic studies are
11:39:44 appropriate and where we go from here and we do need
11:39:46 to make sure that the money is there to mitigate the
11:39:49 impact and where it comes from, Rose, you know what?
11:39:51 I think you brought up an excellent point.
11:39:53 I think that if it comes from 25,000 from the
11:39:56 developer and the city has to mitigate some of that
11:39:58 too, then maybe that's where we go.
11:40:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: You're addressing me now.
11:40:03 If it's 25 --
11:40:05 >>GWEN MILLER: You can respond.
11:40:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: You're talk to me.
11:40:12 >> That's why we have these discussions because maybe
11:40:13 the developer pays 25 and the city has to develop how
11:40:16 to mitigate the rest of the impact.
11:40:18 So I'm agreeing with you, rose.

11:40:20 But we can't figure that out until we allow Mr.
11:40:22 LaMotte a little bit more time to analyze both
11:40:25 studies.
11:40:27 >>> That's absolutely fine.
11:40:28 I just want to be perfectly clear that we are reducing
11:40:30 traffic.
11:40:31 We thought it would be a generous gesture to put this
11:40:34 $25 that you that we committed to before and maintain
11:40:36 that commitment as a show of good faith and I think
11:40:38 this has been completely twisted into something
11:40:41 absolutely absurd.
11:40:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is not universal.
11:40:51 That's why we need to hear from our transportation
11:40:53 department and that's why I asked for the continuance.
11:40:55 And my question to our transportation department is,
11:40:57 do you need two weeks, three weeks or four weeks, or
11:41:00 six weeks?
11:41:01 You tell me what we need and that's what my motion
11:41:03 will be to continue to the point where you can come
11:41:06 back to us with really good solid piece of advice from
11:41:10 our staff.
11:41:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you agree with a continuance?

11:41:15 >>> I have to confer with my client.
11:41:19 >> There are other people at the public hearing and I
11:41:21 don't know FHP they want to speak to a continuance.
11:41:23 They have indicated to me that they would like to
11:41:25 speak.
11:41:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: My question is the same as it was
11:41:28 before.
11:41:31 If Mr. Gardner and his client say they agree to a
11:41:34 continuance, are they coming back with the
11:41:36 expectation, that their contribution can be 25, but it
11:41:43 could be more or it could be less?
11:41:45 Has anybody clarified that as a basis for the reason
11:41:48 for continuance so he can make an appropriate
11:41:49 decision?
11:41:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My expectation is the same and we
11:41:52 are hearing from our staff.
11:41:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: But my question, I don't know who
11:41:56 answer that is question.
11:41:57 Julia, if he agrees to a continuance, does that mean
11:42:01 he can come back?
11:42:02 You don't know what he's expecting in terms of the
11:42:04 courtesy contributions to Beach Park.

11:42:08 >>JULIA COLE: Absolutely, if he says the continuance a
11:42:13 acceptable simply because transportation, or council
11:42:15 says to him, this is what we want you to contribute,
11:42:18 he always has the right to say I do not agree to that
11:42:24 condition.
11:42:25 By agreeing to the continuance he is not agreeing that
11:42:27 he may accept additional amounts of money.
11:42:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for the clarification.
11:42:31 >>JULIA COLE: I do want to say something else.
11:42:35 And I said this previously.
11:42:38 I think the petitioner in this instance, given what
11:42:43 his traffic analysis showed, could have said, I do not
11:42:48 want to pay the $25,000 that I have said previously I
11:42:52 will pay.
11:42:54 He made the decision to go ahead and do that despite
11:42:57 what his traffic analysis showed, and despite what
11:43:01 staff agreed to as being appropriate.
11:43:04 And that is the issue at the last hearing.
11:43:06 And that still remains the issue knew front of you.
11:43:09 However, in this instance, the petitioner agreed to
11:43:11 the $25 that you.
11:43:12 So it the condition that was offered is where do we

11:43:16 put this $25,000 in order to ensure that it is spent
11:43:20 within the neighborhood.
11:43:21 I understand that the continuance then would be for
11:43:23 the transportation staff to rereview the original
11:43:28 transportation analysis, and rereview the additional
11:43:31 information provided by the professional engineer to
11:43:34 determine either, A, whether or not there is
11:43:37 additional traffic, which is generated, or, B, whether
11:43:39 or not there is a distribution of traffic, which may
11:43:42 have some mitigation.
11:43:45 In my conversation was the transportation, it may
11:43:52 indicate that there is less than $25 that you worth of
11:43:55 impact.
11:43:56 And I want to caution you that the petitioner has the
11:43:59 right to come back and say, you know what?
11:44:01 We want to take that 25,000 offer the table and pay
11:44:04 whatever it is transportation believes, if it's 5,000
11:44:07 or 10,000.
11:44:08 I want to caution you of that.
11:44:09 Because if we get to the next hearing and
11:44:11 transportation staff indicates at that point in time
11:44:14 that there is no additional mitigation requirement, I

11:44:17 may have to advise you that you can't ask for anything
11:44:20 more because there is no next step.
11:44:23 I just want to say that to you so that's clear.
11:44:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Cole, I'm grateful you did that
11:44:28 because you said way was trying to say but obviously
11:44:31 in a much clearer fashion.
11:44:33 Believe me, it's not, Ms. Vizzi, that this board is
11:44:37 not sympathetic to neighborhood.
11:44:38 That's what we believe in.
11:44:39 That's what we practice. But at the same time we do
11:44:41 have a lot of problems in the same area you are
11:44:43 talking about.
11:44:44 But whether or not I'm comfortable with blaming
11:44:45 this -- with a less petition development to come in
11:44:51 and say we are going to tell you what you have to pay,
11:44:54 there's a risk.
11:44:54 I think that we are better off trying to secure the
11:44:57 dollars for you and at the same time make sure that a
11:45:01 separate project Mr. LaMotte meats out there and makes
11:45:04 sure if there's other things that need to be done
11:45:07 should be done regardless of whether or not this
11:45:10 25,000 is offered or not.

11:45:12 So that being said I would like to hear --
11:45:14 >>> If I could add going into the first reading we
11:45:17 were specifically told to go Do no mitigation at all.
11:45:21 We lessened the impact and do no mitigation.
11:45:24 And I think nine out of ten developers would jump at
11:45:27 that and say, great.
11:45:30 My clients maintained their commitment of $25,000.
11:45:33 And to be honest, this whole process has not put a
11:45:36 good Tate in my mouth and I'm sure my clients' mouth
11:45:39 and I'm it's completely unfair.
11:45:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry --
11:45:46 >>> If we come back and transportation says in a
11:45:48 impact at all, I don't think wave to commit to our
11:45:51 25,000 anymore.
11:45:52 I really believe that.
11:45:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree 100% with you, Mr. Gardner.
11:45:57 What we have done here today is say that something
11:45:59 happened here that very rarely ever happens, and that
11:46:02 is that there is contravening evidence in the record
11:46:06 and that the triers of fact sitting up here we have to
11:46:08 make a fair decision based on the evidence.
11:46:10 And what our judge, Mr. LaMotte, is telling us is, I

11:46:15 think there is an impact.
11:46:16 I haven't had time to figure out what that is,
11:46:20 hopefully in two weeks I'll be able to know what that
11:46:22 is.
11:46:22 As far as I'm concerned, your 25 is off the table
11:46:25 right now.
11:46:25 He's going to look at it and he may very welcome back
11:46:28 and say, council, there is in a -- we cannot assess a
11:46:32 dollar figure to this impact.
11:46:33 And if that is the case, then we have in a basis to
11:46:38 ask you all to make that $25,000.
11:46:41 That was a good faith gesture and we appreciate it.
11:46:43 But had there been no contravening evidence from the
11:46:47 other side, we probably said, fine, and thank you for
11:46:50 the effort.
11:46:51 But I trust Roy and he's not going to pick a number
11:46:54 out of thin air and he's probably going to err on the
11:46:58 side of caution as well.
11:46:59 Let's give him a couple weeks.
11:47:02 That may well benefit your client.
11:47:04 >>> I think that is completely fair and as long as
11:47:07 it's a reasonable time my clients are willing to

11:47:09 accept it.
11:47:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: Two weeks?
11:47:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. LaMotte, is two weeks enough?
11:47:16 >>> The traffic consultant won't be here in two weeks.
11:47:19 Would three be -- what was the date?
11:47:28 >>THE CLERK: June 15th.
11:47:33 >>GWEN MILLER: June 15th at 9:30.
11:47:36 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:47:37 Opposed, Nay.
11:47:38 Okay.
11:47:41 Is there anyone in the public going to speak on item
11:47:44 53 to 58?
11:47:46 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
11:47:47 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
11:47:55 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
11:47:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Please be reminded to state your name
11:48:03 for record.
11:48:03 When you state your name if you have been sworn in.
11:48:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 53 is a continued public hearing.
11:48:09 Does staff want to speak on that?
11:48:10 Anyone in the public want to speak on 53?
11:48:13 We need to close it.

11:48:15 >>: So moved.
11:48:16 >> Second.
11:48:16 (Motion carried).
11:48:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
11:48:20 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance of the
11:48:22 city of Tampa, Florida designating the property known
11:48:24 as Peter O. Knight cottage Tampa historical society
11:48:28 building located at 245 south Hyde Park Avenue, Tampa,
11:48:31 Florida as more particularly described in section 3
11:48:33 hereof as a local landmark, providing for repeal of
11:48:36 all ordinances in conflict, providing for
11:48:38 severability, providing an effective date.
11:48:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:48:41 Vote and record.
11:48:54 (Motion carried).
11:48:56 >>GWEN MILLER: 54 is a continued public hearing.
11:48:59 Anyone want to speak on that?
11:49:00 >>JAMES COOK: Petitioner is requesting a continuation
11:49:02 to June 15th at 10 a.m.
11:49:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion.
11:49:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:49:07 >>: Second.

11:49:11 Does anyone want to speak to the continuation of item
11:49:15 54?
11:49:15 All in favor of the motion to continue say Aye.
11:49:17 Opposed, Nay.
11:49:22 (Motion carried) item number 55.
11:49:30 >>JAMES COOK: Petitioner is requesting to vacate a
11:49:32 north, south and east-west alley laying north of Alva
11:49:36 street, east of Highland Avenue, and west of Florida
11:49:39 Avenue.
11:49:42 Within the Seminole Heights overlay district.
11:49:44 Florida Avenue to the east.
11:49:50 Alva to the south.
11:49:52 Highland to the west.
11:49:56 Petitioner owns the property highlighted in red.
11:49:58 The alley discontinue north although it's not being
11:50:02 used.
11:50:05 If alley continues west.
11:50:11 I will show you this photo.
11:50:13 This is the north-south alley.
11:50:22 This is the alley looking south from Genesee street.
11:50:26 This is looking east from Highland Avenue.
11:50:32 As a close-up you can see it's overgrown.

11:50:42 Continuing south of Alva.
11:50:47 This is the same alley continuing north of Genesee,
11:50:50 not being requested to be vacated.
11:50:55 This is the same alley continuing west of Highland.
11:50:58 This is an open alley.
11:51:04 I have a couple of shots of petitioner's property.
11:51:20 One final shot of the east side.
11:51:21 Staff has no objections as long as utility easements
11:51:24 are reserved.
11:51:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
11:51:35 >>STEVE MICHELINI: A couple of years ago when they had
11:51:37 a sweep of the Seminole Heights area, they cited a
11:51:41 variety of different property owners throughout the
11:51:43 area because the alleys were impassable.
11:51:46 They had been built over for probably 40 or 50 years.
11:51:50 This is one of those case where is the alleys are
11:51:53 impassable.
11:51:54 We are requesting to reserve the easement as agreed to
11:51:56 by the different utility companies.
11:52:00 And we respectfully are requesting that you vacate
11:52:02 these portions of the alley.
11:52:04 I have also agreed to, and I have already sent out

11:52:07 notices to all the property owners on both sides
11:52:10 regarding this.
11:52:11 And they received no increase regarding if they were
11:52:17 objecting to it, and as a condition I have also agreed
11:52:20 to send them copies of vacating ordinance should the
11:52:23 council agree to vacate this with conditions.
11:52:27 So they are aware that it has been vacated so we
11:52:31 respectfully request your approval.
11:52:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to
11:52:34 speak on 55?
11:52:36 Have a motion and second to close.
11:52:37 (Motion carried).
11:52:40 Mr. Dingfelder.
11:52:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
11:52:49 ordinance upon first reading, an ordinance may --
11:52:52 vacating abandoning all that alleyway bounded by
11:52:56 Genesee street and north Highland Avenue on the west
11:53:01 in meadow brook subdivision in the City of Tampa,
11:53:05 Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully
11:53:06 described in section 2 hereof providing an effective
11:53:08 date.
11:53:08 And I'm supporting this alley because clearly it's

11:53:11 never been used and never will be used.
11:53:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:53:19 (Motion carried)
11:53:20 Item number 53 -- 56 we need to open.
11:53:26 (Motion Carried).
11:53:27 >>JAMES COOK: Land Development Coordination.
11:53:28 I have been sworn.
11:53:29 Petitioner is requesting a continuation to July
11:53:32 13th.
11:53:33 Petitioner's representative is hear in case you have
11:53:34 any questions.
11:53:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
11:53:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want top
11:53:38 speak on the continuation of item number 56?
11:53:44 All right, come up and speak.
11:53:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you can, when you state your name
11:53:50 and address, speak to whether or not you support or
11:53:54 oppose a continuance.
11:53:56 Just to the issue of a continuance.
11:53:58 >>> cliff Salter, I live at 1304 E. Wilder. I'm
11:54:03 against the closure of this --
11:54:05 >>GWEN MILLER: To the continuance.

11:54:08 Speak to the continuance.
11:54:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To continue this to another date, the
11:54:11 date being July 13th.
11:54:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you opposed that to that?
11:54:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: while they are conferring -- never
11:54:29 mind.
11:54:30 >>> In a problem.
11:54:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak on the
11:54:32 continuance of item number 56?
11:54:37 I have a motion and second.
11:54:38 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:54:40 Opposed, Nay.
11:54:42 Need to open item 57.
11:54:44 >> So moved.
11:54:45 >> Second.
11:54:46 (Motion carried).
11:54:59 >>> I'm with land development hear to present WZ
11:55:04 06-45.
11:55:06 John and Jenny Minor.
11:55:09 Requesting a 2(APS) wet zoning at 2511 West Swann
11:55:13 Avenue.
11:55:14 This is the property already wet zoned conditionally

11:55:18 in 2005.
11:55:20 The wet zoning expired in February of this year.
11:55:24 There are some properties which are wet zoned.
11:55:31 There is also property which is residentially zoned
11:55:36 and institutional.
11:55:43 You can see all of them.
11:55:44 And the provision for City Council members to waive.
11:55:52 Actually ask -- the land development has in a
11:55:57 objections.
11:56:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
11:56:06 You might have mentioned this.
11:56:07 I apologize if you did.
11:56:08 Are there any limitations on hours or any other types
11:56:14 of issues, hours of operation or anything?
11:56:18 I think they are only open limited hours anyway.
11:56:21 So I am just wondering if they would voluntarily --
11:56:27 maybe you can discuss it with petitioner.
11:56:36 >>> Police department.
11:56:36 We have no objections to this wet zoning.
11:56:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
11:56:46 >>> John C. Minor, 205 south Audubon Avenue.
11:56:50 I have been sworn in.

11:56:51 Thank you, council, for giving me the opportunity to
11:56:53 come here this morning and talk to you.
11:56:55 Actually, I would really like to start off by publicly
11:56:59 thanking you for giving us the opportunity.
11:57:02 The leap of faith that you took in giving us the
11:57:05 one-year conditional to sell beer and wine.
11:57:09 I can't thank you enough.
11:57:10 You really helped a new business continue to evolve
11:57:15 and grow.
11:57:17 So I really would like to thank you on that.
11:57:19 I believe my wife and I have upheld everything that
11:57:23 council would expect from us.
11:57:27 We have had no complaints.
11:57:28 And as you can see, behind me is quite different than
11:57:33 what it typically is.
11:57:35 (Laughter).
11:57:35 Usually as a lot of people here to speak.
11:57:39 I do have two letters in front of me from the
11:57:45 homeowners association.
11:57:46 One is actually supporting.
11:57:47 One is Parkland Estates, the president, something he
11:57:52 wrote to the people of Parkland Estates.

11:57:55 It is not in any way supporting us but it is to say
11:58:00 that the majority of the homeowners association
11:58:03 actually came back in our favor.
11:58:05 And in all respects, he did say we did not win by a
11:58:12 lot.
11:58:12 He said it was very close.
11:58:23 He's always been very nice.
11:58:25 He said we didn't win by a lot.
11:58:26 But I think as you can see, things have changed quite
11:58:29 a bit from what it was.
11:58:30 And we tried very hard to be good neighbors to
11:58:32 everyone.
11:58:36 And I will try to answer any questions.
11:58:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: I do have a few questions, Mr. Minor.
11:58:42 How are you doing?
11:58:43 >>> Very good.
11:58:44 A little nervous.
11:58:44 >>: You remember about a year ago we had a
11:58:46 conversation.
11:58:46 And although when you included that thank you awhile
11:58:49 ago, maybe not verbally but certainly in the back of
11:58:51 your mind you were not thanking me, that's for sure.

11:58:54 >>> I have no bad blood.
11:58:55 >> No, neither do I.
11:58:59 >>> I wish you would come in.
11:59:00 >> I am going to.
11:59:02 I just want top say this on the record.
11:59:04 I take very hard looks at what I do and how I vote.
11:59:07 And I look at the neighborhood that's the most
11:59:09 impacted and I listen to them.
11:59:10 And I kind of associate where they are as a
11:59:14 neighborhood to the businesses that's coming in in
11:59:17 close proximity, as I would, too, as well, I think Mr.
11:59:21 Palupus, standing strong and tall for St. John's Greek
11:59:30 orthodox.
11:59:31 Just as I was very verbal against you, so were the
11:59:35 letters appropriately sent in public recordwise sent
11:59:39 to me about the neighborhood worrying about some
11:59:42 intrusion that you might cause, and some problems with
11:59:43 the wet zoning.
11:59:44 I know that I got a lot of calls and letters from some
11:59:50 mutual friends, some physician bus the fact is they
11:59:54 didn't live there. They have their businesses and
11:59:57 they get to go home.

11:59:58 All those reasons were the reasons I didn't support
12:00:01 you.
12:00:01 And I want you to know that I was almost anxious when
12:00:08 I saw you in the audience to tell you that I was
12:00:10 wrong.
12:00:10 And that's a wonderful thing.
12:00:12 Because Tampa process worked.
12:00:13 Some of us supported you.
12:00:15 One of us didn't.
12:00:16 I don't know if somebody else was on my side.
12:00:18 But, at the same time, you did what you had to do.
12:00:21 You took the charge, went out there, you certainly
12:00:25 dealt with the neighborhood in terms of the issues.
12:00:27 You have gotten along for a year.
12:00:28 And I just want to tell you, I'm very, very happy that
12:00:33 my vote was cast the wrong way.
12:00:35 Because I think you're doing a good job.
12:00:39 I've heard more quiet input, not to make Mr. Shelby
12:00:42 nervous, not particularly about the issue of coming
12:00:44 back for the wet zoning, but in conversation and in
12:00:47 groups and in meetings with particularly Parkland
12:00:50 Estates.

12:00:52 I am campaigns in that area for another office.
12:00:54 And indirectly they have had no complaints about
12:00:56 anything that is going around their neighborhood or
12:00:59 close to it.
12:01:00 That includes you as well.
12:01:01 So in general comment.
12:01:02 So the long and the short is, I'm glad you proved me
12:01:05 wrong.
12:01:05 It's my pleasure to change my vote and good luck to
12:01:07 you and I will be coming by to do some shopping.
12:01:10 >>> Thank you.
12:01:10 That means an awful lot to me.
12:01:13 >> To me too,.
12:01:14 And I'm really glad that you were right and I was
12:01:16 wrong on this one.
12:01:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I had all the faith in you,
12:01:20 John, that you would do a good thing.
12:01:22 And I think that the neighborhood to the south of you,
12:01:29 they had -- they shouldn't have any complaints.
12:01:31 And it would have been, like you said, a leap of faith
12:01:36 for you all not to do the right thing.
12:01:38 So I have been to your establishment a number of

12:01:41 times, as you well know, and I have been pleasantly
12:01:46 surprised and pleasantly pleased at what I have seen
12:01:48 in the quality of your food.
12:01:50 And the people that go in there, especially at lunch
12:01:55 time when I go.
12:01:56 But you have -- you are a good man, Charley brown.
12:02:06 I am glad you are back.
12:02:07 I don't see anyone behind you so I know that I will
12:02:09 support you.
12:02:12 >>> Thank you, Mary.
12:02:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to make a quick brief
12:02:16 comment.
12:02:16 I was glad to be on the supporting side with you
12:02:21 brought this petition forward in the very beginning.
12:02:24 I do remember the neighborhood concerns but I felt
12:02:26 very comfortable with the quality of this product that
12:02:28 you were trying to present to the neighborhoods.
12:02:31 And also, I also visited your store and I was very
12:02:37 impressed with the quality.
12:02:38 And the atmosphere of your facility.
12:02:44 And there wasn't any two dollar bottles of beer in
12:02:49 there that the neighborhoods were worried about, beer

12:02:51 bottles being Straughn all over the street.
12:02:53 And as I said before and I'll say again, I still can't
12:02:58 fathom transients coming in and buying 2 and $300
12:03:02 bottles of Dom Perignon and seeing those all over the
12:03:06 streets of South Tampa.
12:03:08 But you all have Donnell -- done a wonderful job.
12:03:11 I think you and your wife give an excellent service to
12:03:13 that community.
12:03:14 And I wish you well or continued success in the
12:03:17 future.
12:03:18 >>> Thank you very much, sir.
12:03:19 I appreciate it.
12:03:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Minor, what are the current
12:03:24 hours of operation?
12:03:25 >>> Current hours are Monday through Friday, nine to
12:03:27 eight.
12:03:27 And Saturdays ten to six.
12:03:29 We are closed on Sundays.
12:03:31 I don't have any desire to do any longer days.
12:03:35 It's interesting because we have actually shortened
12:03:38 the hours from the last time I was here by an hour.
12:03:40 >> Did we put a limitation on the hours last time?

12:03:43
12:03:44 >>> No, we did New York City sir.
12:03:45 >> I think especially in and around these
12:03:47 neighborhoods on Howard, on Howard Avenue, Mary, we --
12:03:55 >>> In a, John.
12:03:55 >> We have imposed hours but we have asked that they
12:03:58 accept hours of operation, just to make sure the
12:04:01 neighborhood is protected as much as possible.
12:04:07 I have been in Mr. Minor's store.
12:04:09 He's a nice guy.
12:04:11 His wife is lovely.
12:04:12 But it doesn't matter because the wet zoning runs with
12:04:15 the property.
12:04:18 The next person can stay open until midnight and sell
12:04:23 dollar bill and wine because wave no limitation on
12:04:25 that.
12:04:25 And I could get legal counsel to concur with that but
12:04:29 I think it's true.
12:04:30 My whole point is, I would respectfully ask Mr.
12:04:33 Miner -- Mr. Minor would agree voluntarily to limit
12:04:37 the hours of operation to 9:00, to sell not any later
12:04:42 than 9:00 on any given evening.

12:04:44 Would you have any problems with that?
12:04:47 >>> I don't even know if that's something the city can
12:04:49 legally enforce.
12:04:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, we can.
12:04:53 If you agree to it, then --
12:04:56 >>> I would like to make a comment on that point you
12:04:58 just brought up, though, is that --
12:05:01 >>KEVIN WHITE: You have to ask your wife, right?
12:05:03 (Laughter).
12:05:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the baby today?
12:05:10 >>> If something were to happen and we to leave, yes,
12:05:13 the wet zoning does stay with the property.
12:05:15 But also, I mean, there is a certain amount of time
12:05:19 that it's going to dry up.
12:05:20 And what's the odd that somebody is going to come up
12:05:23 and pay the kind of rent I'm paying for that space
12:05:25 within a 30 day time?
12:05:27 >>> I don't play the odds.
12:05:28 I'm just asking the question.
12:05:29 Do you have any problems?
12:05:30 >> My wife is not here so I would say I can't answer
12:05:36 at this time.

12:05:36 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to check with your wife.
12:05:39 Because we come first, that's right.
12:05:40 >> So you wouldn't agree to that?
12:05:42 You wouldn't accept even though -- you're saying
12:05:45 you're open till eight.
12:05:46 I'm saying go till nine?
12:05:51 >>> I don't understand why I have to.
12:05:52 >> You don't have to.
12:05:53 Thank you.
12:05:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
12:05:56 wants top speak on item number 57?
12:05:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
12:06:00 >> Second.
12:06:01 (Motion carried).
12:06:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Who is going to read it?
12:06:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Me.
12:06:07 Move an ordinance repealing ordinance number 2005-55
12:06:12 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol
12:06:14 of more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by
12:06:17 weight and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer
12:06:20 and wine 2(APS) in sealed containers for consumption
12:06:23 off premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or

12:06:26 tract of land located at 2511 West Swann Avenue,
12:06:30 Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in
12:06:32 section 3 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to
12:06:35 distance based upon certain findings, providing for
12:06:38 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
12:06:41 effective date.
12:06:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:06:44 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
12:06:45 Opposed, Nay.
12:06:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I take the chair privilege and say
12:06:53 let's just do 58 and when we come back we'll have our
12:06:56 appeals.
12:07:06 Number 58 we need to open.
12:07:07 >>: So moved.
12:07:08 >> Second.
12:07:08 (Motion carried)
12:07:10 >> The petitioner is looking for the wet zoning at the
12:07:31 location of 2901.
12:07:42 There is one residential property within 150 feet.
12:07:56 City Council can waive distance separation.
12:07:58 And council members can address the operation.
12:08:04 The land development has no objection.

12:08:19 >> We have no objections to this wet zoning from Tampa
12:08:23 Police Department.
12:08:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
12:08:29 >>> My name is -- you have to excuse me, I'm kind of
12:08:34 nervous.
12:08:59 I told her to watch me channel 16.
12:09:03 (Laughter)
12:09:10 I purchased this property a couple years ago and used
12:09:13 to be a gas station anyway.
12:09:18 It was a deserted building, all the trash, all the --
12:09:25 I took a gamble on that building.
12:09:30 To convert it to a real nice grocery store with
12:09:32 gasoline.
12:09:33 And the bank allowed me to redesign it to a new style.
12:09:47 So I am seeking to get 2(APS) on that building.
12:09:50 And I don't have really very -- I'm surrounded with
12:09:55 hotel and across the street.
12:09:57 There's other convenience store, you know.
12:10:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
12:10:06 wants to speak on item 58?
12:10:08 >> Move to close.
12:10:09 >> Second.

12:10:09 (Motion carried).
12:10:10 >> Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of
12:10:16 beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight
12:10:19 and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless
12:10:22 of content beer and wine 2(APS) in sealed containers
12:10:25 for consumption off premises only at or from that
12:10:28 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 2901
12:10:31 north 50th street Tampa, Florida as more
12:10:34 particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving
12:10:36 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
12:10:39 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
12:10:41 conflict, providing an effective date.
12:10:43 >> Second.
12:10:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Do you want to say something now so
12:10:46 you won't be in much trouble?
12:10:48 >>> I'm sorry I give you the wrong channel.
12:10:50 Somebody told me it's channel 16.
12:10:53 (Laughter).
12:10:55 >> That's the county channel.
12:10:58 >>> I was misled.
12:11:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: It passed anyway.
12:11:03 Good luck.

12:11:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Council will now be in recess until
12:11:06 1:30.
12:11:07 (recess taken at 12:12 p.m.)
13:33:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:35:59 order.
13:35:59 Roll call.
13:36:03 Tampa City Council is called back to order.
13:36:04 Roll call.
13:36:05 [Roll Call]
13:36:06 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we go to item 59 for the
13:36:08 continued public hearing.
13:36:09 And we are going to do 59 and 60 at the same time.
13:36:15 >> Move to open.
13:36:17 >> Second.
13:36:17 >>GWEN MILLER: It's continued.
13:36:24 >>> Council, this is an appeal hearing from the
13:36:26 decision of the architectural review commission.
13:36:28 I have provided for you and you have that in front of
13:36:35 you highlighted, chapter 27, section 373, the standard
13:36:40 of re, this is to be heard in certiorari de novo, and
13:36:57 determine whether the board decision was -- and three,
13:37:03 whether the requirements of law have been observed.

13:37:05 An again, a remainedr to council that council may
13:37:07 either affirm the A.R.C.'s decision or may remand the
13:37:12 matter to the board or commission for further
13:37:14 proceedings with direction on how the A.R.C. failed to
13:37:18 comply with the above standard.
13:37:19 And I believe -- is there anything else that I should
13:37:25 add?
13:37:26 Okay.
13:37:31 >>> Del Acosta, architectural review commission.
13:37:34 And I am going to review today the case involving
13:37:37 A.R.C. 06-30, 1814 hills Avenue.
13:37:46 The 1929 Sanborn map, between Albany and dumb by.
13:37:59 At the time that this property was inventoried for
13:38:06 Sanborn, it has since been bifurcated, and now 150
13:38:16 feet deep with the site on the map over here.
13:38:21 Somewhere in here is the bifurcation.
13:38:25 It has been determined by the City of Tampa zoning
13:38:27 department, the legal nonconforming lot, that evidence
13:38:34 was submitted in your record.
13:38:35 This is a photograph of the subject site.
13:38:39 Currently, there is a structure towards the rear of
13:38:41 the property near the sidewalk, essentially the

13:38:46 property bounded, the western property boundary,
13:38:49 approximately over here.
13:38:51 Some of these --
13:38:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Del, while you have that picture up
13:38:59 was there another house there?
13:39:01 >>> No, sir there, was never a house on the site.
13:39:05 >> That yard that you were just shown there has always
13:39:07 been empty?
13:39:09 >>> This is Sanborn, and nothing to indicate there was
13:39:15 ever a house there.
13:39:16 The structure in the rear has been there quite awhile.
13:39:19 , a altered beyond recognition. The structure there
13:39:25 now is a noncontributing structure.
13:39:30 Again, this is the photograph.
13:39:32 This would be -- here is the sidewalk.
13:39:35 And this is the driveway that connects hills Avenue
13:39:39 with the structure in the rear.
13:39:41 The request before the architectural commission
13:39:44 regarding this appeal today was for the primary
13:39:47 structure, a height increase from 35 feet to 37 feet,
13:39:51 and a certificate of appropriateness for new
13:39:53 construction.

13:39:55 And then I will actually go through the drawings with
13:39:58 the approval.
13:40:01 But the variance from 35 to 37 feet was granted,
13:40:06 because it satisfied the requirements of section
13:40:10 27-213, and specifically the narrowness of the lot
13:40:15 requires the design solution that is consistent with
13:40:17 the height, that petitioner has met all the heights
13:40:22 criteria.
13:40:24 Regarding the certificate of appropriateness, final
13:40:27 approval was granted by the A.R.C.
13:40:31 And both of these were granted on March 6th, the
13:40:34 final approval with five conditions. The five
13:40:36 conditions or oriented towards the architecture.
13:40:42 I will go through -- aluminum windows, first four
13:40:48 elevations to be submitted per A.R.C. requirements,
13:40:52 gable shingle to be provided by staff and staff to
13:40:56 clarify the dimensional requirement.
13:40:58 Those were the conditions of the final approval.
13:41:03 >>> We will now go through the certificate of a
13:41:08 appropriateness where the variances were.
13:41:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification, the A.R.C.
13:41:21 approved this, and then somebody else has filed the

13:41:25 objection.
13:41:26 >>> Correct.
13:41:27 Approval for both the variance and certificate of
13:41:30 appropriateness by the A.R.C.
13:41:34 This is a site plan of the site as it currently
13:41:38 exists.
13:41:38 There is a structure to the east A. structure to the
13:41:40 west. The subject site is 48 feet by 150 feet.
13:41:44 This is an existing structure on the site.
13:41:47 You can see it's at the rear of the site.
13:41:51 This is a context elevation of hills Avenue as you
13:41:55 would see it today.
13:41:56 The house to the east.
13:41:57 The house to the west.
13:41:59 Now, this structure, because it's an elevation, you
13:42:02 lose the depth. This is about 130 feet behind the
13:42:08 structures give or take 15 feet.
13:42:11 Also, I want to call to your attention the location of
13:42:14 the trees.
13:42:16 An oak tree, oak tree, oak tree, a grand tree, and an
13:42:19 oak tree.
13:42:19 These are on the west side of the site.

13:42:23 Most of them are on the property to the west.
13:42:25 They actually are not physically on the subject site.
13:42:28 >> What's the closest intersection?
13:42:31 >>> Albany here.
13:42:31 Dumbee over here.
13:42:40 This is the elevation and the site plan approved by
13:42:44 the architectural review commission.
13:42:46 The front yard was obtained by front yard averaging.
13:42:50 It's in lane with the house to the west and to the
13:42:52 east.
13:42:52 No side yard.
13:42:54 Variances were requested.
13:42:56 The only variance requested for the primary structure
13:42:59 was for a height increase of two feet from 35 to 37
13:43:04 feet.
13:43:06 And I'll call to your attention that additional two
13:43:08 feet is not for the entire structure, it is for the
13:43:11 peak of the roof.
13:43:12 It was determined through the public hearing process
13:43:16 that the historic reference on the approved structure
13:43:21 was a house whose features are a steeper design
13:43:25 pitched roof, in order to accommodate the designed

13:43:28 features of the house and also to add hear to the
13:43:32 A.R.C. requirement of first floor elevation.
13:43:37 This is how to determine the additional two-feet
13:43:40 height was necessary to accomplish this.
13:43:42 This is the height, the house on the site, and then
13:43:47 actually an existing structure to be converted to an
13:43:50 accessory structure to the rear. This structure here
13:43:53 is not subject of your appeal today.
13:44:04 This is a front elevation a three-story structure,
13:44:07 approximately 2 feet 4 inches above grade in keeping
13:44:09 with the A.R.C. requirement, the structure on either
13:44:13 side.
13:44:14 This gives you an indication of the variance in
13:44:19 question.
13:44:20 This is a front elevation.
13:44:21 It's a 3-story structure.
13:44:24 Masonry, continuous foundation walls, siding, metal
13:44:32 roof.
13:44:32 This is the west elevation.
13:44:33 This is the elevation that fronts against the
13:44:36 driveway.
13:44:37 The rear elevation and east elevation.

13:44:50 The particular site is a larger scale again with front
13:44:54 yard averaging.
13:44:55 The accessory structure, the conversion of existing
13:44:58 structure, the drive way, on the west side, the trees,
13:45:01 and the structure here, the portion that is along this
13:45:07 route over here.
13:45:08 And that is my presentation on the certificate of
13:45:10 appropriateness and the variance, if you have any
13:45:12 questions.
13:45:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Acosta, did the staff or the
13:45:20 A.R.C. take into consideration the total -- the
13:45:24 ultimate total map on the site?
13:45:27 Because it appears that you're starting with a -- I
13:45:31 don't know how many square feet is that building
13:45:34 that's in the back that's going to be converted to
13:45:37 accessory.
13:45:37 And then you're adding to that of significant house on
13:45:41 top of that so what's left.
13:45:42 I guess that's just my question.
13:45:44 >>> Well, the staff recommendation for the A.R.C., to
13:45:48 satisfy the Hyde Park design guidelines and the
13:45:52 criteria of scale and massing.

13:45:53 So it was found to be consistent with the design
13:45:55 guidelines.
13:45:57 This structure over here, which is another issue, they
13:45:59 have requested the appeal variances, that they are
13:46:06 coming back to the A.R.C. where a -- with a new
13:46:09 request.
13:46:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They are requesting to modify that
13:46:13 structure, and that's still a different process?
13:46:16 >>> That's a different process.
13:46:17 That's not the subject of your appeal.
13:46:19 Your appeal is this structure right here.
13:46:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I guess we are looking at
13:46:33 what's going on on the entire lot.
13:46:35 So in the A.R.C. process they would not have?
13:46:38 >>> Well, they would were looked at as two individual
13:46:41 structures.
13:46:41 The existing structure, they were converting it as two
13:46:46 residential units, converting it to the accessory
13:46:48 structure, the primary structure.
13:46:50 In the process the ground floor, majority of the
13:46:52 ground floor was being converted to two parking
13:46:54 spaces.

13:46:55 >> And then the upstairs.
13:46:57 >>> And the upstairs would be accessory structure to
13:46:59 the primary structure.
13:47:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For clarification how is the appeal
13:47:08 defined?
13:47:09 It's an appeal from the -- by the A.R.C. to allow this
13:47:14 to be built?
13:47:15 >>> It's an appeal to the A.R.C. H-on the variances
13:47:21 granted on the height.
13:47:23 And the certificate of appropriateness.
13:47:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
13:47:29 And it's dealing with this structure over here, which
13:47:31 is this structure here in elevation.
13:47:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions by council members?
13:47:37 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
13:47:44 Before we get into the merits of the appeal, there are
13:47:46 just a couple of comments I wanted to make about the
13:47:48 record that you received, and some of the issues that
13:47:51 you will be hearing today.
13:47:53 The first thing I did want to clarify is what was
13:47:56 considered at the A.R.C. was variances to the primary
13:47:59 structure, and if that was approved, then they could

13:48:02 approve the certificate of appropriateness, which they
13:48:05 in fact did approve.
13:48:06 It was also heard by the A.R.C., variance request to
13:48:09 be an accessory structure as well as certificate of
13:48:13 appropriateness.
13:48:14 Those were denied and not in front of you.
13:48:16 The only issues are the variances to the primary
13:48:19 structure, and the certificate of appropriateness for
13:48:22 the primary structure.
13:48:24 There are two issues that were brought before the
13:48:28 A.R.C. regarding the petition, which are in fact part
13:48:30 of the record.
13:48:31 However, the A.R.C. was advised that these two issues
13:48:34 were not relevant to the consideration and I will be
13:48:38 advising you again today but it is not relevant to
13:48:40 this council's consideration on this appeal. The
13:48:43 first was an argument that was made that the petition
13:48:45 shall be before shouldn't be before the A.R.C. at all
13:48:48 because in it was not a buildable lot. The zoning
13:48:51 administrator is the one who makes the determination
13:48:53 whether or not the petition is appropriate to go
13:48:56 before the A.R.C.

13:48:57 In this case it was determined it was a buildable lot
13:49:00 and that the petition was therefore appropriate to be
13:49:04 heard.
13:49:04 Nothing in the code allowed the A.R.C. to have the
13:49:08 authority to determine whether or not something is
13:49:10 appropriately before it.
13:49:12 The only thing they are allowed to consider are the
13:49:13 variances, the certificate of appropriateness.
13:49:17 The remedy, disagreed with the interpretation that
13:49:23 this is appropriate to go forward, to get into that in
13:49:25 writing and appeal that.
13:49:27 That appeal would be noticed and be heard before the
13:49:30 A.R.C. to eventually appeal that to you.
13:49:32 However it was never noticed, never appropriate to be
13:49:35 heard and that was the advice given to the A.R.C. and
13:49:37 I would advise you today that information also is not
13:49:40 relevant to your consideration.
13:49:41 The second issue is regarding the trimming of a grand
13:49:45 tree without a permit.
13:49:46 Information was submitted to the A.R.C., and again the
13:49:49 A.R.C. was advised that would be appropriate to be
13:49:51 heard in the code enforcement process and that there

13:49:54 was nothing in the consideration that the certificate
13:49:56 of appropriateness, nor in the variance criteria that
13:49:59 would allow them to consider whether or not a grand
13:50:03 tree was removed with or without a permit.
13:50:05 And that is also not applicable.
13:50:08 And with those two clarifications, then allow city to
13:50:15 move forward.
13:50:18 >>> Customarily, appeal hearings, 15 minutes is
13:50:21 allowed for each side.
13:50:22 And with council's approval, I recommend that that be
13:50:29 followed today.
13:50:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move we allow in excess of 15
13:50:37 minutes for presentation.
13:50:39 >> Second.
13:50:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No, we don't need that long.
13:50:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ten.
13:50:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Five minutes?
13:50:52 Mr. Harrison?
13:50:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We really only need to hear from the
13:50:55 appellant.
13:50:56 I'm not sure the appellee --
13:51:02 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.

13:51:03 Actually, you have already heard that presentation
13:51:07 from Del.
13:51:08 However, in a third party appeal they would have the
13:51:12 right to hear that in the time limits they have
13:51:14 determined we are recommending ten minutes, and
13:51:19 however, because it's a third party appeal, and the
13:51:22 petitioner is likely to copy on it, I would strongly
13:51:26 suggest that you do hear from the property owner's
13:51:30 representative.
13:51:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would agree for the sake of
13:51:33 protecting the record.
13:51:38 They are not obliged to have to use it.
13:51:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's say 15 minutes as far as the
13:51:44 appellant is concerned. The property owner, we'll
13:51:47 just have to wait and see what outstanding issues.
13:51:53 The third party --
13:51:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The third party is doing the appeal.
13:52:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move for -- 15 minutes.
13:52:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:52:09 (Motion carried)
13:52:20 >>> 1818 westfield.
13:52:23 And I have been -- I haven't been sworn in.

13:52:26 I do Ned to be sworn in?
13:52:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to swear everybody.
13:52:31 Would everybody please stand and raise your right
13:52:33 hand?
13:52:33 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth,
13:52:38 the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
13:52:42 >>> Again my name is Jerry -- Tolton, and I am the
13:52:49 land owner to the west of this proposed development.
13:52:53 I'm here on behalf of ourselves, as well as P. J.
13:52:59 summerville and her husband.
13:53:00 They live on Richardson Avenue, which is in the block
13:53:03 in the street directly behind, and their property sits
13:53:06 directly to the south of this one.
13:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Which one is your house?
13:53:15 Is it on that drawing there?
13:53:22 >>> This is our house.
13:53:23 >> And where do the Poes live, Josh Poe?
13:53:28 >>> They live down here on the corner, maybe about
13:53:32 four house as way.
13:53:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
13:53:35 >>> Essentially, I want to start.
13:53:40 The staff has been very, very patient with me.

13:53:42 I respect it and I really appreciate it.
13:53:44 But I do take a little bit of issue about the way it's
13:53:46 been presented to you today.
13:53:51 I think I can make the connection why the accessory
13:53:54 structure is relevant to our purposes today, because
13:53:57 essentially what happened as you heard from Mr --
13:54:04 where is the -- okay, yeah.
13:54:22 I think we should start at the beginning.
13:54:24 When the developer wanted to look at both of these
13:54:26 properties at the same time, there was an inquiry made
13:54:30 with city staff as to whether or not this narrow lot
13:54:33 here was a buildable lot.
13:54:35 That was the initial question that he had before he
13:54:38 purchased.
13:54:41 They determined, if I understand correctly, this is
13:54:44 Pete Cowell's, I believe exhibit number 27 in your
13:54:47 record, that they determined that because this was an
13:54:50 existing dwelling, that it was a buildable lot, per
13:54:57 the code, and so they were able to construct a primary
13:55:02 single-family residence, as well as a quote-unquote
13:55:07 customary accessory structure.
13:55:11 The problem we have -- and we are not appealing that

13:55:17 finding.
13:55:17 And of course Ms. Kert got up here and said that's the
13:55:21 one part that we agree.
13:55:23 But the problem we have is we feel that is sort of a
13:55:28 bait and switch, because if this is a primary
13:55:34 dwelling, and that's the reason that the entire lot is
13:55:36 buildable in the first place -- and that's fine -- it
13:55:39 cannot magically become an accessory structure.
13:55:42 And the point that -- I guess the core of our
13:55:47 frustration is the only person who has ever designated
13:55:50 this to be an accessory structure is the developer.
13:55:53 And as you can see, it sits as an accessory structure
13:56:01 and it's never been an accessory structure.
13:56:03 It violates the project, the rear yard setback, and
13:56:10 the -- the gross square footage, maximum, which is
13:56:16 supposed to be 900 square feet for two story. This is
13:56:20 actually 1,628 square feet.
13:56:23 So when the developer brought this, he had to have
13:56:27 this a primary dwelling.
13:56:31 As soon as he got the okay from Pete Cowell magically
13:56:38 it became an accessory and this he now wants to build
13:56:41 as a primary dwelling.

13:56:42 I think the A.R.C. has to go back and review this
13:56:46 because I think you have a little issue here and Mr.
13:56:48 Acosta is right, they turned down a petition top do
13:56:51 work on the outside of this thing.
13:56:53 But that's not really -- I don't think that really
13:56:56 captures the problem, which is our objection below.
13:57:00 You either at this point have two primary dwellings
13:57:03 sitting on this lot, or you have a primary dwelling
13:57:07 proposed along with an accessory structure that is not
13:57:11 in any sense of the word customary.
13:57:14 So if your code -- and Ms. O'Dowd's opinion at the
13:57:19 A.R.C. hearing, they are allowed to have an accessory
13:57:24 structure.
13:57:24 That is not what this is.
13:57:25 So that was really, on that particular point or
13:57:28 procedure, that really was our objection.
13:57:30 Now, continuing on, the problem here is this is a very
13:57:40 intense land use.
13:57:41 As you can see, it's a 48-foot wide lot.
13:57:45 This is a 3900 square foot, gross square foot
13:57:49 structure, on top of a 1628 square foot structure, or
13:57:54 a gross land use density of 5519 square feet on a sub

13:58:01 standard lot that's 7200 square feet.
13:58:04 And it is a 3-story, 4-bedroom, 3-bath proposed, and
13:58:10 it does go 37 feet.
13:58:19 Just to give you a little bit -- I hate to bore you
13:58:22 with statistics.
13:58:23 But just to give you -- it is 26 feet 8 inches wide,
13:58:31 706 feet long.
13:58:33 It is 24 to 33% taller than the two neighboring homes.
13:58:37 Its height to width ratio is 261% greater than the two
13:58:45 neighboring homes.
13:58:46 The bulk of the proposed project is 256% greater than
13:58:53 the average on the block.
13:58:57 256% greater in terms of land use.
13:59:02 The side coverage is 62%, which the applicant -- the
13:59:07 land owner has already admitted is a violation of the
13:59:09 zoning.
13:59:11 Because I guess the zoning restriction is you can have
13:59:15 50% impervious.
13:59:18 They admit they are at 62%.
13:59:21 And what they suggested doing to mitigate the
13:59:25 stormwater run-off in that situation is to build some
13:59:28 sort of collection vault or subsurface tank on the

13:59:34 eastern side of the property.
13:59:38 Now, you know, there's this notion that the -- I don't
13:59:47 do this, maybe a collection vault on a single-family
13:59:50 residence is not that unusual.
13:59:52 But the problem that we face, and that wave to deal
13:59:56 with down the line, is that that collection vault sort
14:00:00 of in our minds, the fact that you even need some sort
14:00:04 of engineering marvel to catch the excess rain water
14:00:08 for flooding purposes, really, really covers -- and I
14:00:12 think this is what's most troubling to people who live
14:00:16 on the street.
14:00:16 Once the developer has built this residence, he is
14:00:19 gone.
14:00:19 And if the collection vault doesn't work, we on either
14:00:26 side in the rear, hills Avenue, face notifications.
14:00:32 We have in a guarantee that that would actually work.
14:00:35 And it just seems to us, and it just goes to the
14:00:39 question of the density and this high use.
14:00:46 Let me show you.
14:00:48 I have the thing actually put on the Elmo, some other
14:00:51 houses that are right in this neighborhood.
14:00:57 And give you, kind of orient you to the neighborhood.

14:01:04 This is just houses on either east or west of the
14:01:09 project or across the street.
14:01:18 Most are bungalow style.
14:01:20 Most are around 2200 square feet.
14:01:33 While he's doing that, let me also tell you that we
14:01:39 look at -- and this is in your record.
14:01:41 We have looked at the land use density ratios of this
14:01:45 section of the block, looking at the houses here.
14:01:49 The average land use density square foot of lot is one
14:01:57 square foot of building to every 3.3 square feet of
14:02:00 lot.
14:02:02 The petitioner's land use density is one approximate
14:02:07 square foot of building to 1.3 square foot of lot.
14:02:11 It's really a one to one ratio in terms of gross
14:02:14 square footage.
14:02:16 And that that accounts for the 256% greater density.
14:02:34 Let me turn really quickly.
14:02:38 It was suggested -- and this really goes to the issue
14:02:41 of the certificate of appropriateness and the granting
14:02:43 of that, because -- in granting the certificate of
14:02:47 appropriateness, what they have essentially done is
14:02:50 granted the appropriateness for this primary

14:02:54 structure, as Mr. Acosta said, but allowing this to
14:02:58 stay in place.
14:03:00 And the problem, of course, is now as you heard, to
14:03:04 get another petition that from what I understand, and
14:03:07 the land owner's applicant can -- address it, it's not
14:03:11 going to be moved, not going to be taken down he
14:03:15 doesn't want it moved and he doesn't want it taken
14:03:17 down.
14:03:17 He wants to keep the 628 square foot accessory
14:03:20 structure.
14:03:21 And the problem again -- and I am trying not to repeat
14:03:24 myself -- but that's not customary, it's not allowed
14:03:28 in the code.
14:03:28 And you heard again Mr. Acosta say, this were
14:03:32 according to the 1929 Sanborn map, this was a vacant
14:03:37 lot. If this was a vacant lot, and any developer or
14:03:41 homeowner came in and said I want to build a 4,000
14:03:44 square foot primary and I want a 1600 foot accessory,
14:03:47 the answer would most likely be no.
14:03:50 And so we don't know why the answer would be yes in a
14:03:54 situation where you have such a small and narrow lot.
14:03:57 Let me address real quickly the hardship criteria.

14:04:01 It's our position, and I think the record varies on
14:04:04 this, the applicant, land owner, developer, did not
14:04:07 meet any of the five hardship criteria he has to meet.
14:04:12 I am not going to read what he said.
14:04:14 But let me distill it.
14:04:18 This lot is too small and too narrow, therefore I have
14:04:20 to build this much structure.
14:04:22 That just doesn't make sense.
14:04:24 The other one is, if I'm not allowed to build this
14:04:28 much structure -- and I want to quote him --
14:04:40 He says at page 28 of the transcript, it would be an
14:04:43 economic loss to build a smaller home.
14:04:47 Well, this is not a hardship criteria. And in fact
14:04:52 your code, in ascribing hardship criteria,
14:04:56 specifically states, mere inconvenience and inability
14:04:58 to obtain a hair financial return is not a hardship
14:05:02 criteria.
14:05:03 So our contention would be obviously that he hasn't
14:05:06 met or established any of the hardship criteria for a
14:05:11 variance.
14:05:12 And although I do respect him, I do take issue with
14:05:15 Mr. Acosta when he says it needs to be to meet

14:05:21 guidelines for compatibility.
14:05:22 I think we have established -- and we certainly
14:05:25 established that it does not.
14:05:27 And quite frankly, their evidence to be charitable was
14:05:34 de minimus in terms of establishing compatibility.
14:05:40 This is the land owner's assay in support of this
14:05:45 project.
14:05:46 This is the Georgian which is down the street in this
14:05:53 direction.
14:05:53 So it was a very big building.
14:05:56 I can see that.
14:05:57 I don't know -- and I don't know if we want comparing
14:06:00 single-family homes to apartment complexes.
14:06:04 Is the -- I don't know if we want to hold up the bell
14:06:16 aroma to show historic designs.
14:06:21 This is the home on Fremont Avenue.
14:06:23 And this is part of the -- this is a half mile away.
14:06:33 This is the biggest home on hills Avenue.
14:06:37 Their home, or what they propose, under the square
14:06:43 footage by about 30 square feet.
14:06:46 Their home would be the second largest home after this
14:06:48 one on hills Avenue.

14:06:50 And this home sits on a full standard size lot.
14:06:58 This is a home also used in their presentation,
14:07:02 obviously for the height.
14:07:03 But I want to stress this home is nearly 1,000 square
14:07:06 feet smaller than their proposed home, and this also
14:07:10 sits on a full standard size corner lot.
14:07:16 Now that's all the evidence they had of density.
14:07:18 And scale.
14:07:19 And mass.
14:07:20 And proportion.
14:07:21 That's it.
14:07:23 And we put in figures from the property appraiser's
14:07:27 tax role to dispute it.
14:07:31 I don't believe this is a question of their evidence
14:07:33 versus our evidence.
14:07:34 I think this is a question of overwhelming evidence
14:07:36 that they haven't met the requirements versus very
14:07:38 little evidence to suggest otherwise.
14:07:40 And lastly, I know my time is going to wrap up so I
14:07:44 want to get to this.
14:07:46 The city would not let the A.R.C. take into account
14:07:51 the unpermitted pruning of a grand tree that according

14:07:56 to their own site plan fully sits on our property.
14:08:03 This is a picture.
14:08:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
14:08:06 Well, not necessarily for you.
14:08:10 But need legal counsel to address it.
14:08:15 I think legal, you told us a minute ago that you
14:08:18 instructed the A.R.C. not to address the tree issue.
14:08:21 We are on appeal of the same issues.
14:08:25 Where are we going?
14:08:30 >>REBECCA KERT: That's correct.
14:08:30 This is in fact part of the record.
14:08:32 It was submitted before the A.R.C.
14:08:34 The A.R.C. was advised that in fact it was not
14:08:36 relevant and they in fact did not consider it.
14:08:39 And we are giving you that same advice today, this is
14:08:43 not relevant, it's not the appropriate forum, it's
14:08:45 appropriate for code enforcement and it doesn't go to
14:08:47 any of the criteria for the certificate of
14:08:49 appropriateness or for the variance.
14:08:51 However, the appeal ant is making his argument that we
14:08:57 are in fact incorrect.
14:08:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's your advice we shouldn't give

14:09:02 this much weight or any weight at all but it's his
14:09:05 prerogative if he wants to use his time this way?
14:09:08 >>> Yes.
14:09:10 >>> With that I will keep it very short.
14:09:14 Council, I think it's relevant.
14:09:16 And this is why I disagree with the city's
14:09:18 interpretation, with all due respect.
14:09:22 This branch of this grand oak was taken down by the
14:09:27 land owner on May 25th, 2005.
14:09:31 (Bell sounds).
14:09:33 Another minute?
14:09:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Please finish up.
14:09:38 >>> Their site plan would not exist if that were then
14:09:41 still there.
14:09:41 That's why we believe it's relevant.
14:09:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:09:45 Next.
14:09:51 >> In the interest of fairness, I move though that we
14:09:54 give Mr. Mechanik 15 minutes as well if he needs it.
14:09:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:09:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
14:10:00 (Motion carried).

14:10:01 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Good afternoon.
14:10:03 My name is David Mechanik, 305 south Boulevard, Tampa,
14:10:06 Florida.
14:10:07 I'm here on behalf of the property owner.
14:10:15 I will definitely speak to all of the issues raised on
14:10:18 the appeal.
14:10:19 But I feel the need to comment on a few inaccurate
14:10:23 statements made by Mr. Tolton.
14:10:27 He indicated that we had acknowledged that we had
14:10:29 violated the zoning regarding the amount of impervious
14:10:33 surface on the property.
14:10:34 First of all that's not a zoning requirement, that's a
14:10:37 stormwater requirement.
14:10:38 And it's not a violation.
14:10:41 What the code requires is if you have impervious
14:10:44 surface of more than 50%, you must then treat the
14:10:47 stormwater -- I'm sorry, retain the stormwater
14:10:52 on-site, which is typically and commonly done through
14:10:56 a vaulting system, and that was testimony to that
14:10:58 effect at the hearing that we proposed to vault.
14:11:03 There's nothing in any way, shape or form as a
14:11:05 violation or anything improper, and we certainly did

14:11:08 not acknowledge a zoning violation.
14:11:11 I believe that comment was used to prejudice my
14:11:13 client's position.
14:11:17 Second, there have been comments about this is the
14:11:19 developer, and he's gone.
14:11:24 My client intends to move into this home with his
14:11:27 family.
14:11:27 There is testimony in the record that my client has a
14:11:30 web site, he is a home builder, and he has a rendering
14:11:34 of this home on his web site, and the appellants have
14:11:39 character rides his position as being offering this
14:11:42 home for sale.
14:11:43 The web site that they introduced into evidence does
14:11:47 not indicate that this home is for sale, does not have
14:11:50 a praise tag associated with it.
14:11:52 He is proud that he will be building this home and
14:11:55 he's showing it on his web site.
14:11:59 He testified that he plans to live in this home.
14:12:02 Speaking to the issues -- and I'll just speak very
14:12:05 briefly on the question of cutting the tree limb.
14:12:08 My client testified that he had nothing to do with
14:12:11 cutting the tree limb.

14:12:13 We were instructed by the city attorney's office that
14:12:17 that would not be a relevant consideration for the
14:12:21 A.R.C. to consider, and of course we also believe that
14:12:24 it's not relevant for council to consider, but since
14:12:27 the issue is raised, I feel I must speak to it.
14:12:30 My client did deny having any involvement cutting the
14:12:33 tree.
14:12:33 In fact, Mr. Tolton's legal council at the A.R.C.
14:12:39 said -- and this is three different points during the
14:12:42 hearing -- I don't know exactly what happened.
14:12:44 I know that -- I want to stand up here and give the
14:12:47 owner the absolute benefit of the doubt.
14:12:49 And then she said later on: I don't know what
14:12:52 happened with regard to the grand tree.
14:12:54 And then later on again, she says: I don't know who
14:12:57 cut the oak either.
14:13:00 Yet they are bringing the issue up to use by innuendo,
14:13:03 the suggestion that my client has done something
14:13:05 improper.
14:13:06 We suggested that they could proceed with a code
14:13:08 enforcement case.
14:13:10 And of course that would be our opportunity to defend

14:13:13 ourselves appropriately.
14:13:14 We certainly did not have the opportunity to do so in
14:13:17 front of the A.R.C.
14:13:19 Again, my client emphatically dense having any
14:13:22 involvement with that.
14:13:25 Concerning the issue about the nonconforming lot --
14:13:28 and I'm not going to beat a dead horse -- but both
14:13:31 Gloria Moreda and Cate O'Dowd reviewed the code with
14:13:34 regard to Mr. Tolton's suggestion that he can't change
14:13:41 the structure, which was identified as a primary
14:13:44 structure into an accessory structure.
14:13:46 There is no such prohibition in the code.
14:13:49 What the code section says is that if you have a lot,
14:13:52 which is deemed to be conform, because of its legal
14:13:56 existence prior to the regulation going into effect,
14:13:59 which required a larger lot size, then you are allowed
14:14:03 to build on that lot.
14:14:06 And what the code section says is that you may build a
14:14:09 primary and a customary accessory structure.
14:14:13 So the idea that you must preserve the primary
14:14:18 structure that existed on the lot, when that same code
14:14:20 section says you may build a new primary and accessory

14:14:25 structure, doesn't make any sense.
14:14:26 The code is allowing me to build two new buildings if
14:14:31 he so chooses but the requirement that you must
14:14:35 preserve the structure that was on the lot is without
14:14:39 any foundation.
14:14:41 And as I indicated, both Ms. Moreda and Ms. O'Dowd
14:14:46 concurred in our interpretation of that.
14:14:50 Regarding the variance criterion again, I think there
14:14:53 is a mischaracterization.
14:14:56 We showed the photographs.
14:14:57 And I won't take the time to show those photographs
14:14:59 again.
14:15:00 We show those photographs simply to show examples of
14:15:04 taller structures within the Hyde Park area.
14:15:07 One of those was a relatively new project, the Bela
14:15:12 Roma and I have no opinion whether that's a great
14:15:15 project, a good looking project or what have you.
14:15:18 I'm simply suggesting that it's an example of taller
14:15:21 buildings within the Hyde Park district.
14:15:24 And there are numerous examples of taller buildings
14:15:27 within Hyde Park.
14:15:28 And we showed four other photographs, three of which

14:15:31 were on hills Avenue, that showed buildings ranging
14:15:35 from 36 to 42 feet.
14:15:39 Our request is for a two-foot variance, from 35 feet
14:15:44 to 37 feet.
14:15:46 The variance itself -- and let me put the rendering
14:15:53 on.
14:16:03 This is depicting in the lower right the front
14:16:05 elevation of the house.
14:16:10 And this dashed line is showing the point at which we
14:16:12 are exceeding the current zoning requirement and
14:16:16 meeting the two-foot variance.
14:16:18 So we are talking about this, what I would
14:16:20 characterize as a tiny variance, just for the upper
14:16:24 tip of the roof, in order to accommodate this
14:16:27 particular structure.
14:16:34 Again, the purpose of those photographs was to show
14:16:37 examples of actually taller structures in that
14:16:40 particular neighborhood.
14:16:43 Speaking to the variance criteria themselves, because
14:16:48 the lot is a legal lot, we are -- which is 48 feet --
14:16:56 we certainly are constrained.
14:16:57 There is nothing more we can do with that particular

14:17:00 lot.
14:17:00 We can't make it bigger.
14:17:01 So that is a basis for consideration of hardship.
14:17:06 The argument that we made is the narrowness of the lot
14:17:09 combined with the fact that we must meet the Hyde Park
14:17:13 design guidelines means that we can't build a shorter,
14:17:18 wider home, as I think the neighbors would prefer.
14:17:22 The width of the lot, coupled with the design
14:17:25 guidelines, meant that what we have to do is come up
14:17:28 with what would amount to a narrow and somewhat taller
14:17:33 structure.
14:17:34 My client met several times with the staff, and they
14:17:38 worked out an idea of coming in with this Victorian
14:17:42 style home.
14:17:42 A Victorian style home has really two characteristics
14:17:45 that dictate the height.
14:17:47 One is that the foundation of the home itself would be
14:17:51 built up off the ground, and as Del indicate, it's
14:17:54 built up about three feet.
14:17:56 A traditional Victorian home -- and this is also in
14:18:00 the record -- would probably be built up even higher.
14:18:02 And that elevation alone would account for the need

14:18:05 for the two-foot variance.
14:18:08 In addition, a Victorian style home, because of the
14:18:11 traditional pitch of the roof, also creates a need for
14:18:15 additional height.
14:18:16 And again we are just dealing with the peak in terms
14:18:21 of the particular variance.
14:18:23 So we believe those two considerations combined left
14:18:26 my client with.
14:18:26 No: Choice in context of building a reasonable home on
14:18:30 this lot, to ask for the variance.
14:18:33 And I want to emphasize that that was the only
14:18:36 variance requested for this particular structure.
14:18:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Going to the pitch issue,
14:18:48 Mr. Mechanik, I understand the A.R.C. likes to, you
14:18:55 know, keep traditional pitches, if you are calling
14:18:58 this Victorian and it has a certain pitch, what is it,
14:19:02 two to one?
14:19:04 >>> I wouldn't want to say because I don't think that
14:19:06 was stated in the record and I personally don't even
14:19:07 know the answer to that.
14:19:09 >> Okay.
14:19:09 But I have two questions.

14:19:11 One is, theoretically they probably could have gone a
14:19:15 little bit closer -- they probably could have widened
14:19:19 the house a little bit further to the west, and then
14:19:23 still kept the same -- similar pitch, I guess.
14:19:27 But what would be the point?
14:19:29 So you drop it down two feet.
14:19:32 So you would have a wider house, which would take up
14:19:34 more footprint.
14:19:36 But you would be below the two feet.
14:19:38 Is that what your point is?
14:19:41 >>> Well, yes.
14:19:42 Plus also the fact that the elevation, the idea of
14:19:45 putting a Victorian home flat on the ground, I think
14:19:49 would also be an inappropriate treatment for that type
14:19:52 of style of home.
14:19:55 And I think the staffs readily concurred in that.
14:20:00 And that elevation itself is about three feet.
14:20:02 >> Well, my other question is a little tougher.
14:20:07 And I used to ask this question pretty regularly at
14:20:10 the VRB.
14:20:11 In regard to criterion number one of the variance
14:20:13 hardship it says the alleged hardship of practical

14:20:16 difficulties is unique and singular as regards to the
14:20:18 property, et cetera, et cetera.
14:20:21 If in fact we take as true what counsel said a little
14:20:25 while ago is that your client bought the bigger
14:20:27 property and then split off this 48 feet, why is this
14:20:31 not a self-imposed hardship
14:20:34 >>> Well, if Mr. Tolton said that, that would be
14:20:39 inaccurate.
14:20:39 >> Tell us your version then.
14:20:41 >>> My client bought the property.
14:20:42 He does own the property at 1812, on the other side,
14:20:48 actually, I believe Mr. Tolton's property is, if you
14:20:51 will, part of the parent tract of that, of my client's
14:20:55 parcel.
14:20:56 That is the -- the remaining 15 feet or so that made
14:21:01 the lot deficient.
14:21:02 Did it not come out of the other lot.
14:21:04 That was a legal lot.
14:21:06 The 48 feet was a legal lot.
14:21:08 >> When was the -- was the 48 foot ever split off of
14:21:12 the lot to the east?
14:21:13 I thought that's what Mr. Tolton was saying.

14:21:16 >>> Well, I'm not sure what Mr. Tolton was saying but
14:21:20 my client bought the property in 2005.
14:21:22 The letter issued by Pete Cowell --
14:21:26 >> Did he just buy the 48 feet when --
14:21:29 >>> No, did he bay the property at 1812 as well at the
14:21:32 same time.
14:21:34 >> Okay.
14:21:34 But --
14:21:35 >>> I mean, that had a house on it.
14:21:37 >> I understand.
14:21:38 I saw the picture.
14:21:40 But MI my point is, he bought it, bought the 1812
14:21:43 property with the additional property at 1814?
14:21:47 >>> Correct.
14:21:48 >> And then he split the two in half.
14:21:51 And I'm not saying it was illegal or anything else.
14:21:54 Obviously staff made a determination it was legal.
14:21:56 My only question is, if you then take the next step
14:21:59 and say it's a hardship, why is it not a self-imposed
14:22:03 hardship?
14:22:03
14:22:03 >>> My client didn't split anything that was a

14:22:06 separate legal lot that he bought.
14:22:07 There was a home on 1812 and a 48-foot lot that he was
14:22:11 able to --
14:22:12 >>: Separate tax --
14:22:13 >>> Right.
14:22:13 >>REBECCA KERT: We have been reviewing the record.
14:22:17 We don't believe the ownership of the lot, the 1812
14:22:20 lot, was actually part of the record.
14:22:22 And so the discussion would be --
14:22:26 >> Mr. Tolton brought it up.
14:22:30 >>> We can't find it in the record as we have been
14:22:33 looking for it.
14:22:34 I don't think the ownership is part of the record
14:22:36 appropriately before you.
14:22:37 I do understand your point about the self-imposed
14:22:41 hardship and that would go to whether or not the
14:22:43 property owner split the 48 foot lot to make it
14:22:47 smaller and there was discussion about that in the
14:22:49 record.
14:22:50 >> That's my issue.
14:22:51 >>> Discussion in the record, and feel free to correct
14:22:54 me, but my recollection of the record is discussion

14:22:56 that was in the record is that that was done prayer to
14:22:59 the ownership of the person who owns it at the present
14:23:03 time.
14:23:05 The property owner at the present time did not split
14:23:07 the lot to create the 45-foot.
14:23:09 >> The 48.
14:23:12 >>> The 48 feet lot.
14:23:16 >>> And I apologize, in my own to us answer the
14:23:19 questions I may have deviated from the letter of the
14:23:22 record.
14:23:22 However, Mr. Tolton's attorney in the record shows the
14:23:31 lot was in 1971 or 72, there are copies of these in
14:23:35 the record that shows that the 48-fat lot was created
14:23:37 at that time.
14:23:39 It's possible it was created earlier than that.
14:23:41 But at least this deed would show that it was created
14:23:43 in 1971 or 19 --
14:23:48 >> Separate tax?
14:23:49 >>> Separate folio, separate.
14:23:55 Just a final point on the variance criteria.
14:24:00 We also must show that it's in harmony and in keeping
14:24:02 with the neighborhood.

14:24:04 And we would really respectfully request that you
14:24:07 consider the fact that two feet on the pitch of this
14:24:11 roof if you were standing on the street or standing on
14:24:13 the sidewalk or standing in Mr. Tolton's front yard, I
14:24:18 don't believe the average person would perceive that
14:24:20 two feet is exceeding the zoning code height by two
14:24:26 feet.
14:24:26 I mean, it's just not something that would appear to
14:24:29 be intrusive, I think, in the common, ordinary reading
14:24:33 of these kind of things, looking from the street, or
14:24:36 from the side yard.
14:24:45 Finally way would like to do is speak to the design
14:24:47 criteria.
14:24:49 And there is a lot of discussion about the mass of the
14:24:53 structure.
14:24:54 Mr. Dingfelder, you requested -- or asked Mr. Acosta
14:24:58 to answer Tampa question, and in fact both structures
14:25:03 were considered in the context of the mass of the
14:25:06 structure.
14:25:08 A number of questions were directed to Mr. Acosta.
14:25:14 Let me find the quote here.
14:25:18 Mr. Acosta said, in response to the question, it is

14:25:22 not a very large house.
14:25:23 I feel it's in proportion.
14:25:26 But it's within proportion.
14:25:28 And then later he said: But within proportion to that
14:25:32 street.
14:25:32 Much of the design guide lanes do focus on how you are
14:25:35 going to approach the house from the street, how ifs
14:25:37 going to be seen.
14:25:39 There is no question it's larger.
14:25:40 But why not have the empirical information on most of
14:25:43 the houses in the vicinity?
14:25:46 For example, there's a Victorian house across the
14:25:49 street that already -- that's already been approved by
14:25:53 this board for an addition to it.
14:25:55 So the historic district, as the area is becoming more
14:25:58 urban, there has been a more intensification of the
14:26:02 square footing -- and I assume that was a typo meaning
14:26:05 square footage -- that that's just the urban nature of
14:26:09 it.
14:26:11 So he specifically addressed the mass.
14:26:13 I would like to point out that the design guidelines
14:26:15 do not really speak in terms of square footage.

14:26:17 They do talk about mass and scale and width and
14:26:20 height.
14:26:20 But they don't really address square footage because
14:26:23 that's really governed by the zoning.
14:26:25 And again other than the height variance, that we are
14:26:30 requesting we are fully in compliance with the zoning
14:26:35 requirement on this particular property.
14:26:38 Finally, in terms of compliance with the design
14:26:40 guidelines, I would like to show an exhibit.
14:26:44 And this is an exhibit that was presented by Mr.
14:26:47 Acosta of the hearing.
14:26:54 This is a page out of the design guidelines, and it's
14:26:57 entitled residential building, height and width for
14:27:01 in-fill construction.
14:27:02 And the first two series of drawings -- and I will
14:27:08 move this down -- show inappropriate examples, where
14:27:11 you have an extraordinarily wide building next to
14:27:14 taller homes, and then you have an extraordinarily
14:27:18 narrow building next to -- I guess what you would call
14:27:21 medium homes.
14:27:23 But then there are two examples of appropriate
14:27:28 designs.

14:27:29 And I wanted to call your attention to the bottom one
14:27:31 in this series.
14:27:32 And what it is showing -- and I think it is somewhat
14:27:35 remarkable -- it is really showing -- and this would
14:27:38 be my client's home -- a taller, narrower structure
14:27:43 adjacent to three significantly shorter structures.
14:27:48 And I think you can perceive that these are all
14:27:51 single-story structures next to a narrower, taller
14:27:54 one.
14:27:54 And this is labeled an appropriate example of what
14:27:59 would you do from a height, and mapping standpoint, in
14:28:03 the guidelines.
14:28:09 But to conclude, we believe that the appellant has not
14:28:13 met his burden in terms of showing that there was a
14:28:17 lack of substantial, competent evidence, a failure to
14:28:22 meat the essential requirements of law, or that there
14:28:26 was the failure of due process.
14:28:27 In fact, he's not alleged that there is a question
14:28:31 about due process.
14:28:33 I'd like to point out that there were two letters of
14:28:35 support on behalf of my client, from residents at 1810
14:28:41 hills, and 2111 hills Avenue as well.

14:28:49 I think the issue before you is fairly
14:28:52 straightforward.
14:28:54 And there is more than ample evidence to support it.
14:28:57 Whether the two-foot height variance is appropriate,
14:29:00 we believe that the height variance is insignificant.
14:29:03 And adds and enhance it is character of the area in
14:29:06 light of all the circumstances, and whether or not the
14:29:10 design of this home meets the design guidelines.
14:29:13 And we believe -- and Mr. Acosta opined as well as a
14:29:21 decision made by the A.R.C. indicated that the design
14:29:24 guidelines were met.
14:29:26 I would also like to point out that several of the
14:29:29 A.R.C. members complimented my client and his
14:29:32 designers on the design and its meeting the design
14:29:36 guide lanes for Hyde Park.
14:29:38 Thank you.
14:29:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions by council members?
14:29:41 Need to close the public hearing.
14:29:42 >> Move to close.
14:29:43 >> Second.
14:29:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question.
14:29:49 Mr. Acosta, as to compatibility, do you and staff and

14:30:01 the A.R.C., you look at the entire district for
14:30:09 compatible --
14:30:10 (Bell sounds)
14:30:12 Is that my time?
14:30:12 You look at the entire district as far as
14:30:14 compatibility.
14:30:15 Just la at the street front?
14:30:17 Or do you look at both?
14:30:18 >>>
14:30:19 >>DEL ACOSTA: We look at both.
14:30:21 >> And the other question.
14:30:25 This issue of density.
14:30:26 Density and intensity on the lot doesn't appear to me
14:30:31 that that's necessarily one of the criteria that you
14:30:34 all would be looking at.
14:30:39 I don't want to put words in your mouth.
14:30:41 Are you using that or not?
14:30:46 >>> Well, what the design guidelines call for is
14:30:48 scale, height and width, and then massing.
14:30:51 As was stated previously, front yard setback is in
14:30:54 line with the houses on either side, to the east or to
14:30:58 the west, no other variances regarding the house were

14:31:05 requested.
14:31:05 So that taken into respect the particular style, the
14:31:07 map was broken down and it was determined by myself,
14:31:14 and the staff concurred, it met the criteria of scale,
14:31:15 height and width, and also mass for the Hyde Park
14:31:15 Historic district.
14:31:20 >> And the last question, Mr. Mechanik put up the
14:31:23 graphic from our code or from our technical standards
14:31:27 or whatever it is, the A.R.C. guidelines, and that
14:31:30 third line showed, and had a caption underneath it, it
14:31:37 showed the porches and that sort of thing, can
14:31:40 compensate and make up for the height, this height
14:31:43 issue.
14:31:44 >> Well, not necessarily just the porches but a
14:31:46 collection of porches.
14:31:48 You notice the front elevation is not a style of mass.
14:31:52 It steps back as you go along.
14:31:54 And that in architectural terms we would call the
14:31:58 panning where it's not a flat surface.
14:32:02 It's kind of set back again to kind of break down the
14:32:05 scale of the structure.
14:32:06 >> Was that part of your recommendation?

14:32:08 >>> That was part of my recommendation.
14:32:09 >> And that's why you are comfortable with the added
14:32:11 height?
14:32:11 >>> Yes.
14:32:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
14:32:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
14:32:16 [Motion Carried].
14:32:17 What's the pleasure of council?
14:32:21 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
14:32:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chair, move to -- referring
14:32:25 to the criteria, it says to find out whether the
14:32:30 decision is supported by competent, substantial
14:32:32 evidence.
14:32:32 From what we heard today I would agree with that.
14:32:36 And it appears that due process, essential elements of
14:32:44 law.
14:32:44 So I would move.
14:32:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
14:32:54 >> Second.
14:32:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am going to support the motion.
14:32:56 This is definitely a tough one.
14:32:58 I respect the petitioners who are challenging this.

14:33:00 I think the place that perhaps the challenge would
14:33:05 have been more appropriate might have been perhaps on
14:33:08 Mr. Cowell's determination, you know, in terms of the
14:33:13 availability of anything to being built on the front
14:33:17 and the rear structure being accessory use.
14:33:19 But at this point, life moved on and then went to the
14:33:23 A.R.C.
14:33:24 I think the A.R.C. did their job in this case and I
14:33:26 don't have a problem with the additional two feet.
14:33:28 I think that's rather negligible.
14:33:33 I'm sorry but I support the motion.
14:33:34 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?
14:33:36 (Motion carried).
14:33:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm very concerned about the
14:33:38 illegal cutting of the tree, which is one of the
14:33:40 things that was addressed here.
14:33:43 And I guess I would like to ask for a report back from
14:33:52 the illegal cutting.
14:33:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
14:33:54 (Motion carried).
14:33:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll go to information by council
14:33:58 members.

14:33:58 Mr. White.
14:33:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Just one thing for I guess us and the
14:34:02 public.
14:34:03 The following dates were discussed and the six month
14:34:06 budget review is possible.
14:34:09 June 5th and 19th at 9 a.m.
14:34:11 Monday, July 17, 24th at 9 a.m
14:34:16 And so we'll set those in the form of a motion.
14:34:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:34:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: All those who can attend are welcome.
14:34:26 Finance Committee meeting.
14:34:27 (Motion carried).
14:34:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of those dates, I have a
14:34:31 Hartline meeting so I might have to just catch up.
14:34:38 Will it be recorded?
14:34:41 >>> Audio recorded.
14:34:42 That's all I have.
14:34:43 Move to receive and file all documents.
14:34:45 >> Second.
14:34:45 (Motion carried).
14:34:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Ferlita.
14:34:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: We'll see you at 6:00, Madam Chairman.

14:35:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two things.
14:35:05 Mr. Hunter, who we voted to give a commendation in
14:35:08 regard to his APA presidency, has agreed to come join
14:35:11 us on June 1st.
14:35:12 So I'll move that.
14:35:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:35:16 (Motion carried).
14:35:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Secondly, what is the official
14:35:25 term?
14:35:26 The black history scholarship committee has given five
14:35:29 awards this year.
14:35:30 And I think we should have these young people come and
14:35:33 be honored by us.
14:35:34 So June 22nd to come join us for that.
14:35:43 >> Second.
14:35:43 (Motion carried).
14:35:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, what time?
14:35:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We'll give the commendation for
14:35:50 doing that.
14:35:51 >>GWEN MILLER: What time, Mr. Dingfelder?
14:35:52 What time?
14:35:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 9 a.m

14:35:55 And then the last thing just as a point of
14:35:57 information.
14:35:59 Not to kick a dead horse or anything.
14:36:01 But Cindy in my office called rapid blueprint and
14:36:05 found out that they charge for a standard 2-by-4 large
14:36:08 blueprint, they charge 42 cents a page.
14:36:11 So I informed Mr. Michelini that he needs to change
14:36:14 companies.
14:36:17 But anyway, I think that's -- I knew it was less than
14:36:23 a dollar a page.
14:36:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For clarification, Mr. Hunter, did --
14:36:29 did you want that under ceremonial?
14:36:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, we voted to give ceremonial.
14:36:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Clerk?
14:36:37 >>THE CLERK: We have several items.
14:36:39 Back on April 27th, we were supposed to have
14:36:45 Jenkins to discuss access to Hartline bus routes.
14:36:48 And we were directed to find out what dates they would
14:36:51 be available to come down.
14:36:52 They are available for next Thursday.
14:36:54 They would like to be put on the agenda.
14:36:55 >>GWEN MILLER: What time of?

14:36:57 >>THE CLERK: They didn't specify.
14:36:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a time.
14:37:02 It's not a commendation.
14:37:04 >>> Appear to provide the task force recommendations
14:37:07 to approve access to the Hartline bus routes.
14:37:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: Five minutes, ten minutes?
14:37:15 THE CLERK: They didn't specify.
14:37:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Favor minutes.
14:37:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Tell them five minutes.
14:37:21 We have a motion and second.
14:37:22 (Motion carried).
14:37:23 >>THE CLERK: Then I also have a request from Jerry
14:37:30 Conrad from neighborhood community relations.
14:37:32 They would like to be scheduled to appear before
14:37:34 council on June 8th to present a proclamation
14:37:38 issued by the mayor to Maureen Kelly to the from the
14:37:44 agency on aging.
14:37:45 They would like it June 8th and like to present it
14:37:47 before council.
14:37:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
14:37:54 >>THE CLERK: Maureen Kelly for area agency on aging.
14:38:02 >>GWEN MILLER: During ceremonies?

14:38:04 Motion and second.
14:38:05 (Motion carried).
14:38:06 >>THE CLERK: The chair has received a request from
14:38:11 Ellen Wright, Hillsborough River board.
14:38:14 They would like to present a commendation to council
14:38:17 sometime in June, pertaining to the proclamation, but
14:38:24 they also want to update Tampa City Council on
14:38:27 river-related issues.
14:38:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are having a presentation on
14:38:33 June 15th.
14:38:34 Why don't we do it June 5?
14:38:38 >>THE CLERK: We have two topics on June 15th
14:38:40 dealing with the Hillsborough River issue.
14:38:42 In a time limit has been set other than your
14:38:47 recommendations.
14:38:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we set a time line, say
14:38:51 11:00?
14:38:52 >>GWEN MILLER: For how many minutes?
14:38:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, ten minutes for our staff and
14:38:56 favor minutes for the Planning Commission.
14:39:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: There's a commendation.
14:39:04 They are presenting us with a commendation.

14:39:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we have all of that at
14:39:09 eleven.
14:39:09 But also I know the public is going to want to speak
14:39:12 on river, have all the river set for eleven.
14:39:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that just as a general guideline?
14:39:24 Or a time certain?
14:39:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think a time certain because wave
14:39:27 all these other people coming.
14:39:29 THE CLERK: You want all the issues related to the
14:39:32 river set for 11:00 o'clock.
14:39:34 And also would like to discuss on behalf of the
14:39:36 Hillsborough River board their issues relating to the
14:39:39 river, also.
14:39:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: Do it right after the staff reports,
14:39:47 and then they can get in and out.
14:39:49 Because we don't know where we will be in the agenda
14:39:50 at eleven.
14:39:52 Right after staff reports.
14:39:53 And then get out and we can move on with the agenda,
14:39:57 wherever we are at then.
14:39:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
14:40:00 So nine?

14:40:04 >>KEVIN WHITE: Well, yes, at 9:00 rate after staff
14:40:08 reports.
14:40:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we say 9:30?
14:40:13 Because I have some people who are wondering about it.
14:40:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: If we get staff reports done before
14:40:18 9:30 then -- if we do it at nine, if we get to it at
14:40:23 9:25.
14:40:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
14:40:25 We have a motion and second.
14:40:26 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:40:28 Opposed, Nay.
14:40:28 (Motion carried).
14:40:29 >>THE CLERK: Ten minutes each side?
14:40:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Ten for the staff and five for Planning
14:40:38 Commission.
14:40:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: they had a chance to speak already and
14:40:44 then when the audience gets up to speak they can speak
14:40:46 at that time.
14:40:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: How many minutes?
14:40:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Ten and five.
14:40:52 >>THE CLERK: What about Mr. Wright's request on behalf
14:40:55 of the Hillsborough River board, the proclamation?

14:41:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If there's a proclamation, that's
14:41:08 their thing.
14:41:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Five minutes enough?
14:41:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ten.
14:41:19 The shorter the better.
14:41:20 >>THE CLERK: I think that's all the issues I have.
14:41:24 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to receive and fail again.
14:41:26 (Motion carried).
14:41:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else to come before council?
14:41:30 Does anyone in the audience want to speak?
14:41:34 (Off camera at 2:42 p.m.)
14:42:50