Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, July 13, 2006, 9:00 a.m. Session

DISCLAIMER:
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
transcript.
The original of this transcript was produced in all
capital letters and any variation thereto may be a
result of third party edits and software compatibility
issues.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.


09:04:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:04:47 At this time Mr. John Dingfelder's legislative aide
09:04:50 will introduce our guest for the invocation.
09:04:52 Would you please stand and remain standing after he
09:04:55 introduces him?
09:05:00 >>> Thank you very much.
09:05:00 It's my pleasure to introduce for purposes of giving
09:05:03 the invocation a member of the educational community
09:05:05 in the City of Tampa and Hillsborough County, the head
09:05:09 football coach of Plant High School.
09:05:11 He's a fine leader of young men and has done a
09:05:14 wonderful job.
09:05:15 So please welcome for the invocation Mr. Robert
09:05:19 wiener.
09:05:28 >>> Thank you today for the great Thanksgiving for
09:05:30 bringing us all together for the betterment of
09:05:33 everybody in our city, for the betterment of everybody
09:05:35 in our country.

09:05:36 We pray for all of those who lead, that they lead us
09:05:40 to unity, and not divisiveness that we see often
09:05:44 throughout our community.
09:05:47 We look sometimes inside my own football team and we
09:05:51 gather in the huddle and we hold hands and it doesn't
09:05:53 matter color of someone's skin and it doesn't matter
09:05:56 if someone is rich or poor and it doesn't matter if
09:05:58 someone is good or not good or someone is smart or not
09:06:01 so smart, it just matters that we are going to go into
09:06:04 the battle together and we are going to fight for each
09:06:06 other and we are going to try to bring out goodness in
09:06:08 each other for every moment, and hopefully we can do
09:06:11 that in the community.
09:06:12 Hopefully we can do that in this world.
09:06:14 And we pray this notary public God's name.
09:06:16 Amen.
09:06:18 (Pledge of Allegiance).
09:06:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:06:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:06:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:06:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:06:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.

09:06:41 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:06:48 At this time we are going to have Ms. Ferlita give our
09:06:50 firefighter of the quarter.
09:07:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, colleagues, ladies and
09:07:26 gentlemen, welcome back to City Council.
09:07:31 Back here with Keith Jones to give a commendation to
09:07:35 the firefighter of the quarter.
09:07:38 I know this is a difficult decision for the chief and
09:07:40 I always like to have him have the opportunity to
09:07:42 explain how one candidate was chosen over the rest of
09:07:45 the men and women.
09:07:48 Chief Jones.
09:07:49 >> Chief Jones: Thank you.
09:07:51 Good morning.
09:07:52 This morning we are recognizing captain Shawn CARROLL.
09:07:59 If I can read some of the items from the narrative.
09:08:02 For 20 years captain Shawn Carroll has served with
09:08:08 Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:08:10 Currently he works at station 15 in Gandy.
09:08:14 In addition to his regular duties he is the candidate
09:08:18 physical agility captain.
09:08:22 He coordinates that.

09:08:23 He also is a member of our new applicant review panel
09:08:28 which is a voluntary position.
09:08:30 They interview all of the new candidates with a list
09:08:33 of questions, the panel interviews them and that
09:08:36 determines whether they move forward in the process.
09:08:38 In previous years, he has served as an EMS skills lab
09:08:42 coordinator training our paramedics and EMPs.
09:08:46 He also helped the community at large by participating
09:08:48 in fund-raisers for worthy causes, and most recently
09:08:53 was the 2006 ride for survival which was an 1100-mile
09:08:59 bicycle ride throughout the State of Florida to raise
09:09:02 awareness of seat belt usage among the youth as part
09:09:06 of the safety through education program.
09:09:14 He's an exceptional example of professionalism and
09:09:17 enthusiasm.
09:09:18 For these reasons we are proud to recognize captain
09:09:21 Shawn CARROLL as Tampa's fire rescue firefighter of
09:09:25 the quarter.
09:09:26 [ Applause ]
09:09:33 >>ROSE FERLITA: Shawn, congratulations.
09:09:35 This is a tribute to you and your colleagues and your
09:09:37 supervisors and to Chief Jones for the caliber of men

09:09:40 and women that we have in the Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:09:43 Shawn is here with his wife Stephanie.
09:09:45 And once we give you a few other honors, you can have
09:09:51 a couple of words.
09:09:52 Let me read this on behalf of the chairman and the
09:09:54 rest of the council members.
09:09:58 Tampa City Council commendation, presented to captain
09:10:01 Shawn CARROL, chapter Shawn Carroll has been selected
09:10:08 as firefighter of the first quarter of 2006, as a
09:10:12 rescue lieutenant, firefighter, instructor and a
09:10:15 community volunteer.
09:10:16 Captain car roll represents the dedication of fire
09:10:19 rescue.
09:10:20 For all do you for our city, the City of Tampa
09:10:24 commends you and I as public safety chairman
09:10:30 congratulate you.
09:10:31 >>> First I would like to thank everyone here, City
09:10:33 Council, fire rescue staff, and my crew for making my
09:10:40 job really easy.
09:10:41 [ Applause ]
09:10:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: All right, Shawn, you took that out of
09:10:53 order.

09:10:53 [ Laughter ]
09:10:55 We have some of our corporate members.
09:11:00 Let me come join him because he's going to need some
09:11:03 help.
09:11:03 I will tell you that Danny Lewis was not able to be
09:11:08 here but we will get the watch to you.
09:11:10 And, chief, if you will get it to as well as one of
09:11:14 our new partners, and that's the manager of Charlie's
09:11:17 steak house, Della Curry my legislative aide will be
09:11:21 picking that up on your behalf and that will be
09:11:23 another $100 gift certificate.
09:11:31 >> Thank you very much.
09:11:32 Congratulations.
09:11:32 I'm Steve Stickley, representing Stepp's towing
09:11:36 service, and we would like to present you with this
09:11:39 statute for a fine job, that you do out there for the
09:11:42 community.
09:11:43 And we would also like to give you this gift
09:11:45 certificate for Outback.
09:11:46 And again thank you so much for keeping that area down
09:11:51 there safe.
09:11:52 I live down there.

09:11:55 [ Laughter ]
09:12:00 >> Florida executive realty, also a resident south of
09:12:04 Gandy,
09:12:10 >> Hank mark of first financial planning, I would like
09:12:20 to thank both of you for your support and for keeping
09:12:22 our community safe, and it's a great place to live.
09:12:26 And we have a couple things for you.
09:12:39 >> I'm Tony with Lowry Park Zoo.
09:12:41 On behalf of Lowry Park Zoo we thank you for your fine
09:12:44 service to the community and we invite you and your
09:12:46 family to come join us.
09:12:49 [ Applause ]
09:12:54 >> Congratulations, on behalf of the Florida Aquarium,
09:12:56 family four-pass to come visit the aquarium.
09:12:59 Thank you for being one of the finest, the Tampa Bay's
09:13:03 finest.
09:13:05 >> Now we are going to fatten you up a little bit.
09:13:17 After that 1100-mile bike ride, was that agility or
09:13:22 speed?
09:13:30 You know Chris Graham?
09:13:32 >> Yes, I know him well.
09:13:34 >> Did he help you out? Snoop no, I think the wheels

09:13:37 did.
09:13:37 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of Bryn Allen
09:13:41 studios.
09:13:42 They quo like to give you a photographic package for
09:13:45 you and your family to have your portraits done, just
09:13:48 call and have your appointment, either before or after
09:13:50 your next ride, your choice.
09:13:56 Liss development company are providing you with a $100
09:13:58 gift certificate.
09:13:59 So get that protein going and get your energy right
09:14:02 back up there where it needs to be.
09:14:03 And Po Boy's' restaurant, creole restaurant on Howard
09:14:09 and Platt Street, they are going to provide with you a
09:14:11 $50 gift certificate that you can enjoy lunch or
09:14:14 dinner there.
09:14:15 And two $50 gift certificates to Outback or Carrabas
09:14:23 of your choice.
09:14:24 Congratulations.
09:14:25 Go burn those calories, buddy.
09:14:28 >>> Thank you very much.
09:14:30 I don't know what to say.
09:14:34 Thank you again very much for all your support.

09:14:38 It's great.
09:14:39 It's overwhelming.
09:14:40 Thank you.
09:14:40 [ Applause ]
09:14:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Before we lose our audience in terms
09:14:51 of you guys, it's always a testament to you guys but
09:14:54 certainly a testament to the supervisors you have,
09:14:58 co-workers that you have, chief that you have that I
09:15:01 dearly appreciate and respect.
09:15:02 So thank you as well, too.
09:15:04 Congratulations.
09:15:06 >>> Thank you very much.
09:15:07 [ Applause ]
09:15:21 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we go to approval of the
09:15:23 agenda if there's anyone that would like to pull an
09:15:26 item.
09:15:26 >>: Move approval.
09:15:28 >> Second.
09:15:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you could go down the sheet,
09:15:33 please, before approval of the agenda.
09:15:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Wanted to see if anyone wants to pull
09:15:38 anything.

09:15:39 All right.
09:15:39 We go to our staff report.
09:15:42 We have --
09:15:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This would be changes to the agenda
09:15:53 on the sign-in sheet.
09:16:08 >> Department heads sign-in sheet.
09:16:10 On June 22nd I appeared before you for approval of
09:16:17 a walk-in.
09:16:18 She misnoticed.
09:16:20 She didn't meet the 30-day notice requirement.
09:16:24 She came to me asking what she could do.
09:16:26 And the best that I could offer her was the August
09:16:28 17th agenda, with your approval.
09:16:30 That way she would meet the notice requirement.
09:16:32 It's completely at your discretion.
09:16:34 >> So moved.
09:16:35 >> Second.
09:16:35 (Motion carried).
09:16:36 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item number 7 I am here in place of
09:16:43 Eric Cotton if you have any questions.
09:16:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:16:58 Give your last name.

09:16:59 >> It's begin certain, I'm here on item number --
09:17:03 GINCERT, here to request a substitute of a draft, an
09:17:09 ordinance that you received through the doc agenda
09:17:11 process, and you received the updated version
09:17:16 yesterday in writing.
09:17:18 And it's just a request for an ordinance.
09:17:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions?
09:17:29 >>Mr. Sal Territo: I'm here on item number 116, which
09:17:37 is a substitution of seven pages for the development
09:17:40 agreement with the Heights, the same thing we did this
09:17:43 morning.
09:17:44 We have typos that we would like to correct,
09:17:46 correcting pages 1 and 7 of the development agreement.
09:17:49 And page 2 of schedule K, or exhibit K.
09:17:53 All we are doing is changing Ross street to Ross
09:17:56 Avenue, which is the correct address, the correct name
09:17:58 of that street.
09:18:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:18:02 Mr. David Smith.
09:18:10 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:18:11 Welcome back.
09:18:13 I would like to introduce to you this morning to No

09:18:17 new lawyers we have, and I have also put to rest the
09:18:19 rumor that I only hire women -- (laughter) but we have
09:18:25 two new gentlemen who joined us.
09:18:27 First is Ernie Mueller, right in the back.
09:18:32 And Ernie is actually a native of Wisconsin but he was
09:18:37 introduced to this area when he was in the service.
09:18:39 As a consequence of that introduction he did his
09:18:42 undergraduate work at USF in management information
09:18:45 systems.
09:18:45 He returned to his native Wisconsin for law school,
09:18:48 got his law degree from the University of Wisconsin.
09:18:51 He has significant experience in the public sector.
09:18:54 He worked with the AG's office in the Tampa civil
09:18:58 litigation for awhile.
09:19:00 In the last seven years he's been an assistant city
09:19:02 attorney with St. Petersburg.
09:19:04 He's prosecuted code violations.
09:19:06 And he will be taking over our code enforcement
09:19:08 actions.
09:19:09 He was also involved in some labor and employment
09:19:12 issues on behalf of St. Pete, collections, parking,
09:19:16 evictions, garnishments.

09:19:19 And we are very happy to have Ernie here.
09:19:22 He joined us June 26th.
09:19:24 And we expect he'll be here for a long time.
09:19:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Welcome.
09:19:28 Would you like to say something?
09:19:30 >>> Just glad to be aboard and hope I can help.
09:19:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We hope you can, too.
09:19:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Congratulations.
09:19:37 >>DAVID SMITH: The other gentleman is John McCurchey,
09:19:47 law degree from the State University of Northern
09:19:47 Buffalo, masters in urban planning from UCLA, has over
09:19:52 20 years experience in local government and planning
09:19:54 related matters.
09:19:56 He worked for the Department of Community Affairs
09:19:58 early in the process, when the planning --
09:20:02 comprehensive planning process was just gearing back
09:20:04 up, really initiating.
09:20:06 He then worked for Hillsborough County for awhile in
09:20:08 the same capacity.
09:20:10 He was also in-house counsel, probably the first
09:20:14 in-house counsel for the regional water supply
09:20:16 authority.

09:20:16 And from '94 to 2006 he was an assistant city attorney
09:20:23 in Boca Raton and at one point serving as the acting
09:20:26 city attorney and as counsel for the planning and
09:20:30 zoning board.
09:20:32 He is married with two children.
09:20:33 I forgot to mention Ernie is also married with three
09:20:35 daughters.
09:20:36 And Ernie will be working code enforcement.
09:20:39 John will be helping us with comprehensive planning,
09:20:43 probably community services and all issues related to
09:20:45 that, and we are very happy to have him.
09:20:47 He's a very excellent and very experienced attorney.
09:20:51 >>> It's a pleasure to be here.
09:20:53 I had the opportunity to serve under Fred Karl when he
09:20:56 was county attorney.
09:20:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I remember John.
09:21:00 I don't think we worked together but we came close.
09:21:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Congratulations and welcome aboard.
09:21:07 >>DAVID SMITH: I was also going to comment on agenda
09:21:08 item number 6 but I'm happy to wait until that comes
09:21:11 up if you would prefer.
09:21:15 It's up to you.

09:21:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
09:21:18 You may do it.
09:21:19 >>DAVID SMITH: Okay, great.
09:21:24 Toyin Aina of our office has spoken.
09:21:31 Spoken to you but I wanted to provide more of an
09:21:33 update for you.
09:21:34 There have been at least what I call four high-level
09:21:37 meetings working towards implementing this, and
09:21:39 numerous other meetings between Toyin and others on
09:21:44 the staff.
09:21:49 Opens their study was from 10-1-01 to 9-30-04.
09:21:54 Several of the recommendations than they made we were
09:21:56 either already implementing or had implemented since.
09:22:00 And several others are in the process of being
09:22:03 implemented.
09:22:05 We are also developing software and other mapping,
09:22:10 monitoring and tracking systems, because it's very
09:22:13 important that we are able to monitor what we do, and
09:22:19 ensure it is both successful and narrowly tailored in
09:22:23 order to comply with case law.
09:22:25 As I have indicated, we have already started the
09:22:27 process, including looking at adopting some race and

09:22:32 gender-based policies.
09:22:33 We have to do that, as I indicated, in a narrowly
09:22:37 tailored fashion.
09:22:38 And the current executive order and the
09:22:40 pre-supposition was we could simply enact that.
09:22:43 It is not adequate for that focus.
09:22:45 So what Toyin has been doing is looking at ordinances
09:22:50 in other jurisdictions and developing a draft that
09:22:52 will be circulated internally.
09:22:54 We will make sure we have the systems and processes in
09:22:57 place.
09:22:58 Not only to ensure it will survive challenge but also
09:23:01 ensure that it will be successful.
09:23:03 What we would like to do -- well, what we have also
09:23:08 done, we have been receiving stakeholder input and
09:23:12 will continue to do that as well.
09:23:14 I think this was in Toyin's memo.
09:23:18 We estimate on the same side approximately another 60
09:23:20 dice.
09:23:21 We will be back to you with the ordinance revised.
09:23:23 If we can do that sooner, if we can make that progress
09:23:26 more quickly, we will come to you sooner, get it on

09:23:29 your agenda sooner.
09:23:30 But if we think that would be a safe distance in order
09:23:33 to make sure we get all of the details correct and we
09:23:37 comply with the law.
09:23:38 So I wanted to at least let you know we are actively
09:23:42 pursuing this issue, and we'll be back to you shortly.
09:23:45 If you have any questions, we would be happy to answer
09:23:47 them.
09:23:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to let you know how
09:23:55 important this issue is to me.
09:23:56 And I just want to make sure that if we can bring this
09:24:01 back before 60 days, we don't drag it out the entire
09:24:05 60 days, to have an adequate answer before that, I
09:24:08 would greatly appreciate it.
09:24:10 This is something that's long overdue.
09:24:12 We need to right the wrong and rectify whatever, and
09:24:18 make sure we do this as expeditiously as possible.
09:24:21 And I appreciate your diligent work on it.
09:24:27 Just want to make sure we do it as quickly as
09:24:30 possible.
09:24:32 >>> Hear you loud and clear.
09:24:34 We think we have a pretty good idea how we'll do it.

09:24:36 We just need to make sure it gets vetted by all those
09:24:39 involved in the monitoring and so forth.
09:24:41 Unfortunately, it's a little more complex than we
09:24:43 would hope.
09:24:44 But we should be back -- I think we could be back.
09:24:48 Don't want to do it wrong and come back and redo it
09:24:51 again.
09:24:51 >> Exactly.
09:24:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was going to make a motion that I
09:24:56 guess we could do it prior to 60 days, instead of
09:25:00 putting it at 06 -- 60 days.
09:25:06 >>> If we were at September 14th which is not a
09:25:08 good day for you, I think you have your first budget
09:25:11 hearing on the 14th. The 21st would be the
09:25:13 next one.
09:25:14 Again this is an outside date as Mr. White made clear.
09:25:18 We would like to get back to you sooner if we can move
09:25:20 more quickly.
09:25:21 Maybe the 21st would be the day.
09:25:23 If it can get on your calendar before the 14th we
09:25:26 will do so.
09:25:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: September 21st, make a motion.

09:25:31 >> Second.
09:25:37 (Motion carried).
09:25:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Staff report is fine.
09:25:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Donna Wysong.
09:25:46 >> Donna Wysong, legal department.
09:25:48 I'm here on agenda item number 86.
09:25:51 This is a resolution to set a public hearing for
09:25:54 revisions to the sign code.
09:25:55 The original resolution that we prepared held the
09:26:00 first public hearing for August 10th.
09:26:02 You all do not have a meeting that day so we need to
09:26:05 amend that date to have it set for August 17th.
09:26:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:26:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I saw that when I was looking at the
09:26:15 agenda and called my aide and said we don't need that.
09:26:19 >>> Thank you.
09:26:19 We amended that and have given amended resolution to
09:26:22 the clerk.
09:26:22 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?
09:26:26 (Motion carried).
09:26:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Jim Stefan.
09:26:31 >>JIM STEFAN: Budget officer.

09:26:33 I think Ms. Miller has already handed out a letter
09:26:39 requesting setting the two public hearings on the
09:26:42 budget for Thursday, September 14th at 5:01 p.m.
09:26:46 and Thursday, September 28th at 5:01 p.m.
09:26:50 >>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
09:26:52 >> Second.
09:26:53 (Motion carried).
09:26:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:26:59 Anyone have anything they want to pull from the
09:27:01 agenda?
09:27:02 I would like to move committee reports and public
09:27:06 hearings for second readings and public comments.
09:27:11 >> So moved.
09:27:12 >> Second.
09:27:12 (Motion carried)
09:27:17 Okay.
09:27:17 We have approval of agenda?
09:27:19 >> So moved.
09:27:19 >> Second.
09:27:20 (Motion carried).
09:27:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2 is asking for a
09:27:25 continuance for two weeks.

09:27:27 >> So moved.
09:27:28 >> Second.
09:27:28 (Motion carried).
09:27:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 3.
09:28:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How are we doing with the water over
09:28:03 the dam?
09:28:07 >>> Brad Baird, water department.
09:28:10 The elevation that water goes over the dam when it's
09:28:12 22.5 feet, we are up over 20 feet as of Sunday.
09:28:16 So we are still about two feet low.
09:28:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Last time you were in front of us
09:28:23 we were where?
09:28:25 >>> Oh, we were below 18.
09:28:27 So it's coming up rapidly.
09:28:28 The rains are helping a lot.
09:28:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We have rains and thunderstorms and no
09:28:35 hurricanes, we're okay, right?
09:28:38 >>> We are in good shape, that's right.
09:28:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Brad, are we still under
09:28:42 restriction?
09:28:43 >>> We are still on restrictions, yes.
09:28:45 And we will be back to you with a strategy, an exit

09:28:49 strategy regarding restrictions.
09:28:51 And also what we should do in the long-term in that
09:28:55 regard.
09:28:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Very good.
09:29:00 >>> What you have before you is a report giving
09:29:05 background, research, recommendations, regarding the
09:29:09 additional recirculation devices, specifically hot
09:29:13 water recirculation devices, to add onto the rebate
09:29:19 program that the water department has.
09:29:24 First I would like to take a few seconds to explain
09:29:27 what a hot water recirculating device is.
09:29:31 At the end of the report, you have a schematic showing
09:29:35 a typical system.
09:29:37 A typical hot water recirculating device, typically it
09:29:48 pumps, circulates water back through the cold water
09:29:52 piping and keeps a hot water loop so that when you
09:29:57 turn on the water, turn on your faucet, turn on your
09:30:01 shower, you have almost immediate hot water.
09:30:05 So there are many, many different systems, different
09:30:10 ways to accomplish that.
09:30:17 We had done a lot of research in the last, I think,
09:30:20 month and a half when you made the motion.

09:30:22 And surprisingly, there is very little data on how
09:30:28 much water it saves.
09:30:30 The manufacturer's claim for the average resident
09:30:34 about 10,000 to 20,000 gallons a year savings.
09:30:39 The early research is showing about 3,000 gallons
09:30:43 savings a year.
09:30:46 One big problem, it results in additional energy use,
09:30:51 because what you are doing is essentially expanding
09:30:57 your water heater to include a pipeline system that
09:31:00 you must keep hot, and of course most pipeline systems
09:31:07 in homes are not insulated.
09:31:09 So you use additional energy, electricity or gas
09:31:14 depending on what your water heater is heated with.
09:31:22 There is a major research effort ongoing out west in
09:31:27 cooperation with the California urban water
09:31:30 conservation council, and it's due to be completed in
09:31:33 June of '07.
09:31:36 And our recommendations are that first we wait to see
09:31:43 what that research shows next year and make decisions
09:31:48 based on that.
09:31:49 Secondly, if the research shows that there's benefit,
09:31:53 although it looks like at this point modest water

09:31:57 savings, that we would include -- possibly include
09:32:03 that in the rebate program.
09:32:08 If the research does show significant water savings we
09:32:11 could look into revisions to the code for new
09:32:15 construction, where it makes more sense, where you
09:32:18 could require the insulation of pipelines, where you
09:32:22 could require certain types of recirculation devices.
09:32:25 Some are more effective than others.
09:32:28 So recommendation again, to wait on the large research
09:32:35 project that's ongoing, get the results, and then make
09:32:38 some decisions at that time.
09:32:42 >>GWEN MILLER: End of your presentation?
09:32:46 >>> Yes.
09:32:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we looked at the 3,000 gallons
09:32:49 per household per year, conservatively, how does that
09:32:54 compare to like the low-flow devices or the other
09:32:57 device that is we do give rebates on?
09:33:00 >>> Off the top of my head, I'm not sure.
09:33:04 I will tell you that the indoor reduction pale in
09:33:13 comparison to what we say.
09:33:15 In Florida, we use up to half of our water for outdoor
09:33:19 irrigation.

09:33:20 So most of our focus, in the water conservation area,
09:33:24 is with outdoor irrigation.
09:33:26 >> So we still have those indoor plumbing --
09:33:29 >> We still have the indoor plumbing, and brochures
09:33:33 that we provide as part of our program.
09:33:34 >> All right.
09:33:36 So you will get back with us next year?
09:33:38 >> I'll get back with you next year.
09:33:41 >> Item number 3.
09:33:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That was number 3.
09:33:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 4.
09:33:51 Anyone else?
09:33:54 Talk about the tree canopy?
09:34:01 >>> Steve Graham with Parks and Recreation Department.
09:34:06 We have been asked to come and report, provide an
09:34:09 update on the status of the canopy analysis that you
09:34:13 asked us to investigate, initiate this year.
09:34:18 I have a handout, status report that I provided to our
09:34:21 director Karen Palus a couple weeks ago.
09:34:24 And I'll pass those out at this time.
09:35:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
09:35:04 >>> Okay.

09:35:05 I wanted to make sure each of you have a copy, and if
09:35:07 you want to just follow along, I'll point out the key
09:35:10 points in the area that we feel we have made progress
09:35:14 since we last met with you.
09:35:16 You remember around March we were before you and had a
09:35:21 discussion on the canopy analysis, some of the
09:35:23 different aspects related to the, and at that time
09:35:25 there were some inquiries as to when it could be done
09:35:29 and how it could be done.
09:35:30 And we stated at that time that it would take about
09:35:32 eight months to dop.
09:35:34 And so given the time frame, the time of year,
09:35:39 position within this fiscal year, we were charged by
09:35:42 the council to initiate the canopy study in FY 06
09:35:47 which we have done.
09:35:48 Since we met with you last, and again I believe in
09:35:53 late March, we have collected all the information from
09:35:55 the previous study.
09:35:57 We have looked at studies, benchmarking of communities
09:36:01 around the country that have done similar studies.
09:36:04 We cross referenced that to the American forest
09:36:08 modeling and looked at some of the upgrades of

09:36:11 technology.
09:36:11 We have done the last canopy analysis.
09:36:15 We met with our own in-house "IT" and GIS people, had
09:36:21 discussion was the design center and resource in the
09:36:27 private sector.
09:36:27 We feel we have done our due diligence, the
09:36:30 information that's pertinent to the study so that it
09:36:32 will be a useful study, and that we can take it a step
09:36:35 further once its completed to develop our
09:36:37 comprehensive forestry management plan.
09:36:43 Beyond that, we have put together some technical
09:36:49 specifications based on the information that we have
09:36:52 gathered.
09:36:53 We are still tweaking that.
09:36:54 We want to make sure we get the right product, and
09:36:57 that it is carried out in accordance to quality
09:37:00 control standards.
09:37:01 So we are proceeding cautiously.
09:37:06 I just want to reassure you of. That and we are
09:37:09 making significant process and that we are still
09:37:12 hopeful of having the product completed in the time
09:37:14 frame that we promised -- you.

09:37:18 I will mention that in order for this to happen the
09:37:21 funding in the previous discussion, we talked about,
09:37:25 it would be necessary for to you direct legal to amend
09:37:28 the chapter 13 to allow tree trust to be used in a
09:37:37 broader sense for urban forestry.
09:37:39 If you have any questions I would be happy to answer
09:37:41 them.
09:37:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be then -- and I
09:37:44 thought we had done that, but I guess we meant to do
09:37:46 it but we forgot to do it -- would be to direct legal,
09:37:49 now that we have the new attorneys, I am sure they
09:37:55 will be able to get to this expeditiously, to change
09:37:58 our tree trust rules for our money to be use in this
09:38:03 way.
09:38:04 >> Second.
09:38:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:38:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Graham, do you have any idea how
09:38:08 much money we have in that tree trust fund now?
09:38:13 >>> I do not.
09:38:14 I know the last time that I looked at that account
09:38:17 balance, it was in excess of a million dollars.
09:38:20 We do have some withdrawals pending for items that are

09:38:24 already permittable under the existing rules and
09:38:27 regulations.
09:38:28 So we are in the process of developing contracts for
09:38:33 water and trees that are planted.
09:38:35 That's one of the things we have difficulty keeping up
09:38:38 with year to year because trees take at least five
09:38:41 years to establish, and we feel like we are going to
09:38:43 get to the point of making the expenditure, putting in
09:38:47 the assets that we have to follow through and make
09:38:50 sure they survive, produce the economic and
09:38:52 environmental benefits that we should be realizing.
09:38:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:38:59 Mr. Dingfelder.
09:38:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Graham, thank you.
09:39:02 What is the estimated budget for the study?
09:39:05 Ballpark?
09:39:07 >>> The last time we were here I gave awe ballpark
09:39:10 around $100,000.
09:39:11 We are hopeful coming in a little below that.
09:39:16 It probably will not be a lot less than that.
09:39:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Graham.
09:39:21 We have a motion and second on the floor.

09:39:23 All in favor of the motion say Aye?
09:39:25 Opposed?
09:39:26 (Motion carried)
09:39:27 We need to receive and file the memorandum.
09:39:30 >> So moved.
09:39:31 >> Second.
09:39:31 (Motion carried).
09:39:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 7.
09:39:35 Is Eric Cotton here?
09:39:37 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:39:43 I actually am here simply to let you know there is one
09:39:45 vacancy on the Variance Review Board, a mayoral
09:39:48 appointment.
09:39:49 We have received the information from Seth Nelson.
09:39:55 Descend in the questionnaire, board and committee
09:39:59 appointment questionnaire.
09:40:00 Basically, we are looking to the mayor for
09:40:03 consideration.
09:40:04 And council does have to approve any mayoral
09:40:09 appointments.
09:40:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
09:40:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we all know Mr. Nelson as an

09:40:15 alternate, we know he's done a great job as an
09:40:17 alternate and is interested in being appointed.
09:40:19 And it's a mayoral appointment so we can't do it but I
09:40:22 would like us to go on record of us all saying when
09:40:25 would ask the mayor to appoint him to that vacancy as
09:40:28 expeditiously as possible.
09:40:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Thank you.
09:40:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that a motion?
09:40:37 >> Recommendation by council.
09:40:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Very strong recommendation.
09:40:41 >>GWEN MILLER: You want to make it a motion?
09:40:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's a motion.
09:40:45 >> Second.
09:40:45 (Motion carried).
09:40:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification of the motion, it's a
09:40:49 recommendation to the mayor.
09:40:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The motion is a recommendation.
09:40:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The form of the motion, it's sent to
09:40:56 the mayor as a recommendation by council.
09:41:00 >> That's the best we can do.
09:41:02 It's her appointment.
09:41:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a comment related to number

09:41:05 5, which we received a call a few minutes ago.
09:41:08 As I have driven around the city, I continue to see
09:41:10 these illegal scrolling signs.
09:41:13 There's specifically one on Dale Mabry, just across
09:41:16 from Britain plaza.
09:41:19 I know that other council members mentioned them on
09:41:22 Hillsborough.
09:41:23 I would like code enforcement to continue to be
09:41:25 vigilant in making people stick by our rules.
09:41:28 The code enforcement rules that say you are not
09:41:30 allowed to have scrolling signs.
09:41:32 So it's not a motion.
09:41:33 It's just an encouragement of code enforcement to stay
09:41:36 on it because they are throughout the city and they
09:41:38 are illegal.
09:41:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: I was looking at Ms. Cole.
09:41:44 I thought she would like some input.
09:41:46 Unless she wants to do it.
09:41:49 >>JULIA COLE: We are going to be having it on our sign
09:41:56 ordinance next week and maybe that would be the time.
09:41:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that would like to
09:42:01 request reconsideration?

09:42:03 At this time we go to public comments.
09:42:04 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak to
09:42:06 any items set on the agenda not set for public
09:42:08 hearing?
09:42:20 >>> Truett Gardner, 101 South Franklin.
09:42:23 I'm not sure if this is the appropriate time.
09:42:25 But I do have a continuance request, actually a
09:42:27 continuance alternative.
09:42:29 And you can direct me.
09:42:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me ask the question of the
09:42:34 attorney.
09:42:34 It's set for 10:00.
09:42:35 Can we do it now or we have to wait till ten?
09:42:38 Can we do it now?
09:42:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Set for when?
09:42:44 >>GWEN MILLER: 10:00.
09:42:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do it at ten.
09:42:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
09:42:49 >>> Terry Neil, 4703 river hills drive, Tampa,
09:42:54 Florida.
09:42:55 I'm here today because of I see resolution 67, 68,
09:43:02 resolution 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 64, and 65.

09:43:14 That's lots of money.
09:43:15 Some of them are discretionary spending.
09:43:18 Now, I have just been an appointed an advisory member
09:43:21 to the board of the transportation alliance and they
09:43:25 are behind me now and I'm asking you to ask the
09:43:27 administration to look at these resolutions to find
09:43:31 out if they are necessary and find the money we need
09:43:35 for segment "B" on 40th Street.
09:43:38 It's been three weeks since we were told that they
09:43:42 would find that money, and they have not gotten back
09:43:44 to us yet.
09:43:46 We were supposed to start construction next spring.
09:43:51 Nothing is happening.
09:43:52 And yet we're spending $460,000 from MacDill Air
09:43:59 Force Base.
09:44:00 We are giving $206,000 to Hartline.
09:44:04 We are giving 133,000 to the downtown hide parks
09:44:09 connector.
09:44:09 I'm not saying those aren't important.
09:44:11 But we were promised that 40th Street would come
09:44:14 first, that that no other road project would go
09:44:19 forward, no other transportation project would go

09:44:21 forward until 40th Street was started.
09:44:23 And now what do we have?
09:44:25 We have Manhattan Avenue being constructed.
09:44:28 $10 million project.
09:44:30 Please ask the administration to find its money and
09:44:33 get this project started now.
09:44:36 Thank you.
09:44:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:44:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for your comments.
09:44:39 I just wanted to respond in regard to Manhattan.
09:44:42 I can specifically say that those funds are coming out
09:44:44 of the transportation impact fee, which is the South
09:44:49 Tampa zone.
09:44:50 So even if we wanted to we couldn't switch those funds
09:44:53 anywhere beyond South Tampa.
09:44:55 But I hear what you're saying.
09:44:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:44:58 Next.
09:45:01 >>>
09:45:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: I hear you loud and clear.
09:45:04 And we have all been singing that same song.
09:45:09 And it seems like -- I don't want to say it's falling

09:45:14 on deaf ears, not totally.
09:45:17 We have some segments on 40th Street that have been
09:45:19 completed but I don't believe, that the segments that
09:45:23 are done now should have been done first to begin
09:45:26 with.
09:45:26 And I think we should have started in the areas of the
09:45:31 bridge in which it was intended in which the
09:45:33 neighborhoods along the 40th Street corridor have been
09:45:36 promised for so many years.
09:45:37 And I don't take anything away from our wonderful
09:45:46 theme park partners on the north end, but to do 40th
09:45:49 Street on their own and at that time construction
09:45:51 costs were half of what they were.
09:45:54 At this time, in which we could have done the segment
09:45:57 along the neighborhood and the bridge and those could
09:45:59 have been completed by now and we could have gone --
09:46:03 >>> I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'm asking
09:46:06 the church to get hundred dollar me.
09:46:07 >>KEVIN WHITE: We will -- I say we.
09:46:10 I will continue to ask, and this is the council as
09:46:15 well as the mayor, her top priority, transportation
09:46:17 priority.

09:46:18 So we will stand behind you.
09:46:22 >>> Thank you.
09:46:27 >>> My name is Moses Knott, Jr., I reside at 2902 East
09:46:31 Ellicott street, and I just thank God for his grace
09:46:36 and his mercy.
09:46:39 And I take it serious.
09:46:48 I look to God for everything.
09:46:50 But this morning I want to speak on article 3 this
09:46:52 morning and article 5, the first one is this water.
09:46:55 Again article 5, I want to file a complaint.
09:47:01 Article 3, you had the water man here this morning.
09:47:05 And, you know, I think I told you all, I don't know
09:47:12 half of what I know in the Bible.
09:47:13 I read the Bible real good, and this plan prayed seven
09:47:22 days, he told his servant to go up on a mountain and
09:47:26 got down on his knees.
09:47:28 Now, seven days, the man come back a cloud the size of
09:47:40 a man's hand and he come back running and shouting,
09:47:43 and all the peoples cattle was dying, everything,
09:47:50 people were dying because of water.
09:47:54 In the Bible, all through the Bible, talks about
09:47:59 either you are blessed or you are cursed.

09:48:01 But the man talked about "our water."
09:48:08 And you all put a fine on the peoples? Say yes.
09:48:17 Come every day, leave it well alone.
09:48:21 And get a curse on this whole city about water.
09:48:25 Article 5, code enforcement, okay.
09:48:31 I have got a big complaint about them signs.
09:48:33 Now you took everybody's sign on 27th Street.
09:48:41 You got signs all signs all over town.
09:48:45 They got no right.
09:48:48 You all -- you all are going to -- make people take
09:48:56 their yard signs down.
09:48:58 And last year, got a person that got a bad heart.
09:49:02 Last year I seen the signs on Hillsborough,
09:49:06 everywhere, all over town, politician signs, all of
09:49:08 them.
09:49:09 You all make the law.
09:49:12 You all break it.
09:49:13 And when Jesus went to the cross, fulfill the law,
09:49:20 make the law right.
09:49:21 But I feel you all treat people in this town about
09:49:25 those signs.
09:49:26 Oh, she gone, don't want to talk behind her back.

09:49:31 I mean, you all do something about the signs.
09:49:36 And some of those partition signs up there, bring them
09:49:43 down.
09:49:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Knott.
09:49:44 Next.
09:49:53 >>> Good morning.
09:49:53 Are we addressing article 104 through 16?
09:49:57 >>GWEN MILLER: It's a public hearing.
09:50:10 Can't do it till that time.
09:50:12 >>> Good morning, council.
09:50:13 I would like to provide some information on 40th
09:50:15 Street.
09:50:17 We do meet with the 40th Street task force on a
09:50:20 regular basis.
09:50:25 We told the task force we are committed to giving this
09:50:27 segment B awarded.
09:50:29 We opened bids in June.
09:50:31 We have 90 days that the bid is good.
09:50:33 But to make that award.
09:50:36 We have talked with the MPO staff.
09:50:38 We have talked with FDOT.
09:50:41 The plan is to take the money from A, the money that

09:50:45 we need, and go ahead and award this B contract, this
09:50:50 was higher than we wanted to but nonetheless it's
09:50:52 within reach and we would like to get it under way.
09:50:56 This information has happened since our last 40th
09:50:57 Street task force meeting.
09:51:00 We will pass this to the 40th Street task force at our
09:51:02 next meeting.
09:51:03 But we certainly are moving and getting that project
09:51:06 continued, getting that segment B awarded and getting
09:51:10 the construction back started on that very important
09:51:13 road tour.
09:51:14 I just wanted you to have the benefit of that
09:51:17 information.
09:51:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
09:51:21 And I have said over and over and over again, since I
09:51:24 have been chairman of the MPO, that the MPO cannot
09:51:27 help without funding during our regular five-year
09:51:39 program awarding process.
09:51:40 And for the last two years now, we haven't made any
09:51:44 requests for 40th Street.
09:51:46 And we know what we are doing now is we are
09:51:48 essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul, and at some

09:51:51 point we are going to have to -- Paul is going to be
09:51:53 that much more expensive.
09:51:55 We are going to have to come up with the money for
09:51:57 that.
09:51:57 And if the idea is to go to the MPO for that money we
09:52:01 are going to be looking at five years out for that.
09:52:09 We know the project gets more and more expensive.
09:52:11 We know that we are going to ultimately have to tap
09:52:13 that MPO money.
09:52:15 And I don't know why we haven't done it so far.
09:52:18 But I'm just going to encourage you one more time,
09:52:21 make a request for the new fifth year when it's now a
09:52:25 year out, so we are going to have to wait for another
09:52:27 year, but make that request so we can at least get in
09:52:30 the pipeline.
09:52:32 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: I understand.
09:52:35 We did come last year.
09:52:36 FDOT was able to find fund ago different way.
09:52:39 We will continue to talk to the MPO and keep them
09:52:43 informed and come with those requests.
09:52:45 It's difficult, as you know, each year we do an
09:52:48 estimate of the project, and we get the money to back

09:52:50 that estimate, and it is fully funded in the program.
09:52:54 But then when you do the bid it could change.
09:52:56 So again we will have to keep coming.
09:52:58 But we will do that.
09:52:59 And we appreciate your support in that regard.
09:53:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, thanks for coming down.
09:53:06 I noticed the memo you sent to us, I guess, in the
09:53:08 last day or two, just wanted to point out that 40th
09:53:11 Street is not alone in coming notary public with these
09:53:13 cost overages, Cross Creek and Lake Avenue, 13% over.
09:53:22 So this is sort of endemic.
09:53:28 I would guess it's probably regional?
09:53:31 >>> Yes, sir, FDOT projects are coming inasmuch as 50
09:53:33 to 100% over their estimate.
09:53:38 It's so much work.
09:53:39 And it's changing so quickly that it's hard to keep a
09:53:43 good estimate.
09:53:45 And it's probably both the fact that this city, this
09:53:51 county and this region need to look at additional
09:53:53 funding sources for transportation issues.
09:53:56 That's something that's been banging around, you know,
09:53:58 for at least the last five or ten years.

09:54:01 We need to work hard with the county on those very
09:54:04 important issues.
09:54:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
09:54:09 We now go to our committee reports.
09:54:11 Public safety, Ms. Rose Ferlita.
09:54:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm looking for the page.
09:54:27 I'm sorry.
09:54:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Page 4.
09:54:28 >> Like to move the resolution.
09:54:30 >> Second.
09:54:30 (Motion carried).
09:54:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Parks and recreation, vice chair, Kevin
09:54:35 White.
09:54:42 We have a motion and second.
09:54:44 (Motion carried).
09:54:45 Public works, John Dingfelder.
09:54:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before I move my items, I wanted to
09:54:52 say one thing about item 44.
09:54:55 Specifically, this is an amendment to our ordinance
09:55:02 from wastewater, and Ralph Metcalf, chapter 26.
09:55:06 When Ralph and I were talking about this yesterday it
09:55:08 came to my attention, he said, well, I said, what are

09:55:11 we doing?
09:55:12 Are we passing these amendments?
09:55:13 He said, no,.
09:55:17 I said why would we send wastewater over issues to
09:55:21 Planning Commission?
09:55:22 Planning Commission from my perspective is very much
09:55:24 about land use and zoning and that sort of thing.
09:55:27 By the way, in talking to legal council, earlier this
09:55:30 morning, apparently we have certain chapters that
09:55:37 automatically have to go over to the Planning
09:55:39 Commission but our legal department seems to -- it
09:55:43 doesn't necessarily jive with the requirements of
09:55:46 state budget. Anyway, long story.
09:55:49 Bottom line is, after I move my items I am going to
09:55:53 make a motion to address that issue.
09:55:55 So in the meantime, I will move items 33 through 44.
09:56:06 >> Second.
09:56:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Related to item 44 I would like the
09:56:10 legal department to report back to us in six weeks on
09:56:16 the issue of what ordinances by law have to go over to
09:56:25 the Planning Commission, and can we revisit that issue
09:56:29 as related to our code?

09:56:31 And I want to make sure that they work with Bob Hunter
09:56:35 and his staff on that issue.
09:56:37 Because I don't want to create any animosity between
09:56:40 the two groups.
09:56:41 We are working well with the Planning Commission these
09:56:43 days and I want to keep that up.
09:56:44 But at the same time they don't need to review grease
09:56:49 ordinances or some of these other things.
09:56:51 That's my motion.
09:56:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to second the motion
09:56:53 and expand on it briefly.
09:56:55 I'm a big supporter of the Planning Commission, also,
09:56:58 former staff member of the Planning Commission.
09:57:00 But in terms of our role and their role, there are
09:57:04 some areas where things are overbroad.
09:57:07 And frankly, sending things over to them that's going
09:57:11 to be sort of stamped and sent off, as our process
09:57:16 works.
09:57:17 And Lord knows we have enough planning without us
09:57:22 throwing anything down.
09:57:23 So I hope we work on this expeditiously.
09:57:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

09:57:28 (Motion carried).
09:57:29 Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
09:57:31 >>KEVIN WHITE: Like to move 45 through 49.
09:57:35 >> Second.
09:57:35 (Motion carried).
09:57:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda
09:57:39 Saul-Sena.
09:57:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 50
09:57:43 through 65.
09:57:46 >> Second.
09:57:46 (Motion carried).
09:57:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Transportation, Shawn Harrison.
09:57:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move items 66 through 72.
09:58:07 >> Second.
09:58:07 (Motion Carried).
09:58:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Then 73 through 79.
09:58:21 >> Second.
09:58:22 (Motion carried).
09:58:25 >> And move to set the new items 80 through 103 with
09:58:37 the substitution on 86.
09:58:40 >> Second.
09:58:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.

09:58:42 (Motion carried).
09:58:43 >> We go back to item number 8.
09:58:54 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance amending ordinance
09:58:57 number 2006-73, passed and ordained by the City
09:59:02 Council of the City of Tampa March 23rd, 2006,
09:59:05 pertaining to a third amendment to a development order
09:59:07 pursuant to chapter 380, Florida statutes, for the
09:59:10 university center research and development park, DRI
09:59:13 number 161 by correcting a scrivener's error,
09:59:16 providing an effective date.
09:59:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
09:59:19 (Motion carried).
09:59:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 9.
09:59:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move and ordinance repealing and
09:59:30 reenacting Tampa code section 14-5 relating to the
09:59:34 assessment of mandatory court costs as provided in
09:59:37 Florida statute section 938.15 and certain companion
09:59:41 statutes, to assess, and authorize the clerk of the
09:59:44 13th circuit court to collect and remit to the
09:59:47 city said mandatory costs and providing an effective
09:59:49 date.
09:59:50 >> Second.

09:59:50 (Motion carried).
09:59:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Alvarez, will you read number 10?
09:59:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance making lawful the
10:00:03 conditional sale of beverages containing alcohol of no
10:00:05 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
10:00:09 and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and
10:00:11 wine 2(APS) in sealed containers for consumption off
10:00:14 premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or
10:00:17 tract of land located at 220 east Madison street,
10:00:20 Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
10:00:22 section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
10:00:25 distance based upon certain findings, providing for
10:00:28 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
10:00:31 effective date.
10:00:35 (Motion Carried).
10:00:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Public hearings for second reading.
10:00:38 Anyone in the public that wants to speak on item 104
10:00:42 to 113, would you please stand and raise your right
10:00:45 hand?
10:00:46 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
10:00:56 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
10:00:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Some housekeeping, council.

10:01:02 First I ask that any items that have been written,
10:01:05 correspondence that has been received and available to
10:01:07 the public at council's office be received and filed
10:01:09 into the record.
10:01:16 Secondly a reminder any ex parte conversations, please
10:01:21 disclose those prior to the vote and thirdly, ladies
10:01:23 and gentlemen, I remind you that when you state your
10:01:25 name please reaffirm that you have been sworn.
10:01:28 Thank you.
10:01:29 >> We need to open items 104 to 113.
10:01:32 Motion and second.
10:01:33 All in favor of the motion?
10:01:35 (Motion Carried)
10:01:36 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
10:01:38 item 104?
10:01:39 >>:
10:01:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
10:01:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Wait a minute.
10:01:44 Somebody moving.
10:01:47 >>GWEN MILLER: come on up.
10:01:49 Speak on item 104.
10:01:52 >>> I have been sworn in.

10:01:54 My name is Carmen brown Johnson.
10:01:57 I represent 2003 north Highland Avenue.
10:02:04 I'm here to say that this is property that my family
10:02:07 owned.
10:02:08 And I am opposing any ordinance concerning closing the
10:02:21 prompt relating to the property that my family has.
10:02:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Next?
10:02:26 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
10:02:41 street.
10:02:43 Ms. Johnson came this morning.
10:02:45 She didn't know how to speak to you all.
10:02:47 And she came crying.
10:02:49 When I first came in in the morning -- many people ask
10:02:54 me to help them.
10:02:55 They can't go to you all.
10:02:56 They come to me.
10:02:57 I ask you all for that.
10:03:02 God thinks I know a lot of people.
10:03:04 Knowing one man sometimes brings a lot of people down.
10:03:06 But I'm glad.
10:03:10 She's telling me this morning that you all are
10:03:11 changing on her family property.

10:03:15 And I'm telling you all, she told me a whistle ago,
10:03:22 Mr. Knott, they are going to take all my family
10:03:24 property, that's how you all do business.
10:03:30 You do everybody.
10:03:31 You downgrade their property.
10:03:33 You change the zoning on their property.
10:03:35 When you can't do nothing with it.
10:03:37 I told you all over and over again, people bought
10:03:42 property years ago, and build a house on it.
10:03:48 You can't do that no more.
10:03:50 You -- you change the zoning, commercial, build a
10:03:56 condominium on it.
10:03:57 But I'm telling you all, this is wrong.
10:03:59 Now this lady says she doesn't want the zoning on her
10:04:03 property changed.
10:04:03 I wish you all would go for that.
10:04:05 Because when you change the zoning on it -- now she
10:04:12 might have some houses.
10:04:13 When you change that property, totally unlegal.
10:04:16 But that's how you all do business.
10:04:17 You done it all over town.
10:04:19 But you start on me first.

10:04:21 Got me out of business coming in there and changing
10:04:23 the zoning on my property without even knowing about
10:04:26 it.
10:04:28 M-1 all the way down to IG.
10:04:30 But that's how you all do business with this zoning.
10:04:37 Like I told you this morning, you been blessed in this
10:04:40 city.
10:04:40 But God done put a curse on this city.
10:04:43 And this city is -- with sin.
10:05:00 >>> Fowler White.
10:05:01 Yes, I have been sworn.
10:05:02 The property that was just alluded to is a small part,
10:05:07 several thousand square feet, nonbuildable, and at
10:05:12 this point, initiative 104 would only take a small
10:05:18 amount off of where -- we are required to maintain a
10:05:25 transportation plan in order to maintain access to the
10:05:28 vacant parcel, and we will certainly do that.
10:05:31 We are continuing to work with them as it relates to
10:05:34 ultimately what might be done with that property in
10:05:36 the future, and at this point those plans have been
10:05:40 solidified.
10:05:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?

10:05:47 >> Move to close.
10:05:48 >> Second.
10:05:48 (Motion carried).
10:05:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to adopt the following
10:05:52 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance vacating,
10:05:54 closing, discontinuing, and abandoning certain
10:05:57 rights-of-way all or a portion of those certain
10:05:59 rights-of-way contained within the proposed heights
10:06:01 community development district generally located south
10:06:03 of Ross Avenue, west of Tampa street, north of the
10:06:06 north bank of the Hillsborough River and east of North
10:06:09 Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
10:06:11 Florida, the same being more fully described in
10:06:13 section 2 herein subject to the reservation of certain
10:06:15 easements and to certain covenants, restrictions and
10:06:18 conditions as set forth herein, providing an effective
10:06:20 date.
10:06:20 >> I have a motion and second.
10:06:22 Voice roll call.
10:06:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:06:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 113.
10:06:35 Mr. Truett Gardner.

10:06:43 >>> 101 South Franklin street.
10:06:45 As I was starting to say before, we had kind of an
10:06:47 interesting development.
10:06:49 Since the last time we were in front of you and wanted
10:06:51 to propose a continuance with an alternative.
10:06:54 As you know, we are here for second reading, with a
10:06:57 discussion to be had on the transportation mitigation.
10:07:00 Last August, we were approved for a development that
10:07:02 was a combination of hotel and condo, which is
10:07:06 actually the development to the neighborhood that Ms.
10:07:10 Vizzi expressed.
10:07:12 Since our last hearing, the owner of the property was
10:07:15 approached by a residential developer to basically do
10:07:20 a hotel-motel in accordance with last August site plan
10:07:23 approval.
10:07:24 As a result, we would ask for a continuance just for
10:07:27 two weeks.
10:07:27 There's been a meeting of the minds, but it's not a
10:07:30 hard contract yet.
10:07:33 Alternatively, you would not like to go that route, I
10:07:37 cleared it with legal and zoning we where we could
10:07:41 potentially attach last August's site plan to this

10:07:44 site plan, we could move forward if that's your
10:07:46 desire.
10:07:47 Then if you were to do that, the develop core operate
10:07:50 under either plan.
10:07:51 I think the cleaner would probably be the continuance
10:07:54 for two weeks but we are willing to go either route.
10:07:57 It's subject to your approval.
10:08:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we hear from Ms. Vizzi?
10:08:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Vizzi?
10:08:07 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Shirley.
10:08:11 Though we had agreed that I would be contacted, or one
10:08:14 of us from the organization, it wasn't until -- to
10:08:22 find out what this was going to be all about, and then
10:08:26 finally called me back the day before yesterday to let
10:08:28 me know what this is about, except what he said is a
10:08:32 little different from what I just heard.
10:08:40 What we were told if the sale goes through, it would
10:08:43 revert back to the first one.
10:08:44 But now I guess it's still consuming this legal issue
10:08:48 of having both on the books.
10:08:50 And I have also contacted legal, didn't get a call
10:08:54 back to know what the ramifications are with that, of

10:08:58 that were.
10:08:59 So we are still kind of up in the air with what will
10:09:02 happen if they go with that plan.
10:09:18 Up or if they go back.
10:09:19 I'm not against the postponement.
10:09:22 They only have the one plan that was approved last
10:09:24 year.
10:09:25 And that will settle it.
10:09:26 It will be a hotel and a condo.
10:09:27 And wouldn't have to be -- wouldn't have to put up
10:09:31 with the traffic that I understand now that
10:09:35 transportation said none of that traffic is going to
10:09:37 come through our neighborhood, which we know is
10:09:39 totally not true.
10:09:40 But that's another story for another day.
10:09:44 We would just like an explanation of what they really
10:09:46 want to do.
10:09:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think we should yield to Mr. Smith
10:09:51 and maybe he can shed some light on this.
10:09:53 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:09:55 I would like to recommend that we continue it for two
10:09:58 weeks, and try to abstract from some of these issues.

10:10:01 You have a lot to do, should this appear as an issue
10:10:06 from what I understand, and if it doesn't, we'll make
10:10:08 sure Ms. Vizzi is informed.
10:10:10 I know that Ms. Cole tried to reach her numerous times
10:10:13 this week.
10:10:13 But we will make sure we do that, if for some reason
10:10:16 the developer does not.
10:10:17 So we will keep her in the loop and make sure she is
10:10:21 apprised of what she needs, and to make her decision.
10:10:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to continue item 113.
10:10:29 (Motion carried)
10:10:30 10:00.
10:10:34 Second reading.
10:10:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Should be 9:30.
10:10:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 10:00.
10:10:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Should be 9:30.
10:10:44 >>GWEN MILLER: 9:30.
10:10:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public wants to
10:10:51 speak on item 105?
10:10:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
10:10:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Before you do that.
10:10:58 Mrs. Ferlita.

10:10:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Excuse me.
10:11:00 On item 105, again I am going to abstain.
10:11:03 And I have complied with the memorandum of voting
10:11:06 conflict requirement.
10:11:13 I have property that may be affect bid this ordinance.
10:11:16 (Motion Carried).
10:11:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Due to the eloquent of Mr. Pardo
10:11:25 last night, presented for second reading upon
10:11:28 adoption.
10:11:29 An ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida amending
10:11:31 the City of Tampa code chapter 25, transportation,
10:11:34 article 1, administrative provisions, division 3, fee
10:11:37 authority and types, permits, inspections, amending
10:11:40 section 25-74-A-6 to identify and authorize a "no
10:11:47 transportation impact fee zone" for a portion of Ybor
10:11:49 City in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
10:11:52 Florida, the no transportation impact fee exempt zone
10:11:55 being more particularly described in section 4 herein
10:11:57 and effective for a period of three years, commencing
10:12:00 August 22, 2005, nunc pro tunc, providing for a
10:12:04 revised City of Tampa transportation impact fee
10:12:07 district schedule, providing for repeal of all

10:12:10 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
10:12:12 providing an effective date.
10:12:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:12:16 Voice roll call.
10:12:18 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita abstaining.
10:12:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:12:26 wants to speak on item 106?
10:12:37 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
10:12:38 I just presented a memorandum to you for distribution
10:12:41 and a copy to the clerk.
10:12:43 This item contained a scrivener's error at first
10:12:45 reading.
10:12:46 The actual acreage is 49.118 acres, not 53 acres.
10:12:51 So there is a reduction in the acreage.
10:12:53 The legal description, however, was correct.
10:12:56 Also, there was a reference to I-4 being a boundary,
10:13:01 275.
10:13:01 We reviewed that and find those scrivener errors.
10:13:08 You can proceed with second reading today. However,
10:13:10 we do ask that the one you received June 22nd is
10:13:16 the one provided today.
10:13:18 >>GWEN MILLER: You may speak now.

10:13:28 >>> Brown Johnson, north Heim Avenue, 106.
10:13:35 Gives information concerning the borders that my
10:13:37 property is in.
10:13:38 And again, I am in opposition of anything being done
10:13:43 for my property, it's been said but all the properties
10:13:48 in that area were small, that were simple, to make one
10:13:52 large piece.
10:13:53 But regardless of how small it is, it's owned, and it
10:13:58 has been paid for, and kept up, and paid taxes on, my
10:14:02 family, by my family, and it will continue to be that
10:14:06 way.
10:14:06 And I am in total and complete opposition of whatever
10:14:08 is trying to be done.
10:14:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:14:11 Next.
10:14:18 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 20902 East Ellicott
10:14:24 street.
10:14:24 I'm back again.
10:14:27 Asked me to help her, and okay.
10:14:31 Now, she told me awhile ago her family bought that
10:14:33 property years ago.
10:14:35 I done come to this podium three or four times and

10:14:38 told people don't you die and leave your no property
10:14:41 because the city is going to get it.
10:14:43 Now this is a good example.
10:14:47 I always find me a property to improve.
10:14:50 I go to the Bible and find me someplace on earth that
10:14:54 gives me a good idea of what I'm talking about.
10:14:57 Now, talking about this whole thing here going up in
10:15:00 smoke.
10:15:00 And her property right in the middle of it all.
10:15:05 But she says she don't want her property zoned.
10:15:08 And what she telling me now that people in the
10:15:10 neighborhood don't want to get a little money for
10:15:13 their property.
10:15:14 Now that happens all over this town.
10:15:16 They come in there, give you a little money like 3 or
10:15:19 $4 square feet.
10:15:22 People, they come in and get through it with, it's
10:15:27 probably going to be $50 a square feet.
10:15:30 Now, that is totally wrong.
10:15:33 I tell people, telling people they got to move.
10:15:41 That's all I ask you for, give them enough money where
10:15:44 they can go somewhere and live like other people live.

10:15:47 I told you all, in Hillsborough County, move out of
10:15:52 there and they got no money to go buy them a nice
10:15:57 house and live like everybody else lives.
10:15:59 But a good example.
10:16:03 A big house over by midland school on the north side.
10:16:06 They get in there, and right across the street, and
10:16:10 then move the business somewhere else.
10:16:12 That's what I'm talking about.
10:16:14 And tell the poor peoples, get out of here, you poor
10:16:18 slaves, get out of here.
10:16:23 You all got to go.
10:16:24 That's wrong, you-all.
10:16:27 But you got to be careful how you treat God's people.
10:16:30 All through the Bible, God says bless the poor.
10:16:33 Bless the poor.
10:16:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: For the record, would you like to
10:16:39 explain this?
10:16:44 >>> Rhea Law, Fowler White, representing developer.
10:16:46 In this particular case, we are now looking at the
10:16:49 establishment of the community development district.
10:16:52 And this parcel is not included within the community
10:16:55 development district.

10:16:56 So the issues that are relevant to this hearing do not
10:17:04 include any of this property.
10:17:05 But I do want to say as you know this project has been
10:17:08 the subject of long-standing efforts to assemble the
10:17:11 property.
10:17:16 I don't think realistically people could say that was
10:17:19 not the case.
10:17:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
10:17:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
10:17:25 >> Second.
10:17:25 (Motion carried).
10:17:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 106, substitute
10:17:45 Move the following ordinance upon second reading, an
10:17:47 ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida establishing
10:17:49 the heights community development district for the
10:17:51 purpose of managing and delivering basic community
10:17:54 infrastructure improvements for the benefit of a
10:17:56 parcel of land generally located on the eastern shore
10:17:59 of the Hillsborough River, east of North Boulevard,
10:18:02 south of Ross Avenue, west of Tampa street and north
10:18:05 of interstate highway 275, comprising 49.118 acres
10:18:10 more or less, said district to be located entirely

10:18:13 within the boundaries of the City of Tampa,
10:18:15 Hillsborough County, Florida, the same being more
10:18:17 particularly described in section 2 hereof, pursuant
10:18:20 to chapter 190, Florida statutes, providing for
10:18:23 severability, providing an effective date.
10:18:24 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
10:18:27 Voice roll call.
10:18:30 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita being absent.
10:18:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:18:39 wants to speak on item 107?
10:18:45 (Motion carried).
10:18:45 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance on second reading, an
10:18:50 ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
10:18:53 containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight and not
10:18:55 more than 14% by weight and wines regardless of
10:18:58 alcoholic content beer and wine 2(APS) in sealed
10:19:01 containers for couples off premises only at or from
10:19:03 that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at
10:19:07 4320 North Armenia Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more
10:19:10 particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving
10:19:12 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
10:19:15 findings providing for repeal of all ordinances in

10:19:17 conflict, providing an effective date.
10:19:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
10:19:21 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita being absent.
10:19:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:19:26 wants to speak on item 108?
10:19:27 >> Move to close.
10:19:29 >> Second.
10:19:29 (Motion carried).
10:19:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
10:19:34 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance making
10:19:36 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
10:19:41 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
10:19:45 and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and
10:19:47 wine 2(APS) in sealed containers for consumption off
10:19:50 premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or
10:19:53 tract of land located at 4120 Henderson Boulevard,
10:19:57 Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
10:19:59 section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
10:20:01 distance based on certain findings, repealing --
10:20:06 providing for repeal of all honests in conflict,
10:20:09 providing an effective date.
10:20:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.

10:20:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita being absent.
10:20:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:20:17 wants to speak on item 109?
10:20:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to close.
10:20:20 >> Second.
10:20:20 (Motion carried).
10:20:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following
10:20:25 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance repealing
10:20:27 ordinance number 9072-A making lawful the sale of
10:20:31 beverages containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic
10:20:34 content, beer, wine and liquor, 4(COP), for
10:20:36 consumption on the premises and in sealed containers
10:20:39 for consumption off the premises in connection with a
10:20:41 business establishment on that certain lot, plot or
10:20:43 tract of land located at 2025 east Fowler Avenue,
10:20:47 Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described in
10:20:49 section 3 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to
10:20:52 distance based upon certain findings, providing for
10:20:55 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
10:20:57 effective date.
10:20:57 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
10:21:00 Voice roll call.

10:21:06 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
10:21:08 being absent.
10:21:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:21:11 wants to speak on item number 110?
10:21:16 >> Move to close.
10:21:17 >> Second.
10:21:17 (Motion carried).
10:21:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to adopt an ordinance upon
10:21:22 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
10:21:25 general vicinity of Ross Avenue to the north, North
10:21:27 Boulevard to the west, Tampa street to the east,
10:21:30 Hillsborough River, Doyle Carlton drive to the south,
10:21:33 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
10:21:35 described in section 1 from zoning district
10:21:37 classifications RM-16 residential multifamily, RM-24,
10:21:41 residential multifamily, CN, commercial neighborhood,
10:21:45 CG commercial general, CI commercial intensive and IG
10:21:50 industrial general, to PD-A, planned developmental
10:21:54 alternative, mixed use residential and commercial,
10:21:56 providing an effective date.
10:21:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:21:59 Voice roll call.

10:22:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita and white
10:22:03 being absent.
10:22:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to comment that I
10:22:08 normally really hate PD-As because they are kind of
10:22:11 vague.
10:22:11 This PD-A has a specific list of requirements to go
10:22:16 with it and such clearly defined expectations for the
10:22:21 quality of what's going to be built, that I feel
10:22:23 comfortable with it, and I hope this is a guide in the
10:22:26 future to what PD-As need to provide to the city to
10:22:30 give us all comfort.
10:22:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 111 we are going to wait
10:22:36 until Mr. White comes back and go back to that.
10:22:38 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
10:22:40 item 112?
10:22:42 >> Move to close.
10:22:43 >> Second.
10:22:43 (Motion carried).
10:22:49 >> I move to adopt the ordinance on second reading, an
10:22:52 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
10:22:54 3603 and -- 607 north EXCELDA Avenue in the city of
10:23:03 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in

10:23:04 section 1 from zoning district classifications RS-50
10:23:08 to PD providing an effective date.
10:23:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:23:11 Voice roll call.
10:23:13 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita being absent.
10:23:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:23:19 wants to speak on item 111?
10:23:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As I mentioned several times, the
10:23:30 developer of this property is a client of my law firm
10:23:33 so I abstain from 111.
10:23:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:23:39 Anyone in the public wants to speak?
10:23:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
10:23:43 >> Second.
10:23:43 (Motion carried).
10:23:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White.
10:23:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance on second reading,
10:23:50 move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
10:23:52 vicinity of 3603 and 3605 South MacDill Avenue in the
10:23:55 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
10:23:57 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
10:23:59 RS-60 residential single family to PD planned

10:24:02 development single-family attached, providing an
10:24:04 effective date.
10:24:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:24:06 Voice roll call.
10:24:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abstain.
10:24:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
10:24:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
10:24:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:24:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
10:24:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
10:24:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder
10:24:19 abstaining, Harrison voting no, Ferlita absent.
10:24:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that wants to speak on
10:24:26 item 1 -- 115 and 116.
10:24:33 In the public who wants to speak on those items.
10:24:36 THE CLERK: We actually have 114.
10:24:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we could just swear in winds on
10:24:42 116 individually.
10:24:56 Only on 116.
10:24:58 >>GWEN MILLER: 116.
10:24:59 (Oath administered by Clerk).
10:25:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to open number 116.

10:25:13 >> Second.
10:25:13 (Motion carried).
10:25:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:25:16 wants to speak on item 116?
10:25:27 >>> I have been sworn.
10:25:30 2003 north Howard Avenue.
10:25:36 In reading 116, it was urged to the City of Tampa,
10:25:43 heights of Tampa, all of these groups, I'll put that
10:25:52 the way, have approached my family concerning our
10:25:54 property from the City of Tampa.
10:26:00 We had offers on the east.
10:26:03 My property is within those borders.
10:26:08 Also, buying, which we have denied, and the threat of
10:26:13 eminent do domain if we do not sale, different
10:26:17 correspondence about working on our property.
10:26:21 And I'm here to say as an American citizen that our
10:26:27 president recently gave an executive order that any
10:26:34 community basically he was speaking to the federal
10:26:36 government, that uses eminent domain to take away
10:26:42 property for private use, he is strongly against.
10:26:50 Our governor or up hold that same sentiment.
10:26:54 How can our city government not up hold what the

10:26:58 president of these United States has said, what the
10:27:02 governor of this state has said, when you are charged
10:27:09 to up hold the government of these United States of
10:27:12 America, the Constitution, the statutes, the laws, the
10:27:18 codes of this United States of America.
10:27:21 The Bible says righteousness exalts the nation but sin
10:27:26 is a reproach to any people, when the righteous are in
10:27:31 authority the people rejoice.
10:27:36 I am in opposition.
10:27:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ma'am, I'm sorry.
10:27:49 I just want to clarify a few things.
10:27:51 A couple months ago when we authorized the eminent
10:27:53 domain authority for this project, we were -- I think
10:27:58 another family stood in front of us and said, we live
10:28:00 here, our home and our homesteaded home --
10:28:06 >> I'm saying it up here.
10:28:07 >> Are being threatened.
10:28:09 So we specifically carved that family out and said we
10:28:12 are not going to authorize the use of eminent domain
10:28:15 for homesteaded properties.
10:28:17 Okay.
10:28:18 And I think we were trying to be very diligent in that

10:28:23 regard.
10:28:24 So I'm not necessarily familiar with your family's
10:28:28 piece of property.
10:28:29 You say you are being threatened with eminent domain.
10:28:32 Is your property homesteaded?
10:28:34 >>> No, it is not.
10:28:35 It's a vacant lot but it's still our property.
10:28:37 >> Okay.
10:28:40 I guess we have established sort of a different policy
10:28:43 and a different approach as related to vacant lots.
10:28:48 As compared to homesteaded properties.
10:28:50 And I know you and I could probably sit here and argue
10:28:53 about the difference and that sort of thing.
10:28:55 But I just wanted to make sure this was not a home
10:28:58 that somebody is living in, that it's homesteaded
10:29:00 property:
10:29:02 >>> Thank you for your concern.
10:29:11 >>> Rhea Law with Fowler White.
10:29:13 Yes, I have been sworn.
10:29:14 We continue to work with Ms. Brown.
10:29:17 And I just want to shop you a picture of the -- it is
10:29:27 a vacant lot.

10:29:28 It's 2,997 square feet.
10:29:31 And you will recall, you can see, unfortunately, there
10:29:40 is a car in the way.
10:29:47 You will recall that the eminent domain was actually
10:29:49 part of your entire CRA and assemblance of the
10:29:58 property so it is an important piece and for that
10:29:59 reason we want to continue speaking with her to see if
10:30:03 we can reach some accommodation.
10:30:06 Nothing has been determined at this time, but we will
10:30:07 continue to work on it.
10:30:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Law, is it a buildable lot?
10:30:14 >>> It is not.
10:30:15 >> How big is the lot?
10:30:17 >>> It is 37 by 81.
10:30:19 >> So it's not a buildable lot.
10:30:21 >>> It is not.
10:30:21 >> And have they been offered market value for their
10:30:24 property?
10:30:25 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:30:26 In excess of market.
10:30:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In excess of.
10:30:30 Thank you very much.

10:30:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Regardless we are not exercising
10:30:36 eminent domain on that lot.
10:30:37 It remains in private ownership and she is entitled to
10:30:40 keep it until apparently an impasse may or may not be
10:30:43 reached, and at that point we will make a policy
10:30:46 decision on using eminent domain.
10:30:48 We are not there yet.
10:30:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
10:30:54 >> Move to close.
10:30:56 >> Second.
10:30:56 (Motion carried).
10:30:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to move the resolution.
10:30:59 >> So moved.
10:31:00 >>GWEN MILLER: The execute resolution.
10:31:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the substitute resolution.
10:31:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Second.
10:31:04 (Motion carried).
10:31:05 >>GWEN MILLER: We go back now to item number 114.
10:31:12 Is there anyone that wants ton speak on 114?
10:31:15 THE CLERK: You need to open the public hearing.
10:31:17 >> So moved.
10:31:18 >> Second.

10:31:18 (Motion carried).
10:31:19 >>STEVE MICHELINI: You may recall that I approached
10:31:24 you before transmitting this ordinance to the Planning
10:31:27 Commission and asked that we continue more discussions
10:31:30 on it before being forwarded.
10:31:32 That was the commitment as I remember at the
10:31:35 workshops, because we did not finish going through all
10:31:38 of the discussion on the ordinance that is being
10:31:42 proposed.
10:31:47 The Planning Commission voted, I believe the vote was
10:31:50 7-1 to object to and find this plan inconsistent with
10:31:55 the comprehensive plan.
10:31:57 There are a variety of things that have not been
10:31:59 addressed, that are of serious concern, if you start
10:32:03 as early as page 12, regarding solid waste
10:32:06 requirements, going on to page 14, page 17.
10:32:09 You have got a variety of requirements regarding
10:32:13 primary entrances, where you are now entering into
10:32:17 design criteria for the entrances for homes.
10:32:21 It leaves you no alternative other than to have the
10:32:24 front door facing the street.
10:32:25 There are side entry doors with portico shares and

10:32:30 things like that, which are historic in nature, which
10:32:33 would indeed be consistent with a lot of the
10:32:34 development patterns within the city.
10:32:36 One thing that I think is important to remember is
10:32:38 that this code applies to the entire City of Tampa.
10:32:41 It's not a South Tampa code.
10:32:43 And frequently we become a little myopic about what
10:32:48 these provisions mean and how they are being applied.
10:32:51 You are requiring also two-carport garages for either
10:32:57 enclosed garages or two carport spaces for houses.
10:33:00 You may recall recently the affordable housing
10:33:05 development, that they had some difficulty in meeting
10:33:07 those standards, they came to you for relief, just
10:33:10 makes it a requirement.
10:33:12 Again, East Tampa, West Tampa, some portion of the
10:33:16 Tampa Heights area, Sulphur Springs, can't even begin
10:33:18 to meet some of the criteria that you placed in here
10:33:21 and made obligatory.
10:33:25 On pages 21, you have outdoor storage requirement for
10:33:29 solid waste containers for residential.
10:33:33 It applies to a variety of different things.
10:33:35 On page 272 you are making a lighting plan obligatory

10:33:40 for all projects on new development regulations.
10:33:44 Again, that's an engineering request.
10:33:47 Typically, lighting plans are not done until you get
10:33:50 to the construction phase of the project.
10:33:52 Very rarely is it ever done on the front end of a
10:33:55 project.
10:33:58 In addition to that TECO or your regulatory utility
10:34:01 company, whoever that might be, they prepare those
10:34:03 plans.
10:34:04 If you want someone to agree that they are going to
10:34:06 comply with a plan, that's one thing.
10:34:09 But the second thing is to go ahead and prepare the
10:34:11 plan in advance.
10:34:12 It's an extraordinary requirement.
10:34:13 It's expensive to do.
10:34:14 And it may be in fact redundant.
10:34:18 We may be overstepping the bounds of the utility
10:34:21 companies that are typically responsible for that.
10:34:25 Going on to pages 32, you have got -- requiring
10:34:31 asphalt or concrete, parking and drive surfaces.
10:34:35 There are other alternatives not being provided for.
10:34:39 You are requiring modeling to be incorporated into all

10:34:39 buildings that are 80 feet in height.
10:34:47 Normally your PD process especially in the CBD doesn't
10:34:49 kick off until you get to 150 feet.
10:34:51 Modeling is a very expensive process.
10:34:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, did you have any others
10:34:58 that you were concerned about?
10:35:00 >>STEVE MICHELINI: It goes on.
10:35:01 There are a lot of different issues here that needed
10:35:04 study, that needed to go back to you're preparing to
10:35:08 adopt something as the code now that's going to apply
10:35:11 to the entire city.
10:35:12 And I think that it's premature.
10:35:14 And it requires further study.
10:35:17 The Planning Commission agreed that you all were
10:35:20 getting into severe design criteria review.
10:35:23 And it was going to in fact encourage urban sprawl
10:35:26 instead of in-fill.
10:35:27 And that's why they found it inconsistent with the
10:35:29 comprehensive plan.
10:35:32 When you go to the Planning Commission, you ask for an
10:35:35 increase or enlargement of municipal service areas,
10:35:38 they say no, because the comp plan says you must

10:35:41 encourage in-fill development in the city.
10:35:44 That is the mandate, in Hillsborough County and the
10:35:48 Planning Commission routinely turn those requests
10:35:51 down.
10:35:51 If you start putting that criteria and those kind of
10:35:54 strict requirements on the city, you are going to
10:35:57 continue to put pressure on the county for urban
10:36:01 sprawl increasing the demand for roadway and road
10:36:04 networks outside the city.
10:36:08 Many of the requests in here are fine.
10:36:10 They are simple housecleaning measures.
10:36:12 But there are a lot of issues that were inserted in
10:36:15 here that did not get full discussion.
10:36:18 They deserve more full discussion.
10:36:21 Within the current first reading, second reading, but
10:36:24 the Planning Commission heard it and that's why they
10:36:26 voted to find it inconsistent with the code.
10:36:29 We urge you not to pass it at this point.
10:36:31 Send it back.
10:36:32 Let us work on those issues.
10:36:33 There are not that many.
10:36:34 But let us work on those.

10:36:36 They are critical issues.
10:36:37 And they in fact are very expensive requirements that
10:36:40 could have a negative impact on the city, and have
10:36:46 exactly the opposite effect of what you are trying to
10:36:48 do as building quality development in the city.
10:36:50 You are going to force people not outside of the city
10:36:53 limits but probably outside of the county limits.
10:36:56 Anyway, thank you.
10:36:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Harrison?
10:37:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Michelini, a couple of items
10:37:03 that you pointed out, I thought, were addressed when
10:37:05 we had the first hearing on this.
10:37:07 And specifically, section 927.1732, which is the solid
10:37:13 waste storage area, we understood the concern was with
10:37:18 regard to residential properties, and we were told
10:37:23 this is not impacting residential properties, this is
10:37:25 only commercial and industrial.
10:37:28 So I'm not sure -- and I'm reading off the list of
10:37:34 issues raised by raised not necessarily by you.
10:37:39 The second one is the single-family semi-detached
10:37:42 design standards about the door.
10:37:45 And again I thought what I heard a couple weeks ago

10:37:47 was that as long as there is a second door that's what
10:37:54 the issue is, this is not a mandate, but the door, the
10:37:57 main entrance face the front of the house.
10:37:59 It can still be on the side as long as there was a
10:38:01 secondary rear exitway.
10:38:05 And so are you saying that that's not the case, that
10:38:10 your interpretation is that we were given bad
10:38:13 information last time?
10:38:15 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I don't know that you were given
10:38:16 bad information.
10:38:17 I think it's open for interpretation.
10:38:19 And anything that is codified in here is difficult to
10:38:22 argue with.
10:38:25 You have also in here eliminated the City Council's
10:38:28 ability to waive some of these things, including the
10:38:33 time restrictions on bringing projects back to you.
10:38:37 You are obligated to wait 14 days, if there are any
10:38:41 changes.
10:38:41 You can't waive any of that.
10:38:43 Before, at least the City Council had the opportunity
10:38:46 to waive that, depending on the nature of the change.
10:38:49 I think that the problem is that when they put things

10:38:52 in here, like a model is required, or door is required
10:38:58 to face the front, it is open for interpretation.
10:39:00 It doesn't say "or reasonable alternate."
10:39:04 And simple language like that will clarify a lot of
10:39:07 these concerns, instead of making them simply one size
10:39:13 and saying it's required.
10:39:15 Those additions, a reasonable alternate, reviewed by
10:39:19 the staff will be fine.
10:39:21 But it just doesn't say that.
10:39:24 And that's the concern.
10:39:28 It's a little too strongly worded in that respect.
10:39:30 And there are other provisions like that, too.
10:39:32 Alternate park being provided for.
10:39:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Ms. Ferlita?
10:39:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Pretty much the same thing as Mr.
10:39:41 Harrison.
10:39:41 I'm sorry, I tried to get in as fast as possible,
10:39:48 reading.
10:39:49 Ing the concerns and also getting a call this morning
10:39:53 from someone that had a problem with the front
10:39:55 setback.
10:39:55 I was under that same impression last time.

10:39:57 And I think I asked Ms. Moreda about the solid waste
10:40:01 storage area.
10:40:03 I believe that Mr. Michelini, you are absolutely
10:40:06 right, if they are talking about residential, and I
10:40:09 was under the impression it was for commercial
10:40:11 requirement or mandate, this is absolutely too
10:40:16 onerous.
10:40:17 I can see if somebody keeps their garbage can outside
10:40:19 and leaves it overnight and it's visible and unsightly
10:40:22 but that's a code enforcement issue already.
10:40:25 So I don't understand why we are addressing that.
10:40:27 This issue on the single family design standard in
10:40:31 terms of door placement especially for homes that are
10:40:35 not as expensive as some others, it may be necessary
10:40:39 to put that door toward the back of course for fire
10:40:45 code and safety regulations but not necessarily at the
10:40:47 back of the house.
10:40:48 I can understand allowing it to have the front door
10:40:51 here, and the backside door right next to the because
10:40:54 that's not going to allow exit in case of fire
10:40:56 emergency.
10:40:57 But I think we are strapping the builder and the

10:41:01 purchaser from using that back door so needed on the
10:41:05 smaller square footage home.
10:41:07 I thought that was addressed.
10:41:08 If it hasn't been defined it needs to be defined.
10:41:12 There are a few reasons here that I personally think
10:41:14 we need to delay this, postpone it two weeks, go back
10:41:17 to first reading.
10:41:17 That would be the easiest way as opposed to starting a
10:41:20 new ordinance, and doing something else.
10:41:22 But these things are, as far as I'm concerned -- I
10:41:32 thought some of us were vocal on this last time.
10:41:34 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We have all spent a lot of time and
10:41:37 a lot of special effort to go through this code.
10:41:38 And I don't think we are trying to scrap the whole
10:41:41 thing.
10:41:41 There are small adjustments that can be made, and
10:41:44 that's why I suggested language that says that says
10:41:48 "or reasonable alternatives" that will clean it up and
10:41:52 give you the flexibility you need without throwing
10:41:54 everything out.
10:41:54 And two weeks will give us an opportunity to meet with
10:41:56 staff, come back with some minor language that I think

10:42:00 would be very helpful to all those involved.
10:42:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Well, Mr. Michelini, I agree with you,
10:42:05 and the fact that I have some concerns from both
10:42:07 sides, neighbors and builders, and I did talk to, by
10:42:10 the way, talked to Jennifer a little bit yesterday
10:42:14 when we talked about this thing.
10:42:16 I thought we already settled it.
10:42:18 We are almost there.
10:42:19 Both sides have a few concerns.
10:42:20 I agree with you.
10:42:21 Delaying it two weeks, going back to second, I think
10:42:29 everybody will walk away happier.
10:42:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I feel the same way.
10:42:34 I thought we had addressed a lot of these things in
10:42:36 there.
10:42:37 And I think that two weeks -- maybe three weeks should
10:42:40 give you all more time, because two weeks is going
10:42:43 to -- according to what you have here, and what other
10:42:49 complaints are coming in, it seems to me like a lot of
10:42:53 these things need to be addressed.
10:42:54 And I thought that they were being addressed at the
10:42:56 time that we were having these meetings.

10:43:02 Ms. Saul-Sena was at most of them.
10:43:04 But we have got to make this right.
10:43:07 We have got to make it right, after all they are the
10:43:11 ones building the houses and they are going to pass on
10:43:14 the costs to the consumers, and at this time, we want
10:43:17 to make sure it's because they are affordable, not out
10:43:20 of sight.
10:43:21 So I will agree to a two or three-week continuance.
10:43:26 I think probably three to four weeks would be better.
10:43:29 I want this to be done right.
10:43:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have every interest in this being
10:43:36 done correctly.
10:43:36 But I think if we got Catherine Coyle or Gloria Moreda
10:43:40 up here -- have you all seen this letter?
10:43:42 And could you address these things?
10:43:44 I think that there's perhaps a communication problem.
10:43:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:43:48 I have not seen the letter.
10:43:51 >> Why don't you take a moment?
10:43:53 >> I can actually rebut everything that he said.
10:43:56 >> Please do.
10:43:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you don't mind, if you want to

10:43:59 hear.
10:44:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would rather hear from staff so
10:44:06 they can be clear on what is being discussed if you
10:44:07 can share with us.
10:44:08 Because usually when something comes up we hear from
10:44:10 the staff before we hear --
10:44:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: First and foremost, he did note
10:44:21 that this wasn't much discussion of the first reading.
10:44:23 If you recall it was over two hours.
10:44:28 The two-car requirement for carports and or garages,
10:44:32 he said that they were for single-family residences
10:44:35 which they are not.
10:44:36 The detached structures are not required to have
10:44:38 carports or garages.
10:44:43 CPTED lighting is not in the right.
10:44:46 I'm not sure of the TECO requirements.
10:44:49 These lighting requirements came from the police
10:44:52 department.
10:44:52 The on-site lighting is for any development that goes
10:44:54 through commercial permitting, not single-family
10:44:57 residential. The modeling requirement that he
10:45:02 referenced for buildings that are eight stories or

10:45:05 more, our comprehensive plan notes that the high-rise
10:45:08 is considered 80 feet or more.
10:45:10 That's why we started with the 80 feet.
10:45:12 That was the direction from council.
10:45:14 He did note that we don't start until 150 feet for
10:45:17 downtown projects.
10:45:19 120 is the maximum height downtown, not 150.
10:45:22 So it's really a 40-foot difference.
10:45:25 The solid waste issue, I would like to clarify.
10:45:30 If you go back through the transcript, I did state it
10:45:34 was for all new developments, single family included.
10:45:37 However, when you read the provision, it is not for
10:45:39 creating enclosures for even single-family
10:45:43 development.
10:45:43 What it says specifically is that you created central
10:45:47 storage area, which typically for single-family houses
10:45:50 inside the structure, it says only when it's outside
10:45:54 you create a screened area for it.
10:45:56 And it specifically says here, or for single family
10:46:01 residential.
10:46:02 Downtown have to build a concrete wall around your
10:46:04 garbage facility for single-family.

10:46:06 You can use some.
10:46:09 Most people do.
10:46:10 The requirement of chapter 26 is they do be screened
10:46:12 from the public right-of-way.
10:46:14 That's the discussion that we had with Ms. Ferlita
10:46:18 when she asked Ms. Moreda to come up, being adjacent
10:46:21 to the alley which is public right-of-way.
10:46:23 Do you have the screen, when you pull them back into
10:46:25 your property they are not supposed to be visible from
10:46:27 the public right-of-way.
10:46:28 But once again, for single-family residential uses, it
10:46:32 can be a fence around it.
10:46:33 And you only put a fence around it if you don't store
10:46:36 it inside the house, your cart.
10:46:39 I have Mr. McCary to explain the reasons for the
10:46:42 changes in chapter 26 and 27.
10:46:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question to that then, Cathy.
10:46:48 If you live on the alley, on the front of the house,
10:46:51 residential Hyde Park, if you go down that alley,
10:46:54 after solid waste picks up the garbage, those things
10:46:57 are put right back against the fence.
10:47:01 All day long, all down the streets.

10:47:03 Are you saying --
10:47:05 >>> On the outside?
10:47:06 >> Are you saying everybody then there subpoena in
10:47:09 violation?
10:47:13 Some have an enclosure but not an enclosure you can't
10:47:15 see through.
10:47:16 But where the garbage cans are neatly put into the
10:47:19 enclosure.
10:47:23 >>> They are supposed to be screened completely from
10:47:25 the public right-of-way.
10:47:26 But I'll ask Mr. McCary.
10:47:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you come up, please?
10:47:33 >> Don't go far.
10:47:36 >>> Good morning, City Council.
10:47:37 It's always a pleasure to stand before you.
10:47:40 Currently we are talking trash again.
10:47:42 [ Laughter ]
10:47:43 You may recall that not too long ago, I guess it's
10:47:46 been over a year, that Palmer a and MacDill,
10:47:51 the -- Palmira and subway, some of the things that
10:47:55 happen.
10:47:55 You probably want to understand the commercial side of

10:48:00 it.
10:48:00 What we discovered is we talked about residential
10:48:02 collections is that in most cases whenever we are
10:48:06 developing townhouses, solid waste once again is an
10:48:09 after-thought.
10:48:10 Most people don't have, or at least the builders and
10:48:13 developers may not actually providing for the
10:48:17 containers to even be placed in the garage.
10:48:19 So in the event that it has to be set outside, then at
10:48:22 that point is why we are asking for certain screening.
10:48:26 Now again, it's already in chapter 26 as it exists
10:48:30 today.
10:48:30 So it's not new to that area.
10:48:36 But we want to at least have the specifics in terms of
10:48:38 the details that you can expect when developing new
10:48:41 homes.
10:48:42 Now, alley collection is very different from the
10:48:46 right-of-way at the front of the house.
10:48:48 We still have the alley collection, and of course
10:48:51 containers placed back in.
10:48:54 We are talking about -- and one thing that you will
10:48:56 find is that most of the things that we have today

10:49:00 have been grandparented in many ways.
10:49:02 There is a lot of dumpsters that are at the
10:49:04 right-of-way that I would have loved to see removed,
10:49:08 even placed back from the street.
10:49:10 Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
10:49:12 So these restrictions are designed for new
10:49:15 construction as we move forward.
10:49:18 And it doesn't limit the ability to think of trash
10:49:22 containers.
10:49:22 If you don't want it on the outside -- as Cathy
10:49:26 pointed out earlier -- then it's easy to make enough
10:49:30 space in a garage not just for a small car but for
10:49:34 that can accommodate the carts we have along the side
10:49:36 of it and then it's out of view, you don't have that
10:49:39 issue.
10:49:39 We are trying to create a system that will allow
10:49:42 developers and builders the opportunity that they can
10:49:46 possibly go on line, know exactly what the dimensions
10:49:48 are, they can use examples, so that we can at least
10:49:54 key them in on what are the requirements.
10:49:57 And then if they can see a picture of that, they'll
10:50:00 see whatever the gap is for commercial being the

10:50:07 residential side of the business.
10:50:08 We are trying to make it user friendly.
10:50:10 I think that chapter 27 compliments some of the things
10:50:13 that we are trying to achieve.
10:50:14 And I'm optimistic that this will be a good thing for
10:50:18 developers and builders.
10:50:20 They just need to know, it's like having the rules of
10:50:22 the game that you don't know what the rules are, I sat
10:50:28 down and met with many developers and builders and we
10:50:31 solicited their input, we solicited residential input.
10:50:34 I promise that I would not like to see what happens --
10:50:39 again it was a solid waste after thought.
10:50:42 There was nothing prior to.
10:50:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: David, I'm sorry to belabor this.
10:50:47 But we don't want to continue to include something
10:50:56 that's unduly restrictive in terms of a single
10:50:59 residential dwelling.
10:51:00 Are you saying that based on conditions now, and the
10:51:02 status of this requirement now, that once the garbage
10:51:06 truck goes through the alley of a neighborhood street,
10:51:10 picks up the garbage, have been down that alley is
10:51:13 supposed to come out there, and whatever containers

10:51:16 they have for their garbage, you yank those things
10:51:19 inside, or -- or make an enclosure around it so they
10:51:24 can leave them there, and in fact if the people chose
10:51:28 that second alternative, if both sides of the
10:51:32 residents on that alley build an enclosure, your truck
10:51:35 is going to be hitting lots of enclosures.
10:51:37 So what is it?
10:51:40 Are they supposed to pull everything in, and if not is
10:51:42 that entire area in violation?
10:51:44 And if that's the case then we have a big problem.
10:51:46 You are going to have a lot of people screaming
10:51:48 because that's what they have been doing and it's not
10:51:50 been enforced.
10:51:51 And if that's not the case then why are we mentioning
10:51:53 it here for single residences?
10:51:56 And or single residences that have their garbage cans
10:52:00 in the front?
10:52:00 People don't want you to leave that garbage can in the
10:52:03 front.
10:52:04 So where are we now so that I can see how that blends
10:52:09 with what the concerns are for builders here?
10:52:13 >>> McCary: What we are looking at is so it doesn't

10:52:16 have any obstruction and is not in view of the
10:52:18 right-of-way, right-of-way meaning the street.
10:52:20 Now, what that does mean -- and we have a lot of folks
10:52:25 in violation of the city code as it exists today.
10:52:27 By definition of the code, they are actually supposed
10:52:33 to be in containers they have now inside, even though
10:52:36 they are placed out at the alley or the street.
10:52:40 That's the intent.
10:52:41 But it's my understanding that the way we crafted this
10:52:44 particular language is that we are talking about
10:52:47 right-of-way.
10:52:55 >> You're talking about street, right-of-way, not
10:52:57 alley.
10:52:58 >>> We are talking about street.
10:52:59 I don't know that we mention actual alley in our
10:53:02 definition here.
10:53:03 That's not the intent.
10:53:05 >> So what I'm saying then does not apply to people
10:53:07 that leave their garbage cans in the alley.
10:53:13 >> No.
10:53:13 What I'm saying is it shouldn't apply to what we leave
10:53:16 in the alley us what because we are still asking that

10:53:18 they leave it inside the fence in their property line.
10:53:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then that's what I'm saying.
10:53:23 If we are talking about that even before we move to
10:53:25 the changes in chapter 27 here, all the people that
10:53:28 have garbage pickup in the alley that don't bring
10:53:32 those garbage cans in are in violation.
10:53:41 You're asking them to put in the their fence.
10:53:43 >> We never looked at enforcement from the alley.
10:53:46 It's not the intent.
10:53:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: So that's okay, not about looking at
10:53:51 it.
10:53:51 I don't mean to be drilling you.
10:53:53 But that's okay, that's all right?
10:53:55 >> That's the intent.
10:53:56 >> So the same thing should apply here when we talk
10:53:58 about family residential dwellings.
10:53:59 But if they have garbage pickup in the back, they
10:54:02 don't have to pull it in, and they don't have to have
10:54:05 an enclosure around it.
10:54:10 >>> That's correct.
10:54:11 >> And I don't know if that's what Ms. Monsinger
10:54:18 subpoena addressing.

10:54:18 When she comes back up she can address it.
10:54:21 If that's okay -- if not it will be dual --
10:54:24 >>> It would be very hard to enforce.
10:54:26 That's not the intent, no.
10:54:28 >> The intent is not to have it unsightly in view of
10:54:31 the right-of-way, being the front, and then certain
10:54:33 enclosures for commercial, because that covers
10:54:37 problems as we both experienced.
10:54:39 But if that's the case it really doesn't overflow to
10:54:43 single-family residential dwellings.
10:54:47 >>> I know that Wanda Shea was here.
10:54:51 I'll get a chance to talk with staff.
10:54:53 >> And if you don't mind not leaving right away in
10:54:56 case somebody else has something.
10:54:59 Thank you, David.
10:55:00 I appreciate it.
10:55:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle, come back and finish.
10:55:07 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Just to finish up on the solid
10:55:09 waste issue.
10:55:10 The current regulations that we have, use of public
10:55:14 right-of-way which technically does include alley,
10:55:20 they may not -- all we have to do is add public street

10:55:24 right-of-way.
10:55:24 >>ROSE FERLITA: Cathy, you have to do that.
10:55:27 If it says it and saying it's not the intent then it
10:55:30 shouldn't be there because then we are doing selective
10:55:32 enforcement here.
10:55:33 >>> Correct.
10:55:34 But they are not enforcing the alley. If that wasn't
10:55:36 the intent originally the word should have been street
10:55:39 should have been placed however many years ago chapter
10:55:41 26 was written.
10:55:42 We can do it on second reading.
10:55:45 One word.
10:55:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: There are other situations.
10:55:54 Go ahead, Cathy.
10:55:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Steve mentioned the placement of
10:56:03 driveways, the park.
10:56:06 We have had that discussion, as I note add few weeks
10:56:07 back, about parking in the front yards.
10:56:09 We are trying to actually create the area that is the
10:56:11 true parking pad.
10:56:13 Several of the overlay districts don't allow to you
10:56:16 park in front of the house.

10:56:18 Just a note.
10:56:18 It's not just concrete.
10:56:19 It says and/or permeable paving material.
10:56:26 I see the mention that there aren't a lot of design
10:56:29 alternatives mentioned.
10:56:35 The one thing under the solid waste provision, the
10:56:37 very last section, says the director of solid waste or
10:56:40 designee can consider alternatives.
10:56:43 To any of the solid waste provisions in chapter 27.
10:56:46 So there is an administrative ability to look at any
10:56:48 specific issue.
10:56:49 That is already crafted in here.
10:56:52 I think that addresses that particular issue.
10:57:00 And I have some closing statements that I can wait
10:57:01 until later unless you have questions about a certain
10:57:03 section.
10:57:05 You said you had other issues.
10:57:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's see if there are some more
10:57:10 questions.
10:57:11 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Representing Tampa homeowners
10:57:21 committee and I think Bill Duval is here and asked me
10:57:24 to bring to your attention that Tampa homeowners had

10:57:27 two concerns.
10:57:29 We support the rest of the ordinance as a good thing.
10:57:34 Some of the things that were said I don't think
10:57:36 reflect wad the zoning code is trying to do, make the
10:57:39 City of Tampa a better city to live in, to make it
10:57:41 look better.
10:57:42 However, we do still have a concern about the front
10:57:47 porch protruding into the front yard setback by up to
10:57:52 eight feet.
10:57:53 Because that, once again, is going to take some of the
10:57:56 permeable land on the lot to put a front porch.
10:58:02 You are going to be protruding in front of many of the
10:58:06 homes that sit further back.
10:58:09 It's going to cause one neighborhood with the
10:58:14 neighborhood plan already -- I forget what they are
10:58:17 calling them but I think it's the neighborhood plan
10:58:19 now -- to set up regulations because in some areas
10:58:23 that have overlay districts already, they won't have
10:58:27 the front porches extending, because they have what is
10:58:32 called block averaging.
10:58:34 We wouldn't have that.
10:58:35 We have great concerns about this protrusion into the

10:58:38 front yard setback.
10:58:40 The McMansions that we have been concerned about for
10:58:43 so long could then go further into the front yard
10:58:46 setback, put a front porch.
10:58:51 The other concern is in the future how is the City of
10:58:52 Tampa going to stop the enclosure on a weekend of a
10:58:57 front porch?
10:59:03 Then they come in for a variance to allow it.
10:59:06 How are you really going to stop someone from
10:59:09 enclosing an 8-foot front porch in the future?
10:59:16 We hope that you will look at that again, make the
10:59:18 porch either less deep, or make it into the front
10:59:22 yard -- I mean not into the front yard setback.
10:59:26 The other concern we have was the parking and
10:59:29 multifamily, which only goes to, I think, a fourth
10:59:33 parking space for this.
10:59:38 And there's great concern about those neighborhoods
10:59:40 that are having to put up with these multi-family,
10:59:44 that so please, I'm sorry I couldn't be here at the
10:59:50 first hearing.
10:59:51 I know it was presented to you but I just wanted to
10:59:53 reinforce our concern of support for the ordinance in

10:59:58 general.
10:59:58 We think there are lots of good things.
10:59:59 But we do have concerns about those two things.
11:00:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:00:03 Next.
11:00:10 >> Walter Johnson.
11:00:11 I live at 465 Longfellow Avenue in Tampa.
11:00:15 I am a vice-president of T.H.A.N. and I was a member
11:00:18 of T.H.A.N. zoning committee.
11:00:21 I would just like to echo what Ms. Vizzi just said
11:00:24 about the front porch issue.
11:00:28 I think we do have concern about those extended into
11:00:31 the front yard setback.
11:00:34 It would appear to me that what we are doing is just
11:00:36 giving -- setting up the vision so that large homes
11:00:40 can be made even larger, because they are going to
11:00:42 bring the home right out to the front and build on
11:00:47 from there with a porch.
11:00:48 The second point she made I think is very valid from
11:00:52 the standpoint of how do you prevent someone from
11:00:54 coming in and screening them in or enclosing them in,
11:00:57 on a weekend or whatever?

11:00:59 But it may be further than that.
11:01:03 What is the process?
11:01:06 So that people don't come in and just get a permit?
11:01:11 So there needs to be a process in place or procedure
11:01:14 in place, so that if a developer or builder or
11:01:18 homeowner, anybody else, does build into the front
11:01:20 yard setback, which we hope you don't allow that but
11:01:26 if they do is there a process that will keep a future
11:01:29 permit from being issued?
11:01:30 In other words, an usual you to prevent that from
11:01:35 happening?
11:01:36 >> We appreciate everything you do in our community
11:01:41 and as well to Ms. Vizzi.
11:01:44 And I spoke to those issues the last time.
11:01:48 I want to speak to the front porch initiative which
11:01:51 frankly stems from me and my observations of what's
11:01:55 going on in South Tampa.
11:01:56 For one thing, in Beach Park and Sunset Park, you guys
11:01:59 have the biggest front yards of virtually anybody in
11:02:03 South Tampa, and probably virtually anybody in the
11:02:05 city.
11:02:06 And so from my perspective -- and you're my

11:02:10 constituents.
11:02:10 I care deeply about those neighborhoods.
11:02:12 But at the same time I think we can improve our
11:02:14 neighborhood by adding 8-foot front porches onto
11:02:19 existing homes and onto new homes, because this would
11:02:21 apply to both. This would give people the
11:02:23 opportunity, if you have a 1950s ranch house, okay,
11:02:28 as are many in our neighborhoods, and you don't want
11:02:30 to necessarily tear it down, you can improve it by
11:02:33 putting on a nice 8-foot front porch and updating it
11:02:37 and modernizing it.
11:02:40 That puts eyes on the street.
11:02:42 And that's what this is all about.
11:02:43 It's putting eyes on the street, getting people when
11:02:46 the weather is nice nine months of the year, you know,
11:02:49 my wife and I will sit on our front porch, and I'm
11:02:51 sure that you and your neighbors do, too.
11:02:53 It gives you the opportunity to sit on your front
11:02:55 porch, to interact with your neighbors to watch the
11:02:58 kids who are playing in the front yards, et cetera,
11:03:02 and to get the eyes on the street.
11:03:05 I talked to TPD.

11:03:06 They think this is a great idea because the more eyes
11:03:09 on the street the better community that we have
11:03:11 overall.
11:03:12 I am not trying to put large structures that can be
11:03:15 enclosed into the front of these homes.
11:03:18 In your neighborhood, there's no way that somebody is
11:03:20 going to enclose one of these front porches without a
11:03:23 phone call from you and everybody else down here to
11:03:26 the city to say, now, look what happened on Sunday.
11:03:29 That will get red tagged and that will get torn out.
11:03:32 It won't be allowed.
11:03:33 I mean, I think we are more sophisticated city, and I
11:03:37 honestly don't believe that we allow that type of
11:03:39 construction, especially on a front yard.
11:03:46 So that's my whole point, Walter.
11:03:48 Maybe I needed to do a better job of communicating
11:03:51 with you and some of your neighbors and T.H.A.N. about
11:03:54 this initiative.
11:03:55 But I think that on balance, I think it's a great
11:03:58 thing for our city.
11:04:00 Because front porches, look at the neotraditional
11:04:05 communities being built now with front porches and

11:04:07 they are a little bit closer to the street but there's
11:04:09 a reason for that.
11:04:19 >>> Bill Duval, branch Avenue, president of T.H.A.N.
11:04:25 Just sitting in the audience, I was just thinking
11:04:27 about someone watching this proceeding and saying,
11:04:31 will these two parties ever get together?
11:04:33 So frankly, I'm here, as well as to point out that
11:04:39 some on both sides had different points of view.
11:04:43 I'm here to say, let's pass this thing.
11:04:46 It's been two years.
11:04:47 I think everybody has had an opportunity to weigh in.
11:04:51 In the spirit of compromise, if you want to make two
11:04:54 weeks, three weeks, my opinion is all we are going to
11:04:57 do is achieve a greater understanding.
11:04:59 We are not really going to change the wording.
11:05:05 For those that had concerns, I think if they read it
11:05:08 carefully, if they talk to the appropriate people
11:05:11 carefully, we'll understand that this is not a
11:05:12 dangerous document.
11:05:14 And I'm from Seminole Heights.
11:05:22 No one loves a front porch better than I do so bring
11:05:26 them on.

11:05:26 But there are some concerns about bringing them on.
11:05:28 Again I would respectfully ask that you move this
11:05:30 document today.
11:05:30 Thank you.
11:05:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:05:32 Next.
11:05:38 >>> Tampa Bay builders association.
11:05:39 I appreciate the opportunity you guys have given me
11:05:42 today to address some of the concerns that were
11:05:43 outlined in the letter.
11:05:46 I am going to jump into the one that everybody seems
11:05:49 to be wanting to talk about, which is open storage.
11:05:52 One thing that I would encourage you to read in the
11:05:55 code is it does affect single-family residential
11:06:01 property.
11:06:01 But also aside from the outside storage, you might
11:06:05 also want to look at the fact that with inside
11:06:09 storage, which means garage storage, you would have to
11:06:11 allow an empty space of four feet by four feet.
11:06:15 Now, garages aren't that big, and I measured my
11:06:18 storage for my trash containers this morning, it only
11:06:23 measured 2 by 2.

11:06:25 So I really didn't want to dop this in front of you
11:06:28 guys.
11:06:28 I wanted to work with staff to tweak the language on
11:06:31 some of these items.
11:06:32 But that's an example of why we do need to wait and
11:06:35 allow us the time to tweak some of this language,
11:06:38 because four feet by four feet, that's a lot of space.
11:06:42 You're probably not going to achieve the results that
11:06:45 you require which is to get the cars inside off the
11:06:48 property in the garages.
11:06:50 You are probably going to have trash cans inside the
11:06:53 garage, or cars that aren't in the garage.
11:06:58 So that's one point that I would make to you.
11:07:02 The second one is the doors.
11:07:09 I still have heartburn over the doors.
11:07:11 The way that it's laid out, it's really not clear.
11:07:15 I know that the back half of the house, but that could
11:07:21 mean anything.
11:07:22 Once you get in there and get your project and get
11:07:24 your building plans, that leaves the door open for
11:07:27 someone to say, well, we want you to move it back two
11:07:29 inches, or we want you to move it back a foot.

11:07:31 Then you have to go through the whole process again.
11:07:34 And I am not going to bore you with details because I
11:07:36 know you guys know this.
11:07:39 But I would really encourage you to allow us time to
11:07:43 work with staff a little longer.
11:07:45 I think we can come to a workable solution and a lot
11:07:47 of these items.
11:07:48 Mr. Michelini did a wonderful job of bringing back
11:07:51 some of these for you today.
11:07:52 They don't express all of the concerns that we have,
11:07:55 but they are good highlights.
11:07:58 The only other thing is philosophical, the
11:08:02 disagreement I have with some of this.
11:08:04 It's going to affect housing in Tampa, the
11:08:07 affordability, tremendously.
11:08:09 You can't change this and make all Tampa design
11:08:13 criterias without adding to the price of the home.
11:08:16 So please keep that in mind when you're deliberating
11:08:19 this morning.
11:08:20 The other thing is, it eliminates personal choice.
11:08:23 What may work for you, the design criterias you like
11:08:32 may not work for me and may not work for folks in New

11:08:34 Tampa versus South Tampa.
11:08:36 I think just a moment ago he said he loved front
11:08:42 porches but other folks may not like front porches.
11:08:44 It's all about personal choice.
11:08:46 And I think that we all have to keep that in mind when
11:08:48 we are making this decision.
11:08:50 So again, I appreciate the opportunity to address you.
11:08:53 I am available for questions if you deem necessary.
11:08:58 Please just consider two weeks.
11:09:01 That's all we need, just two weeks with staff.
11:09:03 But thank you very much.
11:09:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. McCary, I would like to
11:09:09 clarify what the size of the new blue trash cans are
11:09:12 and why you think four feet is --
11:09:15 >>> McCary: What we are talking about is new
11:09:17 construction, not existing.
11:09:18 And those carts are at least three feet wide.
11:09:20 And of course they have heights from 65-gallons to 95
11:09:26 gallons.
11:09:26 So what we are talking about is ensuring that during
11:09:29 the construction phase of the design phase, that they
11:09:33 take into consideration the cart has to go somewhere.

11:09:35 And should you deem it necessary to bring it inside
11:09:38 your home, then of course -- nobody is going to argue
11:09:42 with the space there, but should it go outside, you
11:09:44 have to have your cart.
11:09:46 We are going to encourage recycling so we are asking
11:09:48 that you have a bin somewhere prepared to do both
11:09:51 things.
11:09:51 So that's the logic in it.
11:09:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And on the PD, David, we have
11:09:57 already been requiring that for at least the last
11:09:59 year.
11:10:00 You have been.
11:10:01 >>> Yes.
11:10:01 We are trying to create the standards.
11:10:02 We want everyone to clearly understand it and make it
11:10:06 simple.
11:10:06 Right now it's not mandated.
11:10:08 Someone could build a new townhouse or new home, and
11:10:12 not even think twice about where they are going to put
11:10:14 the cart.
11:10:15 And also keep in mind that you have the townhouse
11:10:18 complexes periodically, if they decide they want to

11:10:22 contact us and they wanted a way of your garbage
11:10:26 requirement needs, there's flexibility for good
11:10:32 reason.
11:10:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:10:34 Next.
11:10:38 >>> 4703 east river hills drive.
11:10:41 I have been sworn in.
11:10:42 I am a member of T.H.A.N.
11:10:44 But I am here to speak as an individual citizen of
11:10:47 Tampa.
11:10:47 I am not going to go line by line through the chapter
11:10:50 27 provision because basically I support chapter 27,
11:10:52 except for the T.H.A.N. recommendations.
11:10:54 And Mr. Dingfelder, with all due respect, in Temple
11:10:57 Crest a lot of things do go up overnight and they
11:11:00 don't always get red tagged.
11:11:02 I want to make sure you understand that.
11:11:07 Just like we learned that Pasco County commissioners
11:11:09 were strict on their development codes.
11:11:11 One of the fastest growing areas in the United States,
11:11:13 Pasco County will implement 17 strict new rules to, I
11:11:16 quote, enhance the quality of life.

11:11:18 We know that as with T proposed changes the developers
11:11:22 who work in Tampa are not at all happy with the
11:11:25 chapter 27 revision, which will scrape away some of
11:11:28 the authority that they have had in the past.
11:11:34 Pasco County has recognized what happens when
11:11:36 developers are given too much freedom.
11:11:38 They site U.S. 19 as an example of urban sprawl and
11:11:43 negligence they want to stop.
11:11:44 We of course in Hillsborough County have similar
11:11:46 examples of uncontrolled development such as Dale
11:11:48 Mabry Highway, although should apologize for a road
11:11:53 that is certainly not a point of pride for our out of
11:11:55 town guests.
11:11:57 And in my opinion, Bruce B. Downs is an example of a
11:12:00 road that is quickly and shockingly becoming an
11:12:03 example of the same type of U.S. 19 sprawl,
11:12:07 overbuilding and development that is out of control.
11:12:10 Quality of life springs from attitudes about where we
11:12:14 call home.
11:12:15 And that has to do with how our hometown looks.
11:12:20 Our quality of life suffers because of the current
11:12:22 chapter 27 ordinance.

11:12:26 Chapter 27 needs in my opinion even more
11:12:28 strengthening, proposed revisions, City of Tampa
11:12:37 staff, a good start.
11:12:38 I remember talking to Kathryn one day home nursing a
11:12:41 sick child and she was working on the code.
11:12:44 So it does take a lot of time to it.
11:12:46 The state of our city, the quality of our lives should
11:12:49 not be based on a developer's bottom line.
11:12:51 Regardless of what you do today, a professor return
11:12:55 this ordinance for more work.
11:12:57 I plead.
11:13:00 Plead, ask you to not weaken the staff recommendations
11:13:03 of chapter 27.
11:13:04 If anything, strengthen them.
11:13:06 Doing so will map a better course for Tampa's future.
11:13:10 Thank you.
11:13:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:13:11 Next.
11:13:24 >>> I don't know if I have to be sworn in or not.
11:13:26 Okay.
11:13:27 My name is Moses Knott, 2902 East Ellicott.
11:13:33 Chapter 27, that's for the whole city, right?

11:13:35 I represent the poor peoples.
11:13:37 Now I was sitting here a couple weeks ago when you
11:13:42 talked about the garbage cans out in front when the
11:13:45 garbage man comes by.
11:13:46 Now we are going to have a code enforcement truck
11:13:49 right behind the garbage truck.
11:13:51 And somebody goes to work all day.
11:13:53 And the garbage can gets laid out.
11:13:58 They are going to get a ticket.
11:13:59 In my part of town because we got different laws over
11:14:01 there.
11:14:06 But this T straw that broke the camel's back, I wasn't
11:14:08 going to say nothing.
11:14:09 When you all say move this can, and Joe got his cans.
11:14:24 And going to stay to the front porch, a barbecue party
11:14:29 and these garbage cans are going to be sitting there.
11:14:32 I don't understand that.
11:14:36 But I still say, when I first heard about this, and
11:14:44 the poor people, in our part of town they are going to
11:14:47 have a code enforcement truck right down on that
11:14:50 garbage can, I guarantee you that.
11:14:52 And the ticket over there are rough.

11:14:54 Like I told you about the politician signs sitting
11:14:56 everywhere.
11:15:05 They don't want signs in front of your door in a more.
11:15:10 Pick it up, throw it away.
11:15:12 But like I said, Moses law still lasts today.
11:15:18 Thank you.
11:15:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have a question for legal.
11:15:21 If we were to pass this today but with certain
11:15:29 exceptions coming out, would that require us to go
11:15:31 back to first reading?
11:15:32 Or could we pass on second reading some of this?
11:15:35 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:15:38 What we would have to do is we would have to bring
11:15:41 back to you this evening an ordinance which X'es out
11:15:48 the ones and the remainder, setback for first reading
11:15:53 so we can deal with some of these issues.
11:15:54 Except for this one change which Ms. Coyle has got
11:15:59 change right-of-way to street, it sounds like the rest
11:16:02 of these changes are changes that would have to go
11:16:04 forward on first reading.
11:16:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And what section is it that allows
11:16:09 the front porches to be built in the is setback?

11:16:17 >>> That is under 27 -- let's see, front porch.
11:16:26 27-98.
11:16:28 What I'm hearing, if I may, Catherine Coyle, land
11:16:33 development.
11:16:33 I'm hearing the porch usual you.
11:16:36 If you agree with that, that can certainly be one
11:16:38 taken back to first reading for more discussion. The
11:16:40 single family residential detached standard, there is
11:16:43 some heartburn over the front door issue.
11:16:45 I can certainly -- I can deal with that later if you
11:16:50 want me to strike that particular provision.
11:16:52 I don't mind taking that one out.
11:16:55 And dealing with that at first reading later.
11:16:58 The solid waste provisions, there's been a lot of
11:17:01 questions.
11:17:01 But I don't want to throw Mr. McCary's regulations
11:17:01 under the bus if I don't have to, but there's pieces
11:17:01 of it if you would like to correct like the street
11:17:12 right-of-way issue that we can bring back tonight with
11:17:13 that minor change.
11:17:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Madam Chair, I don't know what
11:17:16 everybody else is ready. I'm prepared to act on this

11:17:19 with certain exceptions.
11:17:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Harrison, I have been working
11:17:34 on this for about a year.
11:17:35 And had a lot of discussions with a lot of folks about
11:17:39 it.
11:17:39 And I think you heard where I'm coming from.
11:17:41 I think if anything I'm taking the biggest risk on
11:17:46 this politically, because these folks are specifically
11:17:49 my constituents.
11:17:51 Obviously those votes are at-large, too.
11:17:55 But I think it's time that we look to make a better
11:17:58 Tampa, okay?
11:18:00 Not just stick with the status quo.
11:18:03 What happened in the '50s and '60s was we went to
11:18:06 air conditioning.
11:18:07 And all the homes -- because the homes had front
11:18:12 porches.
11:18:12 With many of the homes that were built in the '30s
11:18:14 and '40s.
11:18:15 And doesn't matter what the socioeconomic level, they
11:18:18 had front porches.
11:18:19 Whether or not they are in the barrio or what have

11:18:22 you.
11:18:23 Then we got into air conditioning so front porches
11:18:25 became superfluous because we all wanted to run
11:18:28 inside, close our doors and have air conditioning.
11:18:33 And that's fine.
11:18:34 But society, I think we are coming back to a point
11:18:36 now, and you look at the really neat areas like
11:18:41 Westchase village, and celebration and places like
11:18:45 that, out at fish hawk ranch, these new villages are
11:18:49 building the front porches again because they realize
11:18:52 that front porches are important not necessarily for
11:18:55 that one family but for the community, to help build
11:18:57 community.
11:18:59 Because when you sit on the front porch, and you watch
11:19:01 your kids play in the front yard and you wave to your
11:19:04 neighbors, it helps reestablish the community that
11:19:06 many cases we have lost.
11:19:08 And so that's where I'm coming from.
11:19:12 I think we can make for a better Tampa by doing this.
11:19:15 And I urge you to give a little deference to me on
11:19:21 this.
11:19:23 We can always change it down the road.

11:19:24 But I think that it will be a really positive thing
11:19:27 for our community.
11:19:27 And I would urge you to support it.
11:19:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Since you mentioned me by name, Mr.
11:19:33 Dingfelder, let me briefly respond.
11:19:35 And I am a huge fan of neotraditional development.
11:19:38 I have been in it for eight years now.
11:19:40 And I think that there is a place in our city for
11:19:43 those types of developments.
11:19:44 And I agree.
11:19:45 I like front porches as well.
11:19:47 I don't necessarily agree with the idea of mandating
11:19:49 it city-wide.
11:19:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It doesn't mandate it, it allows
11:19:55 it.
11:19:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I mean allowing it city-wide so that
11:19:59 certain areas will be able to build with setbacks, and
11:20:06 I am not sure that I am ready to take that step yet.
11:20:09 And I appreciate the fact that on the political
11:20:14 calculation side of things it may be a risk to you.
11:20:16 I know that you didn't mean this, but that's not why
11:20:19 we are making these decisions up here.

11:20:20 So I just wanted to respond back to that.
11:20:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to answer you, Mr. Dingfelder,
11:20:28 back in the 50s when I was just married, as a matter
11:20:31 of fact, yesterday was my 53rd anniversary -- [
11:20:37 Applause ]
11:20:39 My first house was in the West Tampa area.
11:20:44 And it didn't have a front porch.
11:20:47 And it barely had a setback.
11:20:49 Because we didn't have air conditioning at the time.
11:20:52 But we had a little subdivision going on about maybe
11:20:55 five to six houses, no air conditioning, no front
11:20:58 porches, but, you know, we survived.
11:21:02 Our kids played in the front yard.
11:21:03 But most of them, they played in the backyard, where
11:21:06 they belong.
11:21:06 They don't belong in the street.
11:21:07 They belong in the backyard playing for one thing.
11:21:12 I appreciate that you do want to have these front
11:21:15 yards, front porches for everybody.
11:21:17 Which is a good thing.
11:21:18 But it's their choice.
11:21:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There is no choice if we don't pass

11:21:24 this.
11:21:26 I'm not mandating builders build front porches, Mary.
11:21:29 And there was confusion at the podium from that.
11:21:32 It allows builders to build into the setback eight
11:21:34 feet to allow front porches.
11:21:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: If they want to.
11:21:40 And besides that, we don't want -- we want to make
11:21:43 these homes affordable.
11:21:44 When you add a front porch that means you are probably
11:21:47 going to have a little more --
11:21:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's mandating.
11:21:51 This isn't mandating.
11:21:52 Cathy can explain.
11:21:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's why I say we need two more
11:21:56 weeks.
11:21:58 Let them go ahead and hash out these changes that they
11:22:02 have.
11:22:04 Apparently they have got more than what we are seeing
11:22:06 here.
11:22:08 And I appreciate all the work that has gone on for the
11:22:11 last two years.
11:22:12 Believe me, I do.

11:22:13 I know how hard it is especially for the land
11:22:18 development, code department.
11:22:21 I really appreciate all that.
11:22:22 But there's issues in here.
11:22:25 Let's give them two more weeks, hash it out.
11:22:28 Not everybody is going to be happy with it because
11:22:29 there's nothing in this world that is ever saying,
11:22:32 yes, I love it, no, I don't love it.
11:22:35 Everything is in a or yes.
11:22:37 But let's get to the middle of it as much as we can.
11:22:41 Give them two weeks.
11:22:42 And that's my motion.
11:22:43 Two weeks and then we'll pass it at the time.
11:22:48 >> Second.
11:22:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:22:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a great idea before we move
11:22:54 ahead.
11:22:54 We haven't heard the rest of the public.
11:22:56 We haven't heard from staff.
11:22:57 I believe Mr. Harrison is trying to make a motion.
11:23:00 I think what I would prefer to do, to move ahead with
11:23:03 this T things that we agree on, look at the things

11:23:05 that need a little tweak and give two weeks where
11:23:10 there's an impasse.
11:23:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Shelby, can we do that?
11:23:14 I don't believe we can do that.
11:23:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Cole can come up and talk about
11:23:19 this together because we had a brief discussion while
11:23:20 this was going on about that.
11:23:22 If council wishes to excise or redact or remove
11:23:26 certain provisions that are questionable, council can
11:23:29 do that if told to do that and tonight bring back the
11:23:34 ordinance.
11:23:35 Is that the way to go about that?
11:23:38 >>JULIA COLE: What we can do is bring this evening an
11:23:42 ordinance that represents all the changes which are
11:23:44 moving forward and not been excised.
11:23:46 I would request then a motion to send back to first
11:23:50 reading in two or three weeks, whatever council's
11:23:53 desire is, to bring back to you as part of first
11:23:55 reading those changes which have been excised.
11:23:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How about the stragglers?
11:24:02 >>> The remaining changes could be -- it can either
11:24:05 just be continued or sent back to first reading, with

11:24:08 the remaining changes, not the ones which can move
11:24:11 forward in an ordinance this evening.
11:24:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If we take it out tonight we would be
11:24:16 able to go forward with second reading with those
11:24:19 portions excised?
11:24:21 >>> Correct.
11:24:21 Would you be going on.
11:24:24 Forward with the changes, you would just receive a new
11:24:30 ordinance.
11:24:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can we have the motion repeated?
11:24:36 >> We haven't heard from the public.
11:24:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a motion on the floor.
11:24:42 >> We never closed the public hearing.
11:24:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion on the floor.
11:24:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: point of order.
11:24:57 We haven't heard from the public.
11:24:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does the maker of the motion wish to
11:25:00 call the question?
11:25:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to give her a chance to
11:25:06 finish.
11:25:07 It is a public hearing.
11:25:11 >>> Connie Stewart, Mobley Homes.

11:25:12 I'm a professional engineer.
11:25:14 I want to apologize to Cathy.
11:25:16 Because we just looked at these documents this week.
11:25:18 And we support everything except for two items.
11:25:21 And we are fully wanting a two-week continuance so we
11:25:24 can get through some minor details.
11:25:26 We support everything else.
11:25:27 Just a couple of minor technical issues.
11:25:29 That's what we would ask.
11:25:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Coyle --
11:25:37 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Before you vote on the continuance,
11:25:40 I want to urge you, this document is over 80 pages.
11:25:43 The majority of these items have been the two-year
11:25:45 work in progress, directed by council.
11:25:47 Many are PD provisions.
11:25:49 Many are process provisions.
11:25:51 Many are clean-up items just for department names.
11:25:54 Many things are conflicting with other documents
11:25:57 within the entire code of ordinances.
11:25:59 I certainly don't mind stripping out the controversial
11:26:01 issues.
11:26:02 I urge you not to continue the items that can move

11:26:05 forward today.
11:26:06 There are some serious issues that have been sitting
11:26:08 out for a very long time.
11:26:09 And I do not mind sitting down with you.
11:26:11 And I know the items now that are questioned.
11:26:14 We don't mind working with Julia Cole and bringing it
11:26:18 back Tom tonight.
11:26:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In the two weeks that we are asking
11:26:21 for the continuance, are you going to be able to put
11:26:24 in all these changes that you're talking about?
11:26:27 >>> I cannot guarantee in two weeks we can sit down
11:26:31 with every single person and meet with them.
11:26:33 We have many items on our agenda right now to get done
11:26:36 for you.
11:26:37 The Bayshore overlay.
11:26:39 River overlay.
11:26:40 Westshore overlay.
11:26:41 There are so many different items.
11:26:43 There are things in here that need to go forward.
11:26:45 Busch Boulevard overlay.
11:26:51 >>> Find funding for 40th Street.
11:26:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Coyle, I don't want to excise

11:26:57 these items that they are talking about.
11:26:59 It seems to me that there's a little more work to be
11:27:02 done.
11:27:03 And I'm afraid we are going to get lost somewhere.
11:27:07 I really do.
11:27:08 I think two weeks, get it over with, come back for
11:27:11 first reading and then we'll do it.
11:27:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: Make your motion.
11:27:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I make my motion to continue for two
11:27:17 weeks.
11:27:18 >> Second.
11:27:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion on the floor.
11:27:21 Mr. Harrison.
11:27:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I had a question of a prior speaker.
11:27:24 Is it procedurally correct for me?
11:27:26 Okay.
11:27:27 You said you had two issues.
11:27:29 Can you specifically cite to me the code provisions?
11:27:33 >>> Yes, sir, I can.
11:27:34 One of them related to the front door issue.
11:27:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 27-137, right?
11:27:41 >>> It's 137.

11:27:42 Yes.
11:27:46 Our issue is we are building a very large project in
11:27:49 the City of Tampa.
11:27:49 And we do have architectural diversity issues that we
11:27:58 like to include in and the front door comes into play
11:28:02 because we have townhouses within the unit and the
11:28:04 front door is not on the front face of the building.
11:28:06 And we see that if we were to redesign our building,
11:28:09 that that front facade would look really pretty bad.
11:28:12 I mean, right now we have something that we consider
11:28:15 to be very architecturally diverse and I think it's a
11:28:18 matter of being able to add some language in there
11:28:20 that adds with architectural diversity it can be
11:28:25 approved.
11:28:26 The other one was the streetlighting issue, or the
11:28:30 luminance issue on residential that has do go through
11:28:34 commercial site plan review process.
11:28:35 There's some language in there that requires that we
11:28:37 provide professional engineer, drawing with I am
11:28:42 lumination issues and we respect what that issue is
11:28:44 completely.
11:28:45 We just went through a streetlighting district,

11:28:47 special assessment two weeks ago, I was here for a
11:28:52 townhouse project that did go through commercial
11:28:54 review process.
11:28:55 So we do have plans that future projects will go
11:28:59 through that district process.
11:29:00 And this requires an engineer of record to prepare
11:29:06 drawings given to the city.
11:29:08 That overlay or that streetlighting district
11:29:10 requirement requires that TECO provides the
11:29:12 streetlighting plan.
11:29:13 So there is just a conflict over if you do a special
11:29:17 district.
11:29:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Somebody give me a code section.
11:29:21 27-151?
11:29:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Mrs. Saul-Sena?
11:29:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are we talking about the motion now?
11:29:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to clarify that you
11:29:37 don't object to there being two doors.
11:29:41 >>> It's just if we were to have a town home structure
11:29:46 it would look horrible.
11:29:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Very quickly, I think in point of
11:29:55 what everybody said I think the best thing to do would

11:29:57 be to go ahead and, as Mr. Harrison alluded to -- I
11:30:02 think the best thing to do is pull out the five or six
11:30:05 controversial sections.
11:30:07 And I'm comfortable with that because one of them is
11:30:09 the one that I feel deeply about, as long as they
11:30:11 continue to move and continue to breathe and continue
11:30:14 to get dealt with.
11:30:16 And don't just get excised and toss add way.
11:30:19 So Mary, I'm not going to support your motion.
11:30:23 I support Shawn's motion to excise these sections.
11:30:26 We'll get this big 100 page change done tonight.
11:30:32 And then we'll deal with these other ones in the next
11:30:34 couple of weeks.
11:30:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:30:38 >>ROSE FERLITA: Waiting for your motion so I cannot
11:30:41 support it.
11:30:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue
11:30:49 this for two weeks.
11:30:51 >>KEVIN WHITE: I wanted to ask Ms. Coyle a question.
11:30:54 Do you think two weeks -- and I don't want to drag it
11:30:57 out any further than that.
11:30:58 Is two weeks enough for you to get these other items,

11:31:04 that the motion is to extract out, dealt with?
11:31:07 >>> You can make absolutely no guarantees that I have
11:31:09 time to meet with all the people in the audience.
11:31:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then what is the difference between
11:31:13 holding it and taking care of those and not holding it
11:31:16 and taking care of those?
11:31:19 Then there is a possibility that what Mary is looking
11:31:21 towards in support of -- terms in support of her
11:31:25 motion is going to get lost in the shuffle.
11:31:27 If you can't do in the two give us a realistic amount
11:31:30 of time so her motion if she wants to hold the whole
11:31:32 thing so the parts that are not in the neighborhood's
11:31:36 liking and the other parts that are not in the liking
11:31:39 of the development side of it, to be addressed.
11:31:42 If not two weeks, how much?
11:31:45 >>> My suggestion is to move forward with the items
11:31:46 that can be voted on today.
11:31:49 >> I heard that, Ms. Coyle.
11:31:50 >>> It would be at least 30 days for me to deal with
11:31:52 the other items.
11:31:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then Mary maybe you --
11:31:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Can't you pull the ones out they are

11:31:59 concerned about?
11:32:00 >>> That would be my goal.
11:32:01 Within the 30-day time frame.
11:32:03 >>GWEN MILLER: And meet with everybody at one time so
11:32:05 you don't have to have --
11:32:06 >>> As many people as I can get in the room at one
11:32:08 time.
11:32:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would have a special meeting of
11:32:12 building and zoning to again address this.
11:32:14 I just have to say that we have been working on this
11:32:16 for so long.
11:32:17 If we are talking basically two pages out of 80 that
11:32:20 are controversial, I say support Mr. Harrison's motion
11:32:25 and let's move on with the 78 pages.
11:32:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:32:30 We have to vote.
11:32:31 Calling for the vote.
11:32:32 All in favor --
11:32:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: Wait, wait.
11:32:35 >>GWEN MILLER: For the 30 days.
11:32:38 >> That's not the motion.
11:32:38 >>GWEN MILLER: The motion is two weeks.

11:32:41 Can't do it in two weeks.
11:32:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just give me a chance here a minute,
11:32:47 okay?
11:32:52 I understand Ms. Coyle's objections to waiting.
11:32:56 But the problem is that, I can't see waiting.
11:32:59 If we do it for 30 days, we get it all done all right
11:33:03 and everybody is happy.
11:33:04 That's what I'm looking for.
11:33:05 You know?
11:33:06 So I'll make the motion.
11:33:09 We'll give them 30 days to do it in and see where it
11:33:11 goes.
11:33:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Who was the seconder of the motion?
11:33:17 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, that's absolutely acceptable.
11:33:19 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue
11:33:21 item 114 for 30 days.
11:33:23 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:33:25 Opposed?
11:33:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Roll call, please.
11:33:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Roll call vote.
11:33:38 >> I want a little clarification.
11:33:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We are in the middle of --

11:33:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Asking for clarification.
11:33:47 What do you want clarified?
11:33:49 >>KEVIN WHITE: Ask the question.
11:33:56 You're asking for 30 days.
11:33:59 To let it go back.
11:34:04 >> For the whole package.
11:34:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The motion the S is continue for 30
11:34:10 days.
11:34:13 >>KEVIN WHITE: I was confused.
11:34:15 Okay.
11:34:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe -- and clerk,
11:34:18 correct me, the motion on the floor is to continue the
11:34:21 entire item.
11:34:23 Chapter 27 revision in its entirety for a period of 30
11:34:26 days or whatever that meeting would be.
11:34:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini went through a litany of
11:34:35 pages that were problematic for builders.
11:34:38 Is that right, Mr. Michelini?
11:34:40 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes, ma'am.
11:34:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Just say "yes" or "no."
11:34:45 >>> Yes.
11:34:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's why I said let's go ahead and

11:34:49 do 30 days continuance for the whole ordinance,
11:34:53 because there are problems within the total 80 pages.
11:34:58 And say yes, no, whatever, when you get them all
11:35:04 together, then it will fly.
11:35:06 But there's problems in this thing.
11:35:08 I see it.
11:35:10 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Let me just add that you have a
11:35:12 commitment from the people I'm working with including
11:35:14 the builders association, that at that point coming
11:35:16 back to you, that you are not going to have all these
11:35:19 things coming back again.
11:35:21 We are either going to agree or not agree, and what's
11:35:23 being presented to you is what you are finally
11:35:27 considering.
11:35:27 We are not asking to rehash everything all over again.
11:35:33 >>KEVIN WHITE: In regards to what Ms. Alvarez said,
11:35:36 the thing that the other motion that didn't get here
11:35:41 yet, said to extract those items, the ones that we are
11:35:45 talking about extracting, I think those were the great
11:35:49 majority of the problematic situations that you
11:35:51 brought up.
11:35:52 Am I correct?

11:35:53 >>STEVE MICHELINI: They are.
11:35:54 My only concern is if you start trying to extract
11:35:57 portions of pages, that it may affect other pages.
11:36:01 That's why we wanted to sit down with the staff and
11:36:03 make sure that we had language that addressed -- I can
11:36:06 give you the page numbers, where the concerns are.
11:36:08 But I'm not sure that extracting it is going to solve
11:36:11 the problem.
11:36:11 It may complicate the problem.
11:36:13 But the intention is not to go back and revisit all
11:36:16 the other issues all over again.
11:36:18 It's to focus on the things we talked about.
11:36:20 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
11:36:20 We have a motion.
11:36:21 We need a voice roll call.
11:36:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mary's motion?
11:36:28 No.
11:36:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
11:36:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:36:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:36:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
11:36:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.

11:36:37 >>KEVIN WHITE: --
11:36:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I would like to make a motion that
11:36:56 we --
11:36:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:37:01 >> -- direct legal to come back this evening with a
11:37:03 revised ordinance on second reading that extracts out,
11:37:08 that passes everything with the following exceptions.
11:37:12 27-132, 27-137, 27-323, and 27-151.
11:37:23 That's the first part of my motion.
11:37:24 And then we will deal with the -- when we deal with
11:37:28 those on my second motion.
11:37:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:37:36 All in favor say Aye.
11:37:37 Opposed, Nay.
11:37:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay not to oppose the motion just to
11:37:44 oppose it but I think it's so restrict wag we are
11:37:48 going to look at again I think we are going to
11:37:50 exacerbate some of the problems that will be resolved
11:37:52 if we give both sides the opportunity to look at this
11:37:54 again.
11:37:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's mine.
11:37:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: With deference to all of my colleagues

11:37:59 up here, I think one of the things that -- with our
11:38:07 staff recommendations that Ms. Coyle pleads, and I
11:38:14 think that's one of our main charges and main duty, we
11:38:17 don't need to continue to clog the system and clog the
11:38:20 wheel.
11:38:20 But it is our responsibility to do the very best we
11:38:24 can, and if these items do actually -- it looks like
11:38:30 we'll be back here again at second reading on those
11:38:35 things.
11:38:35 And it was a hard call.
11:38:38 And I just don't want to ever -- I want to disclose
11:38:50 that is my deciding factor, with staff recommendation.
11:38:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: 323.
11:38:59 Besides that the other three items really are
11:39:01 stand-alone.
11:39:02 And there are already provisions that we are amending
11:39:04 with the exception of the lighting.
11:39:07 So it won't conflict with anything else in the
11:39:09 regulation.
11:39:11 >> You're saying none of those items should conflict
11:39:13 with any of the other --
11:39:15 >>> Being extracted at this point?

11:39:16 They won't conflict with the other ones being
11:39:18 proposed.
11:39:19 323.
11:39:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification from the maker of the
11:39:23 motion.
11:39:23 Because with regard to all of 323, the concern to
11:39:27 excise that which is -- an objection in the memo from
11:39:32 the builders association?
11:39:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That was my intention.
11:39:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I have not seen that memo.
11:39:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It was 27-323(2)(g) which mandates
11:39:48 the 3D modelling thing. I think we just need to hash
11:39:51 out what the real world implications of that will be.
11:39:54 >> And I'll be happy to work on that.
11:39:56 >> Excellent.
11:39:57 Thanks.
11:39:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Now I would like to make a motion
11:40:01 that we -- now what I would like to do is make a
11:40:08 motion that we bring back the revisions 27-132, 137,
11:40:15 323, 2-G, and 27-151 in 30 days, and that our staff
11:40:24 meets with TDBA and T.H.A.N. to attempt to resolve any
11:40:31 differences that still exist with respect to those

11:40:36 provisions, as they are currently written.
11:40:38 Now what we are saying is, it's going to come back in
11:40:40 30 days with these proposals.
11:40:43 So it will be incumbent upon everybody to try to get
11:40:46 together and work it out.
11:40:47 And at that point we'll figure out, is there middle
11:40:49 ground, or do we just need to do up or down votes on
11:40:53 these remaining provisions?
11:40:55 And I would like to schedule that for 10 a.m. on
11:40:57 August 24th.
11:41:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:41:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:41:02 (Motion carried).
11:41:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To move that along, I would be
11:41:07 happy to schedule a workshop, maybe the beginning of
11:41:21 August.
11:41:24 August 2nd.
11:41:30 9 a.m.
11:41:31 Oh, you said lunch times are better.
11:41:33 August 2nd at noon in the Mascotte room.
11:41:39 >> Second.
11:41:40 (Motion carried).

11:41:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: August 2nd in the Mascotte
11:41:44 room?
11:41:46 It's a Wednesday.
11:41:46 In an effort to see if we can hopefully bring some
11:41:49 closure.
11:41:49 I don't know that we will.
11:41:53 A special discussion meeting on the five points that
11:42:02 are pulled out.
11:42:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What about the other points that Mr.
11:42:06 Michelini brought out?
11:42:07 Are you going to have a little discussion on those or
11:42:09 that's a moot point at this point?
11:42:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: this is my motion.
11:42:15 I personally think if Beck get through these five
11:42:17 points.
11:42:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Did we vote on that yet?
11:42:23 We have a motion and second to schedule a special
11:42:27 discussion meeting.
11:42:29 (Motion carried) motion carries.
11:42:30 I think that clears up 114 for us.
11:42:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's coming back tonight?
11:42:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.

11:42:39 The revised excised product will be back at 5:30.
11:42:44 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have one question.
11:42:48 It doesn't preclude discussion on the other items,
11:42:51 right?
11:42:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It not precluded.
11:42:54 It's just --
11:42:55 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We can get to the other ones.
11:42:58 >> And I highly encourage people to bring brown bag
11:43:01 lunches.
11:43:01 >>> I think I'll deal with the lunch, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
11:43:04 I'll work with your office on that.
11:43:06 >> That's very gracious.
11:43:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 115.
11:43:12 >> Move to open.
11:43:12 >> Second.
11:43:12 (Motion carried).
11:43:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We are open on item 115.
11:43:18 Do we have a staff report on that?
11:43:35 Item 115.
11:43:38 >>CATHERINE COYLE: this is the abatement of the land
11:43:44 use.
11:43:45 We will be coming to you next week to give you a

11:43:47 presentation, scheduled for implementation.
11:43:50 This is just the extension so that we can actually
11:43:53 implement the study findings which will involve some
11:43:57 map amendments, comp plan policy amendment, that is
11:44:01 actually mandated by the state statute.
11:44:05 >> So should we just continue this for a week?
11:44:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No, no.
11:44:11 We are at the point where it's going to expire so this
11:44:13 actually has to occur.
11:44:14 >> It's a public hearing.
11:44:15 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
11:44:16 on item 115?
11:44:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
11:44:20 >> Second.
11:44:20 (Motion carried).
11:44:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the following
11:44:28 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance amending
11:44:30 ordinance number 2005-215 which placed an abatement
11:44:34 upon the acceptance and or processing of applications
11:44:36 for rezonings, special use permits and amendments to
11:44:39 the Tampa comprehensive plan, including future land
11:44:41 use map amendments for real property or portions

11:44:44 thereof located within the clear zone and accident
11:44:47 potential zone I in the vicinity of MacDill Air
11:44:50 Force Base, extending the application of ordinance
11:44:53 number 2005-215 for an additional six months through
11:44:57 February 5, 2007 to allow sufficient time to finalize
11:45:00 the findings of the joint land use study and enactment
11:45:04 or adoption of necessary regulatory and nonregulatory
11:45:08 measures, prohibiting the processing of such requests
11:45:11 within those zones, creating an exemption for
11:45:13 city-initiated measures directly related to the
11:45:16 implementation of the findings of the joint land use
11:45:19 study, providing for severability, repealing all
11:45:22 ordinances or parts of all ordinances in conflict,
11:45:26 providing an effective date.
11:45:31 >> Second.
11:45:35 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miller and Ferlita
11:45:41 being absent.
11:45:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Which takes us up to is 17,
11:45:45 continued public hearing.
11:45:46 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
11:45:51 Prayer to the public hearing coming up, I looked at
11:45:53 the file, met with the petitioner and the folks in

11:45:57 opposition, and there were still a number of items
11:45:59 that need to be addressed at the staff level.
11:46:01 I have agreed to coordinate a meeting in the next two
11:46:03 weeks with all the parties.
11:46:05 All parties agree to request a continuance of this
11:46:08 hearing today for two weeks, whatever that date is,
11:46:15 10:00.
11:46:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
11:46:19 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
11:46:20 on the continuance of this item?
11:46:22 I see none.
11:46:23 All in favor of the motion please signify by saying
11:46:25 Aye.
11:46:25 Motion carries.
11:46:28 >> 10:00.
11:46:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Item number 118. Is there anyone in
11:46:32 the public that would like to speak on item number
11:46:34 118?
11:46:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:46:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe is there a motion?
11:46:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: To continue.
11:46:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regard to that, sorry,

11:46:44 Mr. Chairman, if you could swear in the witnesses, a
11:46:47 quasi-judicial proceeding.
11:46:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I thought we did that already.
11:46:53 >>> Not on this item.
11:46:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Anyone who would like to speak on
11:46:57 118 through 121, please stand and be sworn in.
11:47:01 (Oath administered by Clerk).
11:47:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:47:10 I have been sworn.
11:47:11 The report before you has some minor objections in it
11:47:15 related to some landscape issues that require notes
11:47:19 being added to the plan.
11:47:20 There was a minor objection from land development
11:47:22 regarding signage in the RO-1 district.
11:47:27 Signage is limited to four feet in height and a
11:47:30 monument sign style.
11:47:33 They did add the notes to the plan regarding the
11:47:35 landscape issues.
11:47:36 And they also added a signage note.
11:47:38 The objections from staff have been lifted.
11:47:40 This particular property is 4221, 4225, 4227 north
11:47:45 Habana Avenue.

11:47:47 It was before you previously in May.
11:47:50 They are requesting a two-story office complex, or
11:47:53 building, I should say.
11:47:54 Originally it was around 6100 square feet.
11:47:57 They reduced to the 6100.
11:48:00 This is approximately one block from St. Joe's women's
11:48:04 hospital, it's within the area as defined of the comp
11:48:07 plan as a major medical facility area thereby allowing
11:48:11 office uses to go into an R-10 district.
11:48:14 It's specifically classified for that allowance.
11:48:19 You'll note the zoning shows the parcel here.
11:48:22 It is just south of Martin Luther King, Virginia.
11:48:26 It's mid block on Habana between Virginia and St.
11:48:29 Isabel, St. Joseph women's hospital is here. The main
11:48:33 hospital is across the street at this intersection.
11:48:36 For those of you that aren't familiar with the area,
11:48:40 do you have achieve Ron station, a Boston market, and
11:48:43 a walk-in clinic and some other medical facilities.
11:48:50 As you can see from the roof tops, there are several
11:48:53 office complexes that have been throughout the area.
11:48:58 Just to familiarize yourself with the site.
11:49:01 If you recall approximately two years ago when I did

11:49:06 the rezoning we did this property on Habana and
11:49:09 Virginia, used to be a one-story brick home, was
11:49:11 rezoned for houses.
11:49:12 They did completely rephrase the building.
11:49:15 This is the subject site along with two other sites.
11:49:21 This is looking north an Habana.
11:49:24 There's the Boston market.
11:49:25 There's will go south on Habana.
11:49:28 There is a very nice tree canopy.
11:49:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Go back to where the Boston market
11:49:33 was?
11:49:35 >>> It's right here.
11:49:37 It's MLK.
11:49:40 >> That's not Boston market.
11:49:42 Boston market is on MLK itself.
11:49:51 >>> There's a Burger King, I believe.
11:49:53 >> Burger King is further down but that's on the
11:49:56 corner there.
11:49:56 That's the -- the standard station is across the
11:49:59 street.
11:49:59 And then there's a 7-Eleven.
11:50:02 Not a 7-Eleven but a convenience store.

11:50:04 And then right next to that is the Boston market.
11:50:08 >>> I think you do drive through the back of the
11:50:10 parking lot.
11:50:11 >> Yes, do you.
11:50:12 >>> I used to eat there on my way to school.
11:50:17 But anyway, that's the north view.
11:50:18 The Southview.
11:50:19 You will notice the tree canopy along Habana.
11:50:22 This is Marty Boyle's case.
11:50:25 She went around and took photos that Ms. Alvarez
11:50:28 requested.
11:50:29 This is directly across the street.
11:50:32 Another office complex.
11:50:33 This is another one across the street.
11:50:38 This is a one-story structure.
11:50:41 Ms. Alvarez and I had conversation about this
11:50:43 building.
11:50:43 It is a one-story structure.
11:50:45 According to Marty, if you look at this picture,
11:50:51 scale, you see the height of the car which is actually
11:50:53 an SUV.
11:50:54 And you see how much taller the building is.

11:50:57 >> What's the tip?
11:50:58 How high is it to the tip?
11:51:02 >>> The top of the building?
11:51:04 >> Right.
11:51:04 Do you know?
11:51:05 >>> I can't say for sure.
11:51:06 I can only imagine if this is 6-foot, probably around
11:51:10 20, 22 feet.
11:51:12 >> So it's not a two-story?
11:51:13 >> That certainly would support two stories, that
11:51:16 height.
11:51:17 >> But it doesn't have any windows for a two-story so
11:51:19 it's a one-story.
11:51:21 >>> The head of the proposed structure is 28 feet, the
11:51:24 flat roof.
11:51:25 You have the elevations before you as well.
11:51:27 Directly behind this site, there was an approved
11:51:29 residential office to construct a two-story office.
11:51:33 Marty wanted you to see this as well because it is
11:51:35 directly behind the site, under construction
11:51:38 currently.
11:51:38 This is a wader view.

11:51:40 You can see the offices in the area.
11:51:44 She went around to various blocks nearby, just noted
11:51:47 some other two-story offices.
11:51:48 The question was whether or not two-story office was
11:51:52 directly across the street.
11:51:57 >> Well, they are not prevalent on Habana.
11:52:00 They are beyond, closer to the hospital, and behind.
11:52:04 But not on Habana.
11:52:05 That's my concern.
11:52:07 >>> Correct
11:52:12 On the site plan, on the Elmo, what the petitioner
11:52:15 did, the reason, the removal of the objections are
11:52:19 landscape issues.
11:52:24 They did gone top great lengths to actually preserve
11:52:27 the trees.
11:52:27 Previous rezonings showed a two-story structure.
11:52:31 You recall the elevation.
11:52:33 To me it looked like affordable -- you remember what
11:52:37 it looked like.
11:52:37 This particular elevation shows the much smaller
11:52:40 scale, one-story structure.
11:52:41 They did leave it at a thousand square feet.

11:52:44 It moved toward the north towards Martin Luther King
11:52:47 and did create the open parking lot with impervious
11:52:50 pavers and they are saving all the grand trees.
11:52:52 That's why I showed you the canopy along Habana.
11:52:56 They will be adding as well to that canopy.
11:53:00 That concludes my presentation.
11:53:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
11:53:02 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
11:53:05 on item 118?
11:53:07 >> Move to close.
11:53:08 >> Second.
11:53:08 (Motion carried)
11:53:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: When I first took a look at the
11:53:17 elevation that they showed us in the beginning, I
11:53:20 wasn't really thrilled with it because it had open
11:53:24 garage spaces, where you would go in and park.
11:53:28 And then parking at the top floor. I did go around
11:53:39 this neighborhood.
11:53:40 What this will do is transition this area because
11:53:41 right now everything is pretty much one-story.
11:53:49 Dr. Halpern's office is the one across the street,
11:53:52 that pink building you're looking at.

11:53:54 I went in there and I asked if that was a two-story
11:53:57 building and they said no, it looked like a two-story
11:54:00 building but it's not.
11:54:01 It has an attic.
11:54:08 I kind of like this design a lot better.
11:54:10 So I'm just afraid that this is going to transition
11:54:13 this area, where you are going to find a lot more
11:54:17 two-story buildings going to be built on Habana.
11:54:23 There's a lot of land still available.
11:54:25 And people are selling their homes to put these
11:54:28 two-story and one-story office buildings.
11:54:32 I don't mind them being on the backside or the east
11:54:36 side of Habana.
11:54:38 But it really gives me heartburn to see more two-story
11:54:42 buildings being built on Habana, just going to
11:54:44 transition the whole area so I'm not going to support
11:54:47 this.
11:54:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will support this because I feel
11:54:53 like it's a much better design than the one that was
11:54:55 originally submitted.
11:54:56 And I want to thank Ms. Alvarez for pointing out the
11:55:02 character of the area.

11:55:03 And I think that council has a pretty good memory,
11:55:08 that we are saying where the two story offices should
11:55:11 be towards Martin Luther King then that's what we'll
11:55:15 support in the future.
11:55:15 I think this is a much better design and I'm very
11:55:18 pleased with the grand trees are being protected.
11:55:20 So I would like to move an ordinance rezoning property
11:55:23 in the general vicinity of 4221, 4225, and 4227 north
11:55:28 Habana Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more
11:55:31 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
11:55:33 district classifications RS-50 residential single
11:55:36 family to RO-1 residential office, professional
11:55:40 medical office, providing an effective date.
11:55:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and a second.
11:55:44 Any discussion on the motion?
11:55:45 All in favor please signify by saying Aye.
11:55:49 Motion carries.
11:55:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
11:55:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 119.
11:55:56 Have we already rescheduled this or do we need to make
11:55:59 a motion?
11:56:01 >>THE CLERK: It has already been rescheduled to August

11:56:04 7 -- August 17th.
11:56:07 >> Motion and second.
11:56:08 (Motion carried).
11:56:09 It's gone.
11:56:10 120.
11:56:17 THE CLERK: Do you wish to open?
11:56:19 >> Like to open number 120 and 121.
11:56:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second to open 120 and
11:56:27 121.
11:56:28 (Motion carried)
11:56:34 The next two cases are tax ad valorems, the first one
11:56:37 for the structure at 1712 and 1712.5 east fourth
11:56:43 Avenue, the structure was built in 1915, and is
11:56:47 presently owned by Tommy BOR, LLC, listed in Ybor City
11:56:58 historic places.
11:57:01 I have these photos.
11:57:04 >> Beautiful.
11:57:04 >> Beautiful.
11:57:06 >>> Showing the after.
11:57:13 Interior.
11:57:14 Bathroom.
11:57:16 How it looks today.

11:57:18 The application is consistent with rehabilitation, and
11:57:24 reviewing the project, meets the criteria established
11:57:27 by the department of state, and the recommendation
11:57:31 that this project is consistent with the City of
11:57:33 Tampa's historic properties tax exemption ordinance as
11:57:37 permitted.
11:57:43 The next ad valorem application, the structure is
11:57:45 located at 1901 west Jetton Avenue, historic places.
11:57:59 Before rehabilitation.
11:58:01 After rehabilitation.
11:58:03 That's the front elevation.
11:58:04 Moving into the interior.
11:58:07 You see the condition.
11:58:14 Tanned rest of the bathroom.
11:58:19 To complete this project, the application is
11:58:21 consistent with the secretary of interior standards,
11:58:23 as well rehabilitating historic buildings and
11:58:27 reviewing the project, it meets the criteria.
11:58:31 And I recommend this project also be approved.
11:58:34 And that completes my presentation.
11:58:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
11:58:37 would like to speak on either item 120 or 121?

11:58:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:58:42 >> Second.
11:58:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second to close both
11:58:45 hearings.
11:58:45 (Motion carried).
11:58:46 Do we have an ordinance or just pass them?
11:58:49 >>THE CLERK: I have an ordinance for 120 but I do not
11:58:52 have an ordinance for 121.
11:58:55 >>GWEN MILLER:
11:59:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance for historic
11:59:10 property relative to the restoration, renovation and
11:59:14 rehabilitation of certain property owned by Tommy BOR,
11:59:17 LLC, located at 1712 and 1712.5 east fourth Avenue
11:59:23 Tampa, Florida in Ybor City, historic district, based
11:59:25 upon certain findings, providing for notice to the
11:59:28 property appraiser of Hillsborough County, providing
11:59:30 for severability, providing for repeal of all
11:59:32 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
11:59:35 >> Second.
11:59:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second on item
11:59:38 number 120.
11:59:38 (Motion carried)

11:59:40 Motion carries.
11:59:41 And item 121.
11:59:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move an ordinance approving a
11:59:47 historic preservation property tax exemption
11:59:49 application for the property located -- owned by
11:59:52 Timothy WEIGNER located at 1901 west Jetton Avenue,
11:59:58 Tampa, Florida, in the Hyde Park historic district,
12:00:03 providing for notice, providing an effective date.
12:00:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second on item number
12:00:10 121.
12:00:12 (Motion Carried)
12:00:14 That takes us to the lunch hour.
12:00:16 Mr. White has an appointment.
12:00:18 So we will be left with only four council members,
12:00:21 should we want to continue and work through the lunch
12:00:23 hour.
12:00:23 We are not going to do that with only four council
12:00:26 members.
12:00:28 So we are going to return -- unless, Mr. Shimberg, do
12:00:33 you have something?
12:00:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Shimberg represents the appellant
12:00:38 in this case.

12:00:44 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Actually Don Smith is the applicant.
12:00:48 Unless you want to do it now.
12:00:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We can't do it now.
12:00:51 1:30 unless you want to continue till a further date.
12:00:55 >>> 1:30 will be fine.
12:00:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: then we adjourn until 1:30.
12:00:59 (tampa City Council in recess until 1:30)
12:01:24 Tampa City Council continuation.
13:31:39









13:44:06 [Sounding gavel]
13:44:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:44:11 session.
13:44:11 Roll call.
13:44:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:44:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
13:44:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: Heremill.
13:44:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
13:44:21 The remaining issue on the agenda is item number 122.
13:44:26 Mr. Shelby?
13:44:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would council wish at this time to
13:44:30 swear in the witnesses or open the hearing first?
13:44:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to open.
13:44:35 >> Second.
13:44:35 (Motion carried).
13:44:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The hearing is now open.
13:44:38 Should we swear -- let's swear everybody in.
13:44:40 Everybody who intends to testify on item number 122
13:44:43 please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn.
13:44:50 >>THE CLERK: Do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell
13:44:53 the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
13:44:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Before we -- yes, Marty.
13:45:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: With regards to the appeal process,
13:45:02 rule 27-373, the standard of review.
13:45:16 I'm passing out a copy of 27-373.
13:45:21 And I have highlighted subdivision 8, the standard of
13:45:24 review on the following page.
13:45:27 I have a copy of 17.5-74, the application of the
13:45:32 variance power with the five criteria.
13:45:35 Council, just for the record, so that you know, your
13:45:41 basic review is whether the board's decision of the
13:45:45 VRB was supported by competent, substantial evidence,
13:45:46 two, whether due process was accorded, and, three,
13:45:46 whether the essential requirements of law have been
13:45:52 observed.

13:45:54 And that has been defined by the supreme court as to
13:45:57 whether the correct law was applied.
13:45:59 So that being the case, council, I would ask that the
13:46:02 witnesses confine themselves to the basics of the
13:46:05 standard of review, and, likewise, customarily with
13:46:09 the appeal hearings, council has provided the amount
13:46:12 of time that the applicant was given at the V is RB
13:46:15 which is 15 minutes for a 3-minute rebuttal.
13:46:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we usually do staff report first
13:46:22 or let the appellant go first?
13:46:24 Staff first.
13:46:38 >>> I have been sworn.
13:46:43 638 which the board denied in May 2006 with a 6 to 1
13:46:51 motion.
13:46:57 Back from 20 to 10.
13:46:59 They requested to add an addition residential
13:47:01 addition.
13:47:08 There was public notice.
13:47:12 The board made the motion.
13:47:14 For the first motion was to -- actually for lack of a
13:47:20 second it died. The second motion was to deny.
13:47:24 It passed 6 to 1.

13:47:28 The board decide --
13:47:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you repeat the last item?
13:47:44 I'm sorry.
13:47:47 >>> The board decided --
13:47:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have a copy of that?
13:47:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
13:48:07 Is that it?
13:48:12 Petitioner?
13:48:15 >>> Thank you for allowing us to be here today.
13:48:18 I would like to introduce to council and let the
13:48:21 council know that with me here today is my wife,
13:48:24 Cheryl Smith, the petitioner, my son, and I have a
13:48:27 neighbor, Mr. Jim Shimberg, who is actually my next
13:48:30 door neighbor, and he owns the adjoining property.
13:48:34 I understand that this is a matter of appeal.
13:48:38 And I understand the criteria by which the council
13:48:41 should review this matter.
13:48:43 Having said that, I would like to suggest to you that
13:48:48 the Variance Review Board's decision failed to
13:48:54 appreciate or overlook certain matters that were in
13:48:57 the record before the board that I suggest to you
13:49:01 should be sufficient and should be consistent with due

13:49:04 process, and with the applicable statute and
13:49:07 ordinance, to allow this council to recommend the
13:49:12 granting of the variance that has been requested.
13:49:16 I suggest to you that these facts are the relevant
13:49:20 factors to this matter that I would like for you to
13:49:22 consider today.
13:49:23 These are all contained within the record that's
13:49:25 before you, either within the transcript, or within
13:49:28 the documents that were on file and available for the
13:49:31 Variance Review Board.
13:49:34 As was pointed out to you by the staff recommendation
13:49:37 and using the diagrams that you have here, the pink
13:49:43 area is what we are proposing.
13:49:44 My family and I are proposing as an addition to my
13:49:47 home.
13:49:48 If you look at the pink area, you will see that it is
13:49:50 an extension of an existing room of my home.
13:49:54 The home is a U-shaped home with a ranch-style
13:49:58 single-family dwelling.
13:50:00 And where we propose this is to add on to what is now
13:50:04 an existing den.
13:50:07 Tampa proposed addition is an 18 by 17-foot addition,

13:50:12 18 feet running east and west, or in your view north
13:50:17 and south.
13:50:18 And it is a mere 17 feet wide along the back edge of
13:50:23 the property.
13:50:24 It is that 17 feet that is the requested variance.
13:50:28 And it may have been that the Variance Review Board
13:50:31 did not appreciate or understand the limited extent of
13:50:35 the variance that we were asking.
13:50:36 It is only a 17-foot variance, not depth, not setback,
13:50:43 but 17 feet of variance to allow the wall of that
13:50:49 proposed addition.
13:50:50 Also, I believe it's important to note as set forth in
13:50:55 the record that all of the requested -- petition
13:51:00 requested a variance from 20 feet to 10.
13:51:04 What is clearly set forth in the drawings and was part
13:51:06 of the record to the Variance Review Board was it is
13:51:09 really only an 8.5-foot request for a variance.
13:51:15 The wall is actually 11.5 feet, proposed wall would be
13:51:21 11.5 feet, from the rear setback.
13:51:23 The extra foot and a half needed petition from 20 to
13:51:30 10 with the proposed use.
13:51:32 So in an abundance of caution I represented to the

13:51:35 board that it was a request from 20 to 10.
13:51:37 It is actually a request from 20 to 11.5.
13:51:43 So it's a request of 8.5 feet into the 20-foot setback
13:51:47 only for 17 feet along that edge of my property.
13:51:53 The property is 100 feet by 123 feet.
13:51:57 So it would be 17 feet at the 100 feet of the rear
13:52:02 edge of my property.
13:52:03 I also suggest to you that it is important that -- I
13:52:09 live in a neighborhood where people are fairly active.
13:52:11 In fact, many of the members of my community and my
13:52:15 neighborhood will be probably before this board
13:52:17 tonight in a matter that has significance to the
13:52:20 neighborhood.
13:52:22 The folks in this area are very active.
13:52:24 If there's a problem with something, they are not
13:52:26 hesitant to appear, or voice their request or
13:52:30 suggestions, their opinions.
13:52:31 There was no opposition to this.
13:52:33 There was not one person speaking in opposition to
13:52:36 this requested variance at the hearing.
13:52:41 Tampa only person that has ever appeared is, of
13:52:43 course, Mr. Shimberg, who is here in support of this

13:52:47 as a next door neighbor.
13:52:50 The reason there's no opposition to this is because of
13:52:52 the very limited variance request both in the nature
13:52:56 of the setback and the width of the setback, the
13:52:58 variance request.
13:53:00 Also, because as the photographs -- I believe everyone
13:53:04 has copy of several photographs available.
13:53:10 These photographs were presented to the board.
13:53:16 And it was my intention and hope that with those
13:53:21 photographs it would allow the board --
13:53:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Turn at round.
13:53:26 There you go.
13:53:27 Thank you.
13:53:28 >>> That it would allow the board and this council to
13:53:31 clearly view what it is we are proposing, and the
13:53:35 reason why there is no imposition or adverse effect on
13:53:40 the neighborhood.
13:53:41 As you notice from all the photographs, you will see
13:53:43 that the different views you have indicate that all of
13:53:48 my neighbors, my property and where this is being
13:53:53 requested, this petition is being requested, back up
13:53:55 to a garage, a tool shed, for the rear property for

13:54:07 the adjoining property.
13:54:08 There are in a properties, there are no homes, there
13:54:10 are no views that see this area, this addition.
13:54:15 These are all the rear garages, carports, and second
13:54:19 additions to homes that abut this property.
13:54:25 I also ask you to please note the bottom right hand
13:54:30 photograph.
13:54:30 The bottom right-hand photograph I'm showing you here
13:54:37 is my neighbor, Mr. Shimberg's property.
13:54:40 That is a footprint of the addition that I'm proposing
13:54:44 to you.
13:54:45 That addition that you're looking on there, to my
13:54:49 neighbor's home, is exactly the type of footprint that
13:54:52 I'm proposing, in addition to that home.
13:54:57 However, that variance was granted in 1993, and that
13:55:01 property comes within 3.5 feet of the property line
13:55:06 which is the same property line, same setback that I
13:55:09 have on my property.
13:55:10 I suggest that to you to indicate that that again
13:55:15 indicates that this neighborhood, this community, has
13:55:17 no opposition, nor is there any adverse effect to the
13:55:21 neighbors in this area.

13:55:30 Let me address the -- can you see that?
13:55:39 The suggestion was to you that the Variance Review
13:55:40 Board reached the conclusion that there were
13:55:46 reasonable alternatives to this addition that would
13:55:50 not require a variance.
13:55:53 As you see from the photograph before you, the
13:55:55 diagram, the pink is the proposed addition.
13:55:59 The yellow, which is in the middle, here, is
13:56:08 theoretically a place where the addition could be
13:56:11 built.
13:56:11 However, that would be built into the very middle of
13:56:14 an existing patio.
13:56:16 That patio in one form or another has been in
13:56:19 existence since 1948.
13:56:22 That patio, right here, is next to my dining room.
13:56:32 So to add this addition right there is completely
13:56:36 impractical.
13:56:37 It would be in the middle of my backyard, right in the
13:56:39 middle of my patio, and exit from my dining room into
13:56:42 this room, which is inconsistent with the proposed
13:56:45 addition.
13:56:46 I suggest to you it's feasible, with enough money and

13:56:50 enough work, it can be done by taking up the patio and
13:56:53 recreating it.
13:56:54 But it is inconsistent with what I'm trying to
13:56:58 accomplish for my family.
13:57:00 And it's frankly completely unfeasible because of the
13:57:04 tie-in problems we would have with this roof right
13:57:06 here.
13:57:11 This suggested alternative, the green, would be an
13:57:17 addition to the house that would be consistent with
13:57:19 the use of the house.
13:57:20 This entire wing of the house is the three bedrooms to
13:57:24 the home.
13:57:24 This is the master bedroom.
13:57:28 To put this additional -- make an addition to my house
13:57:31 as a family room, outside my master bedroom, is
13:57:36 completely impractical.
13:57:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a problem with the kids
13:57:42 running through the master bedroom?
13:57:44 >>> Yes, that's exactly what was trying to avoid.
13:57:46 [ Laughter ]
13:57:47 That's why we thought the other side of the house is a
13:57:49 much more practical place.

13:57:53 Secondly -- and this also was explained to the
13:57:55 Variance Review Board -- this addition over here puts
13:57:58 us into problems with a large elm tree that's right
13:58:03 there. We have to literally remove the elm tree that
13:58:07 sits right here, right at the edge of this property.
13:58:10 On the other hand, the addition over here is into a
13:58:13 vacant area of the lot.
13:58:14 There's nothing here that is adversely affected except
13:58:18 a swing set that's going to be removed.
13:58:24 I would like to suggest to the council that I fully
13:58:26 understand and appreciate the job the Variance Review
13:58:28 Board and the council.
13:58:32 I understand that government has a responsibility to
13:58:36 balance the needs of the public and in this case the
13:58:41 community where a variance is being requested.
13:58:43 But the balance, I suggest to you, should be balanced
13:58:46 against the needs and the rights of property owners
13:58:50 and citizens of this city.
13:58:52 In that case that being my family.
13:58:57 The balance in this case favors this petition for this
13:59:02 appeal and my family.
13:59:04 Because we have absolutely zero -- zero adverse effect

13:59:08 on this community, this city, or any of my neighbors.
13:59:11 On the other hand, the denial of this variance has a
13:59:14 significant adverse effect upon my family.
13:59:20 In view of the fact that there has been no opposition
13:59:22 in, view of the fact that we are talking about an
13:59:25 extremely limited variance, a variance that's still
13:59:29 going to -- the eight and a half feet of the property
13:59:33 line, even with this addition, there would be an 8.5
13:59:37 feet between the back wall and the property line.
13:59:41 And again, then there's a buffer to the garage that's
13:59:45 built on the other side of the property line to my
13:59:47 neighbors.
13:59:47 So we have a significant area here between any
13:59:52 structures.
13:59:54 So it's neither visibly adverse to anybody, there's a
14:00:00 fence there, and it causes no safety hazards, there's
14:00:03 no passage going through there, there's not an
14:00:05 alleyway being used or anything like this, so there's
14:00:08 no adverse effects upon the community or the citizens
14:00:10 in any way.
14:00:10 In view of that, with the limited request that I'm
14:00:13 making to you, with the record that I have before you

14:00:16 and the fact that there is no feasible alternative,
14:00:20 there is no other place to do this in this house
14:00:23 because of the way it's situated on this property and
14:00:25 its shape.
14:00:26 I just can't do anything else with it.
14:00:29 I'd like to ask this council -- and I do ask this
14:00:32 council to grant the -- grant the variance today.
14:00:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are there any questions?
14:00:43 Does anybody have questions?
14:00:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I did have a question.
14:00:46 Would you put up the -- yes, that drawing.
14:00:52 We're talking about the tie-in some of the roof irons.
14:00:59 >>> Yes, sir.
14:01:00 >> Was that something that was fully explained?
14:01:04 Or was there opportunity to fully explain that at the
14:01:06 VRB?
14:01:07 Or put it this way, is it in the transcript?
14:01:12 >>> All of the options, both of these options, as well
14:01:14 as a request that was asked of me about adding a
14:01:19 second story, which I believe was answered in the
14:01:21 record, was asked of me at the variance review board.
14:01:24 Yes, sir.

14:01:25 >> But were you able to elaborate on this roof tie-in
14:01:28 issue that you just told us about?
14:01:31 Is that in the transcript?
14:01:35 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, in total candor, there's a
14:01:38 discussion in the record about the problems with the
14:01:39 roof.
14:01:40 It may have been in response to the request about the
14:01:43 second story.
14:01:44 But clearly in the record I explained to them that the
14:01:47 roof creates a multitude of problems for us, because
14:01:51 the roof is -- the roofs are so old and because of the
14:01:55 way all the beams cross connect throughout the house.
14:01:59 >> So we have some procedural problems.
14:02:03 You ask us to reverse.
14:02:05 Procedurally, I think counsel is advising our only
14:02:08 option is to remand back to them.
14:02:10 And we can ask them to give some other issues
14:02:13 consideration.
14:02:16 So if given the opportunity to go back to them, which
14:02:19 I know is not your first choice, but you might want to
14:02:23 explain -- would you want to explain to them more
14:02:28 details about some of the roofage issues and some of

14:02:30 the compatibility issues as related to that, putting
14:02:35 it in the patio area?
14:02:41 >>> I would certainly consider that a positive
14:02:43 alternative to being the denial.
14:02:45 But in all candor, the Variance Review Board asked me,
14:02:54 you can put it in the middle of your patio, can't you?
14:02:56 Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what -- I understand the
14:03:01 procedural issues, and, yes, I would appreciate that
14:03:03 opportunity.
14:03:04 But we did have a discussion about the roof issues,
14:03:07 which I believe from the report you just heard,
14:03:10 satisfied the second story alternative.
14:03:16 >> I do have a question.
14:03:17 You said at the beginning this was a request for a
14:03:19 20-foot setback, or a 20-foot variance to a 10-foot
14:03:23 variance?
14:03:23 And then you said it really wasn't 10 feet, it was
14:03:27 really only 8.5 feet.
14:03:28 Does that mean that you are going into the setback a
14:03:34 foot and a half less than what was presented to the
14:03:36 VRB?
14:03:38 >>> Yes, sir.

14:03:38 >> Or you are going a foot and a half more?
14:03:40 Because you said something a minute ago that made me
14:03:43 think you were going a foot and a half more.
14:03:45 >>> No, sir.
14:03:46 >> So what you are saying is the VRB considered a
14:03:48 petition that was for a 10-foot variance, which really
14:03:52 only should have been an 8.5-foot variance?
14:03:54 >>> Yes, sir.
14:03:55 >> The.
14:03:57 >>> The petition itself stated -- and I realize I did
14:03:59 not articulate this well and probably didn't to the
14:04:03 VRB but they understood because we discussed it.
14:04:06 My petition said a request for a variance from 20 to
14:04:09 10.
14:04:10 In retrospect, it should have said from 20 to 11.5.
14:04:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
14:04:24 >>> Entry into the setback area.
14:04:26 And that's pointed out by the dimensions presented on
14:04:29 the diagram that shows 11.5 feet. I did that in an
14:04:33 abundance of caution because I knew I would have an
14:04:35 eve that would be a foot or foot and a half.
14:04:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON:

14:04:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
14:04:42 >>> This is a very quick hearing, but this is only 10,
14:04:46 12 pages which to me sounds like there's about five or
14:04:48 ten minutes, right?
14:04:51 >>> Yes, sir.
14:04:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In answer to your question, Mr.
14:04:56 Harrison, on page 10, board member said you were going
14:05:06 from 20 to 10 but it has 11 feet, and she asked what
14:05:10 the difference was.
14:05:11 And I believe answered it in terms of the eve and
14:05:14 overhang.
14:05:17 And I can't see where they actually have a big problem
14:05:22 with it other than to deny it.
14:05:28 There really isn't any substance in here that says why
14:05:34 they denied it.
14:05:35 I can't find it.
14:05:36 If somebody can --
14:05:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On page 11, Mr. Thrasher, at the
14:05:41 bottom where he moved to deny it, I feel it didn't
14:05:45 meet the hardship criteria and I feel like the lot is
14:05:48 big enough he can do it somewhere else.
14:05:50 And that was the entire discussion.

14:05:53 And John elsewhere made a few other comments.
14:05:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: He talked about the front yard setback
14:06:03 and there wasn't anything else I could find in here
14:06:08 either.
14:06:08 I don't know, I don't think.
14:06:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions of the
14:06:16 petitioner?
14:06:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
14:06:18 >> Are you done with your presentation?
14:06:19 >>> Yes.
14:06:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Staff, would you like to add
14:06:21 anything at this point?
14:06:23 Okay.
14:06:24 Then what's the pleasure of the board?
14:06:28 When don't open it up to the public, do we?
14:06:30 This is an appeal hearing.
14:06:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Testified in the prior proceeding.
14:06:35 He can address council.
14:06:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You said no you had no other.
14:06:39 Did you testify at the prior hearing?
14:06:43 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Did not.
14:06:47 >> Move to remand back to the VRB for technical

14:06:50 standards, I guess the setbacks or the inconsistency
14:06:55 of the setbacks that the petitioner stated, as well as
14:07:01 don't necessarily see the quote-unquote hardship,
14:07:03 other than the tie-ins and things of that nature.
14:07:06 But I do see where that would create a financial
14:07:09 hardship, because it's a lot more cost prohibitive to
14:07:14 try to tie in and clean up important footers
14:07:21 But I don't see there's any other option at this point
14:07:24 in time as far as overturning.
14:07:25 We don't have that option at this point in time.
14:07:27 We can only remand back or up hold their decision.
14:07:32 Is that correct, Mr. Shelby?
14:07:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true.
14:07:36 If it says petition is remanded back, you should give
14:07:39 the direction on how -- to the VRB on how they should
14:07:44 comply with the standards.
14:07:46 And if it's remanded back and the board or commission
14:07:48 shallable oh consider and take action based upon
14:07:51 direction from the City Council indicating how the
14:07:54 board of commission failed to comply with those
14:07:56 standards.
14:07:59 >>KEVIN WHITE: As well as the petitioner put on record

14:08:02 as well as photographs of other homes that directly
14:08:04 are adjacent as well showing consistency, and
14:08:07 compatibility for the neighborhood.
14:08:09 I think that should also be taken into consideration.
14:08:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We need to close the hearing first.
14:08:17 >> We did.
14:08:18 >> We didn't vote on it.
14:08:20 >> So moved.
14:08:21 >> Second.
14:08:21 (Motion carried).
14:08:25 >> I second Mr. White's motion.
14:08:27 And the petitioner has presented competent,
14:08:29 substantial evidence that the only real option
14:08:33 available is the one that he's proposing, and now that
14:08:37 he's clarified that he's only going 8.5 feet back into
14:08:40 the 20-foot setback, that's also another
14:08:43 consideration.
14:08:46 So that's why I'm supporting the motion.
14:08:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder?
14:08:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like for them -- they have
14:08:52 some technical folks on that board, architects and the
14:08:56 like.

14:08:56 And I would like for them to explore the roof tie-in
14:09:00 issue a little bit more with the petitioner, perhaps
14:09:04 that can assist them in seeing the hardship.
14:09:07 Also, what Ms. Saul-Sena, I think, was alluding to was
14:09:13 the tie-in issue.
14:09:15 It's one thing to say that here is an open space, put
14:09:18 your blank room here.
14:09:21 But if it doesn't tie in logically with the flow of
14:09:23 the house, then to me that's not a feasible option.
14:09:26 And I think that hopefully you can elaborate to the
14:09:32 board on that, and maybe they'll see that as well.
14:09:38 With all due respect to the VRB, and they know how
14:09:42 much I respect their work, I'm going to support the
14:09:44 motion.
14:09:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion.
14:09:47 We have a second.
14:09:47 Do we have any further discussion on the motion?
14:09:49 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:09:51 Opposed?
14:09:52 Motion carries unanimously.
14:09:54 Congratulations.
14:09:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Follow up on one little point

14:09:59 that's procedural related to this whole issue.
14:10:05 Ever since I sat on the Variance Review Board, I
14:10:08 always thought that the five hardship criteria needed
14:10:12 to be revisited.
14:10:13 And that's part of our code.
14:10:17 And I talked to staff a little bit about this.
14:10:22 And I don't know FHP staff or legal wants to speak to
14:10:25 it now.
14:10:25 But I think part of the problem is that we put the VRB
14:10:29 in a box, and we say -- I don't know if any of you
14:10:32 have the hardship criteria in front of you but it's
14:10:35 very, very strict and rigid.
14:10:36 And I think part of the problem comes into the fact
14:10:38 that realistically, nobody and nothing could ever meet
14:10:42 those hardship criteria, if you look at it very, very
14:10:46 rigidly.
14:10:47 And I think that that's what's happening, is the
14:10:49 different VRBs, the old VRB 10 years ago, I think,
14:10:53 didn't look at the criteria at all.
14:10:55 This VRB is swinging the other direction and looking
14:10:58 at it very, very strictly, which is their prerogative.
14:11:01 But I think that maybe staff, legal, and this board,

14:11:05 this council, needs to look at the criteria, with
14:11:09 input from the VRB as well.
14:11:11 And maybe we can workshop with the VRB members to talk
14:11:14 about this issue and see if this is something that we
14:11:17 would all like to wrestle with a little bit.
14:11:20 Do you have any thoughts?
14:11:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think we all think that's probably
14:11:24 a good idea.
14:11:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And you should --
14:11:29 >> I have experience.
14:11:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: From my perspective, if there is a
14:11:34 pattern and development that would comply with what is
14:11:39 being requested, or there is unanimous support by the
14:11:44 surrounding neighbors or something like that, there
14:11:46 ought to be some relief mechanism, because otherwise,
14:11:51 I mean, their hands really are tied, and we say they
14:11:57 are doing their job by not wavering from those
14:11:59 standards.
14:12:00 But then it comes to us, and we tend to be a little
14:12:03 bit more lenient.
14:12:04 Then they get attended at the VRB level sometimes
14:12:07 because they feel like we are not supporting them.

14:12:09 And that's not the case at all.
14:12:10 But it's a great suggestion.
14:12:14 We'll see what we can do.
14:12:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:12:16 If we could actually have that in the form of a
14:12:18 motion.
14:12:19 Because we discussed that internally.
14:12:21 They are very rigid criteria to me.
14:12:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the time frame you all wanted to
14:12:26 get back to us and tell us how we want to approach
14:12:29 this?
14:12:30 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We talked about some options
14:12:32 internally over the last couple of years probably.
14:12:33 Let's say it 0 days to come back with at least a
14:12:37 discussion, maybe some discussion points on the
14:12:39 criteria.
14:12:40 That gives us enough time to maybe speak at the end of
14:12:43 a meeting during a VRB hearing as well with some of
14:12:46 the members.
14:12:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it might be helpful to
14:12:48 workshop with Tampa VRB members.
14:12:51 As long as it's a noticed meeting.

14:12:53 And I would like their input.
14:12:57 90 days, come back to us with a staff, a legal report.
14:13:03 >> Second.
14:13:03 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
14:13:05 All in favor say Aye.
14:13:06 Motion carries.
14:13:09 >>KEVIN WHITE: I would like to ask Mr. Shelby
14:13:11 something on the code and maybe Ms. Coyle might be
14:13:14 able to weigh in.
14:13:15 Maybe a code change or code amendment.
14:13:17 I'm not suggesting, it's just a question.
14:13:20 It seems like in a matter like this, where it's
14:13:25 pretty -- I won't say clear cut -- I mean other than
14:13:29 it's in our code now, why do we even need to remand
14:13:32 this back again?
14:13:33 Why wouldn't be we able to just go ahead and make a
14:13:35 decision today?
14:13:36 I think there ought to be some selectibility within
14:13:39 our code to be able to do that as well.
14:13:41 Because now, I won't say it waste it is VRBs time
14:13:46 again because they will surely clearly get our message
14:13:49 here, get a transcript of this, and I feel it's going

14:13:52 to go through.
14:13:53 And if it doesn't then it comes back here.
14:13:55 And the way we feel right now it will probably go
14:13:57 through, and we have wasted so much more petition
14:14:01 time.
14:14:01 Is that something we need to change the code, or get
14:14:05 with Ms. Coyle to try to change the code and at least
14:14:08 give us the opportunity top maybe overturn something,
14:14:12 I don't want to say of this minute magnitude at this
14:14:15 juncture rather than remanding it back again?
14:14:17 >> Put it New Mexico same it 0 day study.
14:14:21 >> A friendly amendment to that motion.
14:14:24 >> We could have just reversed it and it would have
14:14:26 been done.
14:14:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here we have not only wasted --
14:14:31 everybody's time including the petitioner, right?
14:14:33 It's got to go back and fight the same battle that he
14:14:36 did.
14:14:37 And to me, that's what most of these come to us, they
14:14:44 appeal it, we either overturn it or we go with the
14:14:48 findings.
14:14:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. White put it eloquently.

14:14:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: I make that motion.
14:14:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
14:14:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To work with Cathy Coyle?
14:15:02 >>KEVIN WHITE: For to you work with Cathy Coyle in
14:15:05 changing the code to allow council to take adverse
14:15:08 action or reverse action on a first time appeal.
14:15:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And that's council's prerogative.
14:15:14 And just so that council is aware, when this was
14:15:21 workshopped, it was a fairly recent change.
14:15:24 If it works great, great.
14:15:28 If it doesn't, that's -- in a certiorari kind of
14:15:32 study, normally what happens in a courtroom
14:15:35 typesetting is it's remanded back down.
14:15:38 But obviously council wishes to look at it and see how
14:15:41 the practical effect works, it's absolutely your
14:15:44 prerogative.
14:15:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: If it's real technical and real
14:15:48 involved, and we have a lot of neighborhood support.
14:15:51 But the neighbors weren't down here today and we felt
14:15:53 it needed to be rebanded back to the VRB at a time
14:15:58 certain where neighbors or other individuals needed to
14:16:00 weigh in on it, that's fine A. procedure like this

14:16:02 where there's no opposition, there is all minute
14:16:05 changes, I think we ought to make the decision today.
14:16:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
14:16:10 (Motion carried).
14:16:11 >>KEVIN WHITE: 90 days.
14:16:16 >> Move to receive and file all documents.
14:16:18 >> Second.
14:16:19 (Motion carried).
14:16:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Information reports, new business
14:16:22 starting with Mr. White?
14:16:24 >>KEVIN WHITE: Nothing today, Mr. Chairman.
14:16:26 Thank you.
14:16:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a couple.
14:16:31 I want to make a motion to give a commendation to
14:16:36 the -- commendations to the -- the TPD scored the
14:16:43 title of state pistol champions for the third year in
14:16:47 a row and will be attending the national championships
14:16:49 this month in Arizona.
14:16:50 We would like to give commendations on Thursday, July
14:16:54 27 at 9 a.m.
14:16:59 (Motion carried).
14:17:00 >> Second is a commendation to the Wellswood

14:17:03 6-year-old all-star baseball team for recently winning
14:17:07 the state title, time certain to be determined.
14:17:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
14:17:12 (Motion carried).
14:17:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:17:20 Two points.
14:17:21 One is that I think we have identified a grant source
14:17:24 for up to $20 million to take a regular roof and make
14:17:29 it into a green roof.
14:17:31 We are pursuing this grant working with Mr. Moors and
14:17:37 the public works department.
14:17:38 We hope we'll be successful in procuring it.
14:17:41 >> How long does it take to get a grant?
14:17:43 >> Well, the money is sitting there in Tallahassee and
14:17:45 nobody has applied for it.
14:17:50 The other thing is the Don convention center's roof is
14:17:54 ten acres, and the grant money is for stormwater.
14:17:59 That's a lot of stormwater.
14:18:01 That's a lot of roof.
14:18:02 So, anyway, I'll keep you all informed as to how it's
14:18:06 going.
14:18:07 But I was very pleased with identifying the funding

14:18:11 source.
14:18:11 Next Wednesday morning at 9 a.m., Wednesday, July
14:18:14 19th, I have scheduled a special discussion
14:18:16 meeting on the TECO franchise.
14:18:19 I need to change the topic of that special discussion
14:18:21 meeting to a discussion, not with TECO franchise but
14:18:26 underground utilities, all utilities, electric, cable
14:18:30 television, phone.
14:18:32 It should be an interesting discussion because the
14:18:34 Public Service Commission in Tallahassee is changing
14:18:37 their rules, which will provide a greater incentive
14:18:40 for undergrounding.
14:18:41 So that will be at 9 a.m. in the Mascotte room.
14:18:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In the form of a motion, please.
14:18:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move that the special discussion
14:18:48 meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 19 at 9 a.m. in
14:18:51 the Mascotte room, be to discuss undergrounding of
14:18:56 utilities, including electric, telephone, and cable
14:19:00 television.
14:19:00 (Motion carried).
14:19:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nothing.
14:19:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have one request.

14:19:08 I would like a staff report on the status of Bacon
14:19:11 Lake, which is up in north Tampa, in two weeks.
14:19:14 Apparently there have been some issues with code
14:19:17 enforcement, things of that nature.
14:19:18 So two weeks we'll have them come in under department
14:19:21 heads.
14:19:22 Motion and second.
14:19:22 All in favor say Aye.
14:19:24 (Motion carried).
14:19:26 If there's nothing else to come before council.
14:19:40 We'll go to general public comments.
14:19:42 I'm sorry, Sandy.
14:19:45 >>THE CLERK: (off microphone)
14:20:00 Proposed changes to the West Tampa overlay district.
14:20:12 Change to the back of it also.
14:20:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, not at this time.
14:20:16 I have to look at it really carefully.
14:20:18 I have got the letter but I wasn't aware that she was
14:20:21 asking for council discussion on that.
14:20:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Alvarez, you can take it under
14:20:31 advisement.
14:20:33 >> I will.

14:20:35 >> Move to receive and file all documents.
14:20:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have already done that.
14:20:38 Okay.
14:20:39 Audience comment.
14:20:41 (City Council in recess)