Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

City of Tampa
Tampa City Council
Thursday, September 21, 2006
9:00 a.m. meeting

09:16:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Good morning.
09:16:28 Tampa City Council is called into session.
09:16:30 The chair will yield to Mr. Kevin White.
09:16:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: It's my honor to present corporal
09:16:36 Brenda hunt from the Tampa Police Department to give
09:16:39 our invocation, if we would rise for our invocation,
09:16:42 and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance,
09:16:44 please.
09:16:47 >>> Good morning, council.
09:16:48 Shall we bow?
09:16:51 Father God, I thank you for allowing me to have been
09:16:54 selected to represent you here today.
09:16:57 In this presence we are asking that we all realize
09:17:00 that we are here for the betterment of all of the City
09:17:03 of Tampa.
09:17:05 Guide us and lead us.
09:17:06 Help us to remember that a decision has to be made by
09:17:09 the council.
09:17:10 And nothing that is done today is but for the
09:17:17 betterment and productivity of this city.
09:17:20 Thank you.
09:17:21 Amen.
09:17:23 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:17:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Roll call.
09:17:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:17:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:17:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:17:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:17:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:17:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:17:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Chair will yield to councilman Rose
09:17:54 Ferlita for commendation for the Officer of the Month.
09:18:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
09:18:25 It is my pleasure this morning, as always, to
09:18:27 acknowledge the commendation for the Officer of the
09:18:29 Month.
09:18:31 This morning, we are acknowledging MPO officer
09:18:35 Smalley.
09:18:38 And tell but the process of how he was selected this
09:18:42 month.
09:18:43 Chief?
09:18:45 >>> A nice looking family, Paul.
09:18:49 We are very proud to announce master patrol officer
09:18:53 Paul Smalley as our Officer of the Month for September
09:18:58 2006.
09:18:59 He clearly is one of the more exceptional police
09:19:01 officers we have on the Tampa Police Department.
09:19:04 He is a master patrol officer, which essentially means
09:19:09 that he is extremely experienced and can handle
09:19:11 anything that comes his way, from a traffic citation
09:19:17 to a murder and everything in between.
09:19:23 He is currently assigned to work on special events,
09:19:27 and those are all of the things that occur in this
09:19:30 city that just kind of go along seamlessly and appear
09:19:34 to be effortless in the way that they come off.
09:19:37 You go to the Gasparilla parade, which of course is a
09:19:41 huge event, or are go to Guavaween, or even go into a
09:19:44 little neighborhood run where neighbor there's 100 or
09:19:48 150 runners, and you think, this is really no big
09:19:51 deal.
09:19:52 But every intersection that those runners cross has to
09:19:54 be accounted for.
09:19:55 And if they are not, there's a civil liability to the
09:19:59 city.
09:19:59 And that's what he does.
09:20:01 And he's worked over 98 special events this past year.

09:20:08 They have all been flawless.
09:20:10 He was one of the prime people who planned and
09:20:14 executed the Shriners convention that occurred down
09:20:17 here where we had 20,000 people show up.
09:20:22 We got from the police department perspective, we got
09:20:25 nothing but compliments from everybody there on how
09:20:27 well and smooth that ran.
09:20:29 And that was in large part to master police officer
09:20:32 Paul Smalley and his efforts.
09:20:35 He is a -- he's one of these consummate planners and
09:20:40 thinking ahead.
09:20:42 The major was telling me that recently, I think right
09:20:46 at the end of July, they had their first meeting on
09:20:49 Guavaween, and Paul showed up with the whole plans
09:20:52 already prepared and laid out for everybody.
09:20:54 That's kind of the way he does things in advance.
09:20:56 And obviously that's why we have selected him as our
09:20:59 Officer of the Month.
09:21:01 He's certainly deserving.
09:21:03 And he's one of the examples of some of our finest
09:21:07 police officers.
09:21:07 I would like to present him this month.

09:21:11 [ Applause ]
09:21:18 >>ROSE FERLITA: As the chief is recognizing what Paul
09:21:21 does, I look at him and he shrugs his shoulders like,
09:21:26 no big deal.
09:21:26 It is a big deal.
09:21:27 It's certainly something that involves a lot of
09:21:29 planning and organization and I thank you for that,
09:21:31 Paul.
09:21:32 As I said, this is the best part of being chairman of
09:21:35 this committee, and being able to say thank you in
09:21:38 some small way, with the rest of the men and women of
09:21:42 the police department under chef Hogue's watch.
09:21:44 Thank you for what you do, Paul.
09:21:45 Allow me to read this to you.
09:21:47 Tampa City Council commendation presented to master
09:21:50 patrol officer Paul Smalley for his efficiency and
09:21:55 coordinated efforts for special event, MPO Paul
09:21:57 Smalley has been selected as Officer of the Month for
09:22:01 September 2006, his planning as part of the instant
09:22:04 management unit has made large events and associated
09:22:07 traffic almost transparent to the citizens of Tampa.
09:22:09 For all you do, the City Council of the City of Tampa

09:22:12 commends you, and I as public safety chairman say
09:22:14 thank you for all you do.
09:22:16 You ought to be very happy.
09:22:17 I'm very proud.
09:22:20 We are certainly proud of what you do.
09:22:23 [ Applause ]
09:22:25 Let me have my corporate members say thank you but we
09:22:27 are going to rush it along because for the very reason
09:22:30 that we are acknowledging this we have something to do
09:22:32 right away to control traffic for visitors in the
09:22:36 city, mainly being the president of the United States.
09:22:38 That being said.
09:22:41 >> Danny Lewis from Bill Currie Ford.
09:22:44 I present you this watch with a Tampa logo as a small
09:22:49 token of our appreciation to make this a safer place
09:22:53 for our families.
09:22:55 >> Steve Stickley representing Stepp's towing service.
09:23:01 On behalf of Stepps towing we would like to say thank
09:23:05 you to you.
09:23:06 We appreciate everything you do for us out there.
09:23:11 And, also, a gift certificate.
09:23:20 >> Dick Campbell from first financial planning, we

09:23:28 appreciate everything you do and want to thank you for
09:23:30 putting that badge on every morning.
09:23:33 We appreciate what you do for the community.
09:23:35 And on behalf of first command, we would like to
09:23:37 present with you these gifts.
09:23:41 >> Executive realty.
09:23:45 Want to thank you.
09:23:46 Keep up the good work.
09:23:48 Take your families out with this gift certificate.
09:23:51 >>STEVE MICHELINI: On behalf of Bryn Allen studios, we
09:24:01 are providing you with a photographic package for you
09:24:03 and your family to have your photos taken.
09:24:05 On behalf of Liss development and Bern's steakhouse a
09:24:09 $100 gift certificate to Bern's.
09:24:11 On behalf of the Hillsborough County towing
09:24:13 association $50 to Outback and Po Boy's creole
09:24:20 restaurant.
09:24:24 >> Lowry Park Zoo.
09:24:29 We want top say thank you very much and present you
09:24:32 with passes to the zoo.
09:24:35 [ Applause ]
09:24:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: On behalf of Charlie's steak house, a

09:24:45 gift certificate for $100 as well.
09:24:56 >> I joked with him pretty much all week about it.
09:25:00 My wife is very busy outside of work.
09:25:05 They work really well with me.
09:25:07 So thank you to my supervisors.
09:25:12 Major Bennett and the chief.
09:25:14 Thank you very much.
09:25:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: I just want to say congratulations to
09:25:22 you.
09:25:23 It's an honor to see that you receive the Officer of
09:25:25 the Month.
09:25:27 I have had an opportunity to work with Paul over the
09:25:29 years, and he is a consummate professional at what he
09:25:32 does and is always, always professional in his duties,
09:25:35 and the City of Tampa is very proud and very lucky to
09:25:37 have you as a police officer.
09:25:40 >>> Thank you very much.
09:25:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
09:25:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Morocco ladies.
09:25:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to congratulate you and just
09:25:54 say, Steve, next time you're at the podium, don't put
09:25:58 three cute little girls especially the one in the

09:26:01 pink.
09:26:01 She totally outshined you. Anyway, congratulations to
09:26:04 you and your family, Paul.
09:26:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
09:26:08 [ Applause ]
09:26:12 All right.
09:26:12 We have requests for late changes to the agenda.
09:26:15 Sign-in sheet.
09:26:17 Sal Territo.
09:26:22 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department.
09:26:23 I have three items I would like to address, if I may.
09:26:25 We have amending a previous ordinance you did back on
09:26:32 July 13th, you set up the community development
09:26:34 district for the heights project.
09:26:36 The ordinance at that time said upon being filed with
09:26:42 the clerk.
09:26:42 We would like to do an ordinance that changes the
09:26:45 language to make it effective immediately, approved by
09:26:48 you, executed by the mayor.
09:26:50 They have taken some actions in the meantime that they
09:26:51 have to go back and ratify and confirm, and we are
09:26:55 asking that you do a substitute ordinance that will

09:26:58 amend that previous ordinance.
09:26:59 It will take two weeks into the process.
09:27:01 But we submitted that to you already.
09:27:05 It's an off-the-agenda item.
09:27:08 I apologize.
09:27:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have the ordinance?
09:27:12 >>> Yes.
09:27:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are you requesting a first read dag?
09:27:16 >>> Yes, I am.
09:27:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance amending ordinance
09:27:19 2006-161, made by the City Council of the City of
09:27:25 Tampa, to establish the heights community development
09:27:28 district by changing section 10 to effective date of
09:27:32 ordinance to read effective immediately upon becoming
09:27:36 law -- a law, providing an effective date.
09:27:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
09:27:40 Discussion on the motion?
09:27:41 Mr. Dingfelder?
09:27:49 >>SAL TERRITO: They started to take action with the
09:27:51 community development district before this was
09:27:53 actually formally approved because of the delay of
09:27:55 getting it filed with the clerk of the circuit court

09:27:58 so we are trying to get this straightened out so they
09:28:00 don't have a problem with the community development
09:28:02 district.
09:28:02 They are getting ready to issue bonds and this was a
09:28:05 problem for them so we are trying to straighten it
09:28:07 out.
09:28:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only thing I would ask is if we
09:28:11 knew about this?
09:28:13 I knew about it about an hour before last night.
09:28:16 I apologize.
09:28:19 I apologize for that.
09:28:21 >> We have a motion and second.
09:28:22 Any discussion on that motion?
09:28:23 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:28:26 Motion carries.
09:28:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This will appear in two weeks?
09:28:33 >>> I think the 5th is the meeting.
09:28:37 It will be whenever that happens to be it will be the
09:28:42 same process.
09:28:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You are here on item 20.
09:28:44 >>SAL TERRITO: That's the interlocal agreement between
09:28:47 the city and county on the convention center.

09:28:49 We would like to defer that for one week.
09:28:51 We are not exactly sure what action is taken so we
09:28:53 need to have some time to absorb that.
09:28:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's on my committee so I'll move it
09:28:58 now.
09:28:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second to defer
09:29:00 that for one weak.
09:29:01 Discussion on the motion.
09:29:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I serve on the tourist development
09:29:06 council.
09:29:07 We all voted unanimously that fixing the roof on the
09:29:11 convention center should be paid for by bed tax
09:29:16 dollars.
09:29:16 And it was the number one priority of the tourist
09:29:19 development council.
09:29:19 The way the language reads, the CDC makes a
09:29:26 recommendation but they aren't legally required to
09:29:28 follow the recommendation.
09:29:29 And that is a grave problem in the language.
09:29:32 But I wanted you all to know that every single tourist
09:29:36 property it's composed of restaurateurs, hoteliers,
09:29:44 and everyone agrees fixing the roof on the convention

09:29:48 center is the wisest way to spend the dollars.
09:29:52 >>> The county commission approved it.
09:29:55 We need some time to absorb to see what the impact of
09:29:58 those conditions are.
09:30:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to say when I read
09:30:02 this agenda item and I realized what Ms. Saul-Sena and
09:30:05 her board had done previously, I think it's wonderful
09:30:08 to hear that the CBC are supporters of the convention
09:30:16 center.
09:30:19 It's really a regional asset.
09:30:22 Anyway, I hope those conditions aren't deal killers.
09:30:27 Anyway, in the many tame, I applaud the county and CDC
09:30:35 for doing that.
09:30:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have to absorb what they did.
09:30:41 We have a motion and second.
09:30:42 Further discussion on the motion?
09:30:43 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:30:45 (Motion carried).
09:30:47 >>SAL TERRITO: We would also like to pull items 30
09:30:50 through 38 which are the TIF budgets until we find
09:30:53 what the ad valorem tax rates are going to be.
09:30:56 We will not know what those items are.

09:31:03 >> Motion and second to pull those items.
09:31:04 (Motion carried)
09:31:08 Thank you, Sal.
09:31:10 Cathy Coyle.
09:31:12 >> Catherine Coyle, land development.
09:31:14 On the evening's agenda at 5:01 p.m. you have case
09:31:18 PA-06 open 29.
09:31:20 It is the comprehensive land use changes for the joint
09:31:24 land use study recommendations.
09:31:27 As you may recall, we presented this study to you in
09:31:30 June, June 22nd, 06, and we asked at that point --
09:31:38 we had that meeting with the Planning Commission for
09:31:39 recommendation last Monday on the 11th.
09:31:42 And they did find it consistent with than the
09:31:44 comprehensive plan with some conditions for some
09:31:48 modifications for language for Monday until yesterday.
09:31:53 We have received several e-mails and phone calls and
09:31:57 questions and concerns about some of the language.
09:32:01 The study began in 2005 and ended July 2006.
09:32:04 And I just wanted to state for the record that we did
09:32:06 have six public policy committee meetings and six
09:32:09 public information workshops.

09:32:11 But in light of the conversations that I have had
09:32:13 personally with many people in that area and the
09:32:16 e-mails that we have read through correspondence to
09:32:18 City Council, we would like to recommend continuing
09:32:22 that hearing to November 16th, which is also
09:32:25 slated for plan amendments that evening at 5:01.
09:32:29 And in the interim, working with Shannon Edge's office
09:32:32 ton schedule an additional public information workshop
09:32:34 to present those findings to the public.
09:32:36 She's trying to find a location right now within the
09:32:39 Ballast Point area.
09:32:41 The church where we had the initial meeting is now
09:32:44 under construction -- reconstruction so we are trying
09:32:46 to find another location that can house several
09:32:50 hundred people if possible.
09:32:52 That will go out to a postcard mailing, as we have
09:32:54 done in the past.
09:32:55 And then we will send out an additional notice for the
09:32:58 November 16th meeting if you're still willing to
09:33:01 continue that.
09:33:01 You will have to appear at 5:01 to continue that.
09:33:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Right.

09:33:08 We did get your letter, Cathy.
09:33:10 Thank you for that.
09:33:12 I think that what we need to do between now and five
09:33:15 is to spread the word as best we can, get a request
09:33:18 for a continuance so we don't have a packed room with
09:33:21 folks who don't have an opportunity to talk on it.
09:33:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I have been keeping a log of people
09:33:28 writing in and phone numbers and call as many people
09:33:30 as I can before the end of the day and I'll post signs
09:33:34 through the clerk's office at City Hall as well.
09:33:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And if you need to break it up and
09:33:39 give some of the legislative aides a few numbers to
09:33:41 call, we are happy to pitch in.
09:33:45 Ms. Alvarez?
09:33:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I just wanted to tell you, I won't be
09:33:48 here tonight anyway.
09:33:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Chairman, thank you.
09:33:53 Kathryn, I'm glad you did this.
09:33:55 Just a couple of very quick comments.
09:34:01 Dropped in at the Ballast Point association meeting
09:34:05 and people have good points, good concerns, and, yes,
09:34:08 we will have this public meeting as well it could have

09:34:10 been discussed but sometimes at the eleventh hour
09:34:12 everybody focuses on the subject a little bit more
09:34:14 than maybe eight months before.
09:34:16 I want to thank Tony who is in the audience, he was
09:34:20 there trying to field some of those questions as was
09:34:23 John LaRocca and Gloria Moreda.
09:34:25 This is really a good step.
09:34:26 Gloria, bless your heart, she should have brought a
09:34:29 bullet-proof vest.
09:34:30 I don't think anybody intended that but they were so
09:34:33 frustrated and of course she was the person
09:34:35 representing city.
09:34:36 So she took that.
09:34:45 I think this is good.
09:34:46 I think that there's some issues of concern that are
09:34:48 at the top of the neighborhood's list that can be
09:34:51 remedied.
09:34:52 But I think it's the best way to do that is by
09:34:54 continuing and having additional meetings and
09:34:56 availability for them to be able to voice that.
09:34:59 Plus to correct some of the language.
09:35:00 I met with the Planning Commission or some members

09:35:02 yesterday.
09:35:03 And I think there can be some resolve but this is the
09:35:08 best way to deal it with.
09:35:09 Tony, you keep nodding yes and thank you for your
09:35:11 help, too.
09:35:12 So I think we'll get to where we need to be, and
09:35:18 everybody will walk away satisfied with the process.
09:35:21 But right now, we are not where we need to be.
09:35:24 Thank you for doing this.
09:35:25 I appreciate it.
09:35:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was just going to suggest you do
09:35:28 a simple, one-page question and answer sheet to dispel
09:35:33 some of the myths and misinformation that's been
09:35:36 floating around, I think will help answer some of the
09:35:38 questions and dispel some of the incorrect
09:35:42 information.
09:35:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One of the issues -- I think we can
09:35:46 answer most of the issues internally.
09:35:48 One of the issues has been raised has to do with
09:35:50 insurance rates.
09:35:52 And I think we should explore that with the insurance
09:35:57 industry to see if everything we are doing, you know,

09:36:02 FHP insurance agents, or insurance underwriters would
09:36:05 anticipate that anything we are doing would raise
09:36:08 insurance rates.
09:36:08 See if they can speak to that, yes or no.
09:36:11 And then that way, when we have our public meetings,
09:36:14 we might have a little more definitive answer on that.
09:36:17 I think we all have our gut feelings about some of
09:36:20 this.
09:36:20 But we probably should be asking those people as
09:36:23 professionals.
09:36:26 Help to add to your workload.
09:36:29 Thanks for all your hard work.
09:36:30 You have taken a lot of heat on this, and you and
09:36:33 Gloria, the whole team, you know, remain calm in the
09:36:37 face of all of this and we appreciate it.
09:36:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Colleagues, we will need four people
09:36:42 back here at 5:01.
09:36:44 Mrs. Saul-Sena?
09:36:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have a question.
09:36:48 When we do that, or Mr. Shelby, when we do that and
09:36:51 when go into session to move to continue, people will
09:36:55 be able to speak if they want to, just on the

09:36:57 continuance, though, right?
09:37:00 I'm trying to approximate the timing.
09:37:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: How he would handle continue --
09:37:08 continuances, people speak only to whether a
09:37:11 continuance is appropriate.
09:37:12 What we heard from staff, the staff has asked for the
09:37:15 continuance as well as council members.
09:37:20 And the community.
09:37:21 >> I think we have the unanimous support for that.
09:37:24 >> Council, normally with regard to quasi-judicial
09:37:27 matters, you can take comment back to the continuance
09:37:30 issue but this being legislative, it's council's
09:37:33 purview whether to take comment or not.
09:37:37 >> I would rather not.
09:37:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: In that case we will not open the
09:37:41 floor.
09:37:41 We will simply continue the meeting.
09:37:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I think we never discount the
09:37:46 opportunity for citizens to speak.
09:37:47 But I think this is what everybody wants anyway.
09:37:50 So, okay, thank you.
09:37:53 I just wanted some clarification.

09:37:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You bet.
09:37:55 Thank you, Cathy.
09:37:57 Darrell Smith.
09:38:09 >>> Darrell Smith, chief of Sarasota. I would like to
09:38:12 take this opportunity to recognize a couple of
09:38:13 individuals that will be making contributions to our
09:38:16 minority business development office, otherwise known
09:38:20 as the WMBE office.
09:38:22 As you know, George Davis, the previous manager of
09:38:24 that office, retired back in the March time frame of
09:38:27 this year, and again a nationwide search for are a
09:38:32 replacement for are Mr. Davis at that point.
09:38:34 In the meantime, or in the interim period, we have had
09:38:38 Greg spearman doing not only the director of
09:38:41 purchasing duties and responsibilities, but actually
09:38:46 leading the WMBE office.
09:38:50 And Greg and the WMBE employees have been through a
09:38:53 lot of challenges since March, during this last
09:38:58 six-month period of time.
09:38:59 They have made a lot of great progress as far as
09:39:04 dealing with the disparity study, the evaluations of
09:39:08 the disparity study and will go at initiatives that we

09:39:10 can put forward within the City of Tampa to make that
09:39:15 program a best practice and something that would be a
09:39:19 leader within the State of Florida.
09:39:21 Greg will give you an update a little later on in the
09:39:24 morning with regard to the disparity study that's on
09:39:26 your agenda.
09:39:27 But I would just like to recognize his outstanding
09:39:29 leadership during that period of time.
09:39:32 And the good news is, Greg has been relieved of duty
09:39:36 after today as far as his responsibilities for leading
09:39:40 the WMBE office, and our nationwide search has
09:39:43 identified Gregory HUFF as the new manager of that
09:39:50 office.
09:39:50 Very fortunate to recruit Gregory into Tampa.
09:39:54 He's got 15 years of experience in this kind of work.
09:39:58 He came most recently from Broward County.
09:40:02 He was there for two years doing essentially the same
09:40:05 work that he'll be doing here with the City of Tampa.
09:40:10 Prior to that, he had 13 years of experience at the
09:40:15 city of Charlotte as the business enter priss manager
09:40:17 for that city.
09:40:18 So he's got a wealth of experience.

09:40:20 I think you will find he's a professional,
09:40:22 forward-thinking individual and we are very fortunate
09:40:24 to have him.
09:40:25 And please join me in welcoming Gregory.
09:40:31 [ Applause ]
09:40:36 >>> Thank you very much.
09:40:36 Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of City Council.
09:40:40 I'm looking forward to engaging the community and my
09:40:43 colleagues throughout the organization to achieve the
09:40:46 objectives of the minority community business
09:40:48 development program.
09:40:49 Thank you.
09:40:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
09:40:53 That's all we have on the sign-in sheet for changes to
09:40:56 the agenda, do we have any council members that would
09:40:59 like to make any changes or corrections to the agenda?
09:41:01 If not we'll need a motion to approve.
09:41:05 Mr. Dingfelder?
09:41:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to not necessarily
09:41:08 pull item 27 but make note on item 27 which is the
09:41:13 confirming the appointment of our new director of
09:41:20 public works.

09:41:21 I think he's in the audience.
09:41:22 There he is.
09:41:23 And, anyway, I have had the opportunity to work with
09:41:27 colonel Lee when he was out at the base, and I low
09:41:30 forward to working with him in the city now that he is
09:41:38 our head of public works.
09:41:39 I just want to give him a special welcome.
09:41:41 I don't know if you had any words for us or not.
09:41:53 >> Ervin Lee, public of -- department of public works
09:41:58 designee.
09:41:59 I do want to thank you for your warm welcome, and the
09:42:03 time I had to visit with each one of you.
09:42:04 Again, I look forward to working with, for and through
09:42:08 you all to support this great city.
09:42:09 So thank you.
09:42:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Welcome.
09:42:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other items on the agenda?
09:42:15 We need a motion to approve.
09:42:17 >> So moved.
09:42:18 >> Second.
09:42:18 (Motion carried).
09:42:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Item number 2.

09:42:23 Staff reports and unfinished business.
09:42:30 >>> Kevin Ennis, code enforcement, to discuss items 2
09:42:36 and 3 of the agenda, this one being filed E-2006-8
09:42:41 chapter 19, property maintenance and structural
09:42:43 standards code, department of code enforcement was to
09:42:46 appear to provide a report on the illegal changing
09:42:50 signs at Walgreen's at Platt Street and Hyde Park
09:42:52 Avenue.
09:42:53 On September 13th, 2006, an inspection was
09:42:55 conducted regarding the sign located at the Walgreen's
09:42:58 store at 315 West Platt, notice of violation was
09:43:05 issued pursuant to code 20.5, case 06-24884.
09:43:14 Reinspection is due to be conducted on October 4,
09:43:17 2006.
09:43:18 The department of code enforcement conducted
09:43:20 surveillance of the surrounding area of these types of
09:43:23 signs with negative results.
09:43:25 We'll continue to canvas the area for illegal
09:43:28 activated signs of that type.
09:43:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
09:43:33 Thank you for doing that.
09:43:34 I have since spoken with you all about these signs

09:43:37 that seem to be activated all over town.
09:43:41 I think when you do show up and cite them they stop.
09:43:45 It's unfortunate -- maybe their colleagues will get
09:43:49 the message and maybe as we follow through on
09:43:51 enforcement we won't have this continuing in the
09:43:54 future.
09:43:54 So thank you for your work.
09:43:58 >>> Absolutely.
09:43:58 Thank you.
09:43:58 The second item, item number 3 on the agenda, was file
09:44:01 number 2006-8, chapter 20.5, city code, department of
09:44:06 code enforcement to appear and provide a report on
09:44:09 what is being done in terms of enforcement of campaign
09:44:11 signs.
09:44:12 Prior to the beginning of the campaign season document
09:44:16 from the director of code enforcement describing the
09:44:19 code violations as far as the do's and don'ts was
09:44:22 delivered to the office of the Hillsborough County
09:44:24 supervisor of elections.
09:44:25 The week following the election, the department of
09:44:28 code enforcement removed all obvious campaign signs
09:44:32 from the city's rights-of-way.

09:44:34 Any questions?
09:44:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are we enforcing that provision?
09:44:42 >>> Absolutely.
09:44:42 Yes, ma'am.
09:44:43 >> Are we finding people?
09:44:46 >>> Not as far as signs on the right-of-way.
09:44:48 Logistically, it's almost impossible to determine who
09:44:52 actually placed the sign on the roadway, which makes
09:44:54 it a big legal question.
09:44:56 So what we have done is -- and in the weeks following
09:45:00 the campaign season, we have impounded thousands.
09:45:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Actually you are doing the job for
09:45:08 the candidates by impounding them after the election.
09:45:11 >>> Could you say that.
09:45:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We ought to be out there before the
09:45:14 election taking signs down.
09:45:16 I know you all are busy.
09:45:17 Ms. Ferlita?
09:45:24 Thank you, Kevin.
09:45:27 >>KEVIN WHITE: I spoke with Kevin lane yesterday, and
09:45:33 calls from constituents, and they did not have any
09:45:35 quote-unquote evidence.

09:45:37 Late last night I got a phone call and I have to got
09:45:40 some photographs that I have to get later that they
09:45:42 don't know whether it was clean city or code
09:45:44 enforcement, that are removing signs actually from
09:45:48 private property, not from city rights-of-way,
09:45:52 cleaning out an entire neighborhood from private
09:45:54 property.
09:45:55 And I want to know from you if you know if any of that
09:45:59 is going on with code enforcement and whether it's
09:46:01 overzealous.
09:46:03 I know the directive says remove all campaign signs
09:46:07 and I don't know if people are arbitrarily picking
09:46:10 them up, or --
09:46:14 >>> we can tell you, with confidence, it's not code
09:46:16 enforcement impounding signs from the rights-of-way.
09:46:20 Our inspectors have a great deal of experience in
09:46:23 impounding signs.
09:46:25 And it's very specifically impounded from the city
09:46:30 rights-of-way in the ordinance.
09:46:32 >> Is clean city working in conjunction with code
09:46:34 enforcement?
09:46:36 >>> We often do work with clean cities division when

09:46:38 it comes to impounding signs.
09:46:40 They actually do most of the work, you know, in our
09:46:44 behalf, we recently impounded over 2000.
09:46:52 >> Ms. Saul-Sena just asked, are we fining the
09:46:54 candidates and things of that nature.
09:46:56 I think it would be very interesting if candidates
09:46:59 were going to start trying to implement something for
09:47:04 the city for removal on private property especially in
09:47:08 numbers of thousands.
09:47:09 I think that would be very interesting.
09:47:11 I look forward to seeing some of these photographs
09:47:13 this afternoon so we can actually get some resolve.
09:47:16 >>> Definitely.
09:47:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
09:47:21 Ms. Saul-Sena was the maker of this motion and I
09:47:24 certainly support it because I have some concerns as
09:47:26 well.
09:47:27 In talking to Mr. Lane yesterday, I think he
09:47:29 misconstrued what I was talking about.
09:47:31 I think it's a great idea that you are removing signs
09:47:34 from the right-of-way.
09:47:36 That's sign pollution and Mr. Harrison makes a good

09:47:38 point.
09:47:39 But I think it's Tampa responsibility of the candidate
09:47:41 to remove it.
09:47:42 That doesn't always happen.
09:47:43 That's in an ideal world.
09:47:45 But adding to Ms. Saul-Sena's concerns about
09:47:49 enforcement and campaign signs and stuff, I was
09:47:51 concerned because of the fact that you could have an
09:47:54 oversize illegal sign, and there were several
09:47:57 locations that that occurred on private property, and
09:48:01 this can't work for this cycle, and maybe not even for
09:48:03 the city cycle coming up next.
09:48:05 But -- and I don't know if the statute can be modified
09:48:09 or if that's something we've to live with in terms of
09:48:12 giving people due notice.
09:48:13 But what happens is you can have a sign placed on a
09:48:16 private property so that there is 10 days, 14 days in
09:48:20 advance of the election date, and you have to give
09:48:21 that property owner notice of 21 days to remove it.
09:48:27 They have to remove it after 21 days.
09:48:31 I don't know if Mr. Lane was thinking I was referring
09:48:33 to something else.

09:48:34 >>> That's actually true.
09:48:36 That would be definitely a legal issue to address,
09:48:39 absolutely.
09:48:39 Yes, as far as signs placed on the private property,
09:48:43 those are handled just like any other code enforcement
09:48:45 case.
09:48:46 We have to provide you notice on that.
09:48:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
09:48:52 What about you mentioned removing from city
09:48:54 right-of-way.
09:48:54 What about county roads that are within the city
09:48:57 limits?
09:48:58 >>> Actually, if it's within the incorporated city
09:49:02 limits on any rights-of-way under the ordinance, we
09:49:05 have the authority to impound it.
09:49:08 On any state, county or city road.
09:49:12 >>> Because Bruce B. Downs is actually within the city
09:49:14 limits of Tampa.
09:49:17 Are we removing signs from that right-of-way?
09:49:20 >> We probably are.
09:49:22 >> I hope that we are.
09:49:24 Anything else?

09:49:27 Thank you.
09:49:27 Item number 4.
09:49:29 Julia Cole.
09:49:31 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:49:32 I just want to take a moment and discuss with council
09:49:35 the change which is coming up, which just occurred in
09:49:40 the state statute, and goes into effect October
09:49:44 1st as relates to the denial, development permits.
09:49:48 I have given everybody a copy of that with a memo.
09:49:50 But just to discuss process, what's included in this
09:49:54 is rezoning.
09:49:56 And wet zonings and other types of permits that you
09:50:00 approve or deny, what this requires is that if council
09:50:05 is going to make a decision to deny something, they
09:50:07 have to give notice and a citation to that particular
09:50:13 provision that is the basis of the denial.
09:50:16 I have spoken with the clerk's office.
09:50:18 And what the clerk's office does now is the clerk's
09:50:21 office does send out a notice of denial, written
09:50:23 notice of denial, so that may be something -- isn't
09:50:28 something when need to implement.
09:50:29 That's already implemented.

09:50:30 But in speaking to her to comply with the state
09:50:32 statutes is that the maker of the motion who intends
09:50:36 to make a motion to deny must also state within the
09:50:39 motion the section of the code, comprehensive plan,
09:50:43 whatever provision that's going to be the basis of the
09:50:45 denial, they need to state that as part of their
09:50:48 motion.
09:50:49 This goes into effect October 1st.
09:50:52 And for a zoning hearing that we have Oklahoma 1st
09:50:55 if there is an item that will be denied will have to
09:50:59 deal with that.
09:51:00 I did want to also let you know, the staff report that
09:51:02 you received -- and Cathy Coyle can speak to this
09:51:05 further if necessary -- do contain specific provisions
09:51:10 of chapter 27 that they are relying on in their
09:51:13 recommendation.
09:51:14 That is a basis for denial.
09:51:18 It's very important that you state with specificity
09:51:21 the section that you are denying.
09:51:24 And that's something we want to deal with but I did
09:51:29 want to make you aware of the process and what the
09:51:31 clerk will require as relates to the denial that it

09:51:34 has to be part of the motion.
09:51:39 >> I would like to have a workshop.
09:51:41 Maybe you should schedule it individually, council
09:51:44 members, or maybe we could figure out a time that you
09:51:46 could talk to several at once.
09:51:48 But to sort of coach us on how you want the references
09:51:52 done in a way that doesn't involve reading the entire
09:51:56 comprehensive plan.
09:51:57 We need to do it sufficiently.
09:51:59 Maybe the staff recommendation should have the
09:52:00 citations in bold.
09:52:04 We need a little prep.
09:52:06 I know this is coming up fast.
09:52:08 But I would like to set times when maybe some of us
09:52:11 can come, and then perhaps you will have a chance to
09:52:13 speak one on one with other council members.
09:52:15 But if this is going to be required we need to be up
09:52:21 to speed, and perhaps I can get with you and get with
09:52:26 council members and bring it back.
09:52:29 >>JULIA COLE: That would be fine.
09:52:31 Or we could do it before the first rezoning hearing at
09:52:34 6:00, I think the 5th: But I think really, what

09:52:42 this is going to mean, is it is going to mean a little
09:52:45 bit more work on the part of council, in the sense
09:52:47 of -- reading the staff report.
09:52:51 And I see what you're saying.
09:52:52 You are almost in a position where you are reading it
09:52:56 right then and there.
09:52:57 And that I think will be tricky in the implementation,
09:52:59 because it used to be, you really could --
09:53:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We want to streamline this as much
09:53:07 as possible.
09:53:08 I'll work with you in advance.
09:53:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to refresh council's
09:53:20 recollection, this past week you had a denial of a
09:53:23 rezoning.
09:53:25 If you recall council member Dingfelder did, in the
09:53:27 basis of his factual determination, site the section,
09:53:32 and then -- basically it would come down to council,
09:53:40 as Ms. Cole says, being able to be aware of the
09:53:44 section within the staff report that you are making
09:53:46 reference to.
09:53:47 But if you want to know -- and would you agree with
09:53:50 me, Ms. Cole, in effect it would comply with this law?

09:53:57 >>JULIA COLE: Well, it would. And that was a very
09:53:59 good example of how you want to do it.
09:54:00 The only thing I will say -- and I spoke with Tammy
09:54:02 about this, Mr. Dingfelder was the seconder of the
09:54:06 motion.
09:54:07 So what would actually have to happen in practice is
09:54:09 the maker of the motion would actually need to adopt
09:54:12 that in order for standing in the clerk's office to
09:54:15 send that notification out.
09:54:20 It's almost make -- make the motion for denial based
09:54:23 on section 27 dash, whatever, of the comprehensive
09:54:28 plan, and that's how it would be done.
09:54:31 So I agree.
09:54:32 This is going to create some confusion when you want
09:54:34 to deny.
09:54:35 And that's why -- it may be a good idea to take a
09:54:39 little bit more time with this.
09:54:41 But procedurally that is what it's going to require.
09:54:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So you are saying a very effective
09:54:49 denial.
09:54:50 >>> A very effective denial, except as the maker of
09:54:53 the motion, in order to have notice.

09:54:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Cole, I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena
09:55:03 that we do need coaching on this because we are not
09:55:05 all lawyers and we don't know the exact verbiage to
09:55:08 use.
09:55:08 So if there would be some kind of verbiage that we
09:55:12 could put on these reports in terms of denial this is
09:55:15 what could you use and what the section is and so on.
09:55:17 And I understand where you are going, there could be
09:55:19 various sections of the comprehensive plan that we
09:55:22 were not aware of.
09:55:23 But some coaching would do.
09:55:25 And I would think that maybe on an individual basis,
09:55:31 it would be better for me.
09:55:33 >>JULIA COLE: Okay.
09:55:34 Well, what I could do is maybe schedule a meeting with
09:55:36 you individually, bring a copy of a sample staff
09:55:40 report, and you can look through that.
09:55:42 And the Planning Commission staff report that you
09:55:46 receive does have specific provisions of the
09:55:49 comprehensive plan that can also be utilized. And
09:55:52 remember when those come forward to you, the staff
09:55:55 reports, and the Planning Commission staff, from your

09:55:58 staff, part of the public hearing process is the
09:56:02 ability to disagree with the findings.
09:56:04 Because they are set up in a finding and a conclusion
09:56:07 manner.
09:56:08 And that is part of your job, a public hearing, and
09:56:13 you are reviewing what's coming in front of you, is to
09:56:16 make that decision.
09:56:17 But that does give you a guide of what we can do so we
09:56:19 can go through the staff reports, and I can point out
09:56:22 provisions and kind of cap it out the way you want to
09:56:27 do a motion.
09:56:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to make a suggestion when
09:56:30 we get new council members in here that they be
09:56:33 coached.
09:56:34 Because there will be two for sure.
09:56:37 And then in March there might be some more.
09:56:40 So I would really recommend that you all take time to
09:56:46 coach the new members.
09:56:47 >>JULIA COLE: That may be valuable as new members come
09:56:51 on doing a workshop but generally talk about
09:56:54 quasi-judicial proceedings.
09:56:55 They are becoming more and more complicated.

09:56:57 We have the state which had changes.
09:56:59 We have changes within case law.
09:57:00 And how we are moving forward with those.
09:57:02 But it might be valuable to do a workshop to talk
09:57:06 about quasi-judicial proceedings.
09:57:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
09:57:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Imalso wondering if a member
09:57:14 doesn't feel comfortable pontificating about the
09:57:19 particular ordinance or the comp plan provisions that
09:57:22 they want to rely on, I'm wondering if the motion can
09:57:26 be, like I move to deny -- and I move -- and with that
09:57:31 denial I'll move for staff to prepare a resolution of
09:57:34 denial.
09:57:35 And then that resolution perhaps could come back to us
09:57:39 with more edification within it.
09:57:43 And then it would come back the next meeting or
09:57:46 whatever.
09:57:47 And then that could be the formal document denial.
09:57:51 Just something to think about.
09:57:54 >>JULIA COLE: I think that is something to think
09:57:55 about.
09:57:56 The state requires for approval of an ordinance.

09:58:01 For having a resolution of denial.
09:58:05 >> It might be something that everybody mitt fell more
09:58:07 comfortable with.
09:58:10 >> Thank you, Julie.
09:58:11 Item number 5.
09:58:13 Ms. Foxx-Knowles.
09:58:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You don't look like Foxx-Knowles.
09:58:19 >>THE CLERK: Item number 5 last Thursday we had
09:58:22 presented back on September 11th, we had
09:58:25 appointments that were recommended to council for the
09:58:28 A.R.C., which was Sarah Romeo to be appointed as
09:58:31 resident for the northwest project.
09:58:34 Also recommended the reappointment for the Barrio
09:58:36 Latino commission for Gina Grimes and Fran Costentino
09:58:43 and Del Acosta and also the appointment of Joe host to
09:58:46 the Barrio Latino commission.
09:58:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had the experience when I was off
09:59:04 the City Council -- well, let's not go there.
09:59:06 I think these people are all knowledgeable.
09:59:08 My question would be, they are very knowledgeable,
09:59:13 they are very focused.
09:59:16 Would their participation on this board prey clued

09:59:18 them from being vocal about preservation?
09:59:25 And that's a concern I have.
09:59:29 It seems to me that you want people who are
09:59:31 knowledgeable about preservation.
09:59:33 And if you get people who are knowledgeable about
09:59:35 preservation, then they probably, you know, speak out
09:59:38 on it.
09:59:39 And I wouldn't want their participation to preclude
09:59:47 citizens to be articulate.
09:59:49 I guess that's a legal question.
09:59:51 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
09:59:52 The way the ordinance reads now is they are not
09:59:54 allowed to be members of, I believe, other historic
10:00:01 preservation boards.
10:00:02 >> What about an attorney who might belong to, let's
10:00:05 say, NAOP?
10:00:10 National organization of office park development.
10:00:12 Would a private attorney not be able to be a member of
10:00:15 NAOP serve on lick the variance review board or
10:00:18 something?
10:00:19 I really feel like it's sort of an overstatement of
10:00:25 constraint on them as individuals.

10:00:28 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:00:30 Rebecca was addressing the specific revision in our
10:00:33 current ordinance.
10:00:34 I think your question is more general than that.
10:00:36 And the issue goes primarily --
10:00:39 >> But my question --
10:00:42 >>> right.
10:00:42 It goes to the issue of whether or not we have an
10:00:44 impartial tribunal.
10:00:45 And does that tribunal have to be so impartial to have
10:00:49 people --
10:00:54 >> Or knowledge.
10:00:55 >>> So that's a due process issue.
10:00:56 Unfortunately, the lines and due process areas are not
10:01:00 very precise.
10:01:01 At least when you come to an issue like an impartial
10:01:04 tribunal.
10:01:04 I think courts have been historically reticent to
10:01:10 cross that line.
10:01:11 So if you are in a property rights organization or
10:01:13 historic preservation organization, that doesn't
10:01:16 preclude you, for example, this body, as serving in a

10:01:20 quasi-judicial capacity.
10:01:21 You all belong to different organizations.
10:01:23 And, you know, I don't think that rises to the level
10:01:27 of making you incapable of serving in a quasi-judicial
10:01:32 capacity.
10:01:34 That's a sticky area that generally is -- has not been
10:01:38 a problem in the city.
10:01:39 >> A follow-up question would be, you know, attorneys
10:01:44 also participate unless they are a staff person in a
10:01:48 large law firm and there might be other members of the
10:01:51 firm who have very strong opinions on this subject.
10:01:53 Does that mean that they are precluded from voting, in
10:02:02 a law firm?
10:02:03 >>> It shouldn't.
10:02:04 Having been in several law firms, I know that I have
10:02:06 very different opinions from some of my partners and
10:02:08 shareholders and we frequently share those with each
10:02:11 other.
10:02:11 So it's improper to really condemn one person for
10:02:14 abusing another in almost any organization.
10:02:17 So that applies again to some of those other
10:02:20 professional or industrial organizations you're

10:02:22 talking about.
10:02:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And there's an assumption in the
10:02:26 role as a member of one of the commissions that they
10:02:29 would be absolutely independent of some of their
10:02:40 professional affiliations.
10:02:42 >>> I think they would be and I think that's true with
10:02:46 most everyone on the panels that you have.
10:02:50 We need to make sure we have an impartial tribunal.
10:02:54 People have personal views.
10:02:55 You can't get around that.
10:02:56 You're not always able to go to your personal
10:02:59 preferences and that's as it should be.
10:03:01 You vote based upon the evidence before you.
10:03:03 And that's what we need to make sure happens.
10:03:05 As long as that happens, and we don't have people
10:03:07 suing the city because they think we have stacked the
10:03:11 deck in some way, then we'll be okay.
10:03:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:03:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Briefly, I wanted to bring up some
10:03:19 good issues.
10:03:20 One, the current ordinance precludes somebody from
10:03:24 serving from participating in another historic

10:03:28 preservation organization, or being a member of
10:03:33 another historic preservation organization.
10:03:36 Like I think in the past was like the national trust
10:03:40 for historic preservation.
10:03:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that's ridiculous.
10:03:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was going to say, I think we need
10:03:50 to change that or look at it very closely.
10:03:53 I agree with Linda, I think it's sort of overkill.
10:03:56 What we are saying is when want people who are really
10:03:59 knowledgeable on historic preservation but want to
10:04:01 make sure you don't belong to any organizations that
10:04:03 deal with historic preservation.
10:04:05 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
10:04:06 We'll be happy to look at that issue and bring it back
10:04:09 to you.
10:04:09 I would like to make two points.
10:04:10 Number one, that language did come as a result of a
10:04:13 settlement.
10:04:15 >> Which is 20 years old and needs revisiting.
10:04:17 >>> I understand that.
10:04:17 And I want to bring to your attention that everyone
10:04:19 who is appointed to these boards is supposed to have a

10:04:23 demonstrated interest in preservation.
10:04:25 So it's not excluding that.
10:04:26 I do understand your point and will look at that.
10:04:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before we go forward with the
10:04:31 ordinance to appoint these people let's make sure they
10:04:33 are aware that the current ground rules preclude that
10:04:36 and that they are willing, if they do belong to an
10:04:39 organization like that, might have to drop out
10:04:42 temporarily until we can fix it.
10:04:47 >> Move the ordinance before us.
10:04:51 >> There's nothing in front of them.
10:04:53 >> The reappointment.
10:04:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
10:05:02 Discussion on the motion?
10:05:03 Ms. Alvarez?
10:05:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No, I don't want to discuss it.
10:05:06 I just wanted to bring it.
10:05:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And I agree with what Mr. Smith
10:05:11 said, that from this to the VRB to the BLC to the
10:05:18 ARARC and all the other acronyms we have, we benefit
10:05:22 by a diversity of opinion.
10:05:25 And especially when you are being asked to make

10:05:29 decisions in a quasi-judicial role based on the
10:05:32 evidence that's being presented, I think having an
10:05:36 attorney that we don't want to get top heavy with
10:05:39 attorneys, goodness knows.
10:05:40 I think having that opinion or that viewpoint of the
10:05:43 world is really crucial.
10:05:45 We have a motion and second.
10:05:46 Any further discussion?
10:05:50 (Motion carried).
10:05:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:05:54 Back on July 24th we all received a memo from
10:06:00 Cindy Miller on the Historic Preservation Commission
10:06:04 appointments and we never acted upon that.
10:06:07 And according to this, it says the Historic
10:06:12 Preservation Commission is in need of an appointment.
10:06:15 And it's requested that one professional is appointed
10:06:20 by City Council to fill the vacancy for the position
10:06:22 of archaeologist.
10:06:25 I can make copies.
10:06:34 >>> We have that.
10:06:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: The lady by the name of Shauna leak, I
10:06:40 guess.

10:06:41 >> She found really qualified.
10:06:43 >> She's an archaeologist.
10:06:45 I would like to move the resolution.
10:06:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
10:06:50 Any further discussion?
10:06:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The clarification, to prepare a
10:06:53 resolution?
10:06:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, to prepare a resolution.
10:06:57 (Motion carried).
10:06:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Clarification.
10:07:03 For the review commission.
10:07:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Then we have the historic
10:07:09 preservation.
10:07:09 That's the one we just did.
10:07:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to direct legal as
10:07:17 quickly as possible to revisit the prohibition against
10:07:20 membership in preservation organizations by board
10:07:23 members, because I think that is unfair, and I would
10:07:28 like you to study that, and come back in two weeks
10:07:30 with a recommendation.
10:07:33 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:07:35 We would be happy to do that.

10:07:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And is that from any other
10:07:39 organizations?
10:07:40 Or is it only for --
10:07:43 >>DAVID SMITH: The only one I know of in the code is
10:07:45 the one that Rebecca mentioned and again, we are also
10:07:51 evaluating whether that settlement even applies today.
10:07:56 So as part of what we are involved in, in coming back
10:07:59 to you with new historic preservation.
10:08:01 >> But that's going to take awhile.
10:08:03 >>: If that's the only one in the code, and we can
10:08:07 tell you generally, there shouldn't be a litmus test
10:08:12 of any kind.
10:08:12 I don't know that we have done it anywhere else other
10:08:15 than that provision.
10:08:16 And I think that provision is going to be addressed,
10:08:20 because we are specifically looking at whatever
10:08:24 continued validity there is of Lykes.
10:08:26 And the answer may be there isn't.
10:08:28 So it might be better -- and we hope to be back to you
10:08:32 fairly shortly with a historic preservation workshop,
10:08:36 because I think we need to get some direction from
10:08:38 this council on some of the issues that have come up

10:08:40 here in our discussions.
10:08:42 So that will be included.
10:08:44 And what I suggest we do is maybe wait until then.
10:08:47 It might be the more efficient way to do it.
10:08:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Great.
10:08:51 Thank you, Mr. Smith.
10:08:52 Item number 6.
10:08:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, this is a resolution with
10:08:59 minor revisions to the rules of procedure, primarily
10:09:04 as a result of changes to chapter 27, deleting rule
10:09:09 F-6 -- 6-F relating to reconsideration of
10:09:13 quasi-judicial matters.
10:09:15 And the other is being a slight change in the order of
10:09:17 business to remove the items, removed from the consent
10:09:20 docket, to put them with staff reports rather than
10:09:22 following agenda items.
10:09:23 Very minor.
10:09:24 But according to council's rules, if you do want to
10:09:26 change them, they have to be read today, the title has
10:09:29 to be read today.
10:09:30 It will come back next week to move the resolution.
10:09:32 Two weeks.

10:09:39 Reading of the title if council wishes to go forward.
10:09:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Does someone wish to read it?
10:09:46 >> Move a resolution rule 3 B-2 govern the order of
10:09:51 business of the meetings of City Council of the City
10:09:52 of Tampa deleting section 6-F providing an effective
10:09:55 date.
10:09:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
10:09:57 (Motion carried)
10:10:01 Item number 7.
10:10:03 We have a PowerPoint on that?
10:10:10 >>> Greg spearman, director of purchasing.
10:10:14 We do have a PowerPoint to make to you regarding the
10:10:16 disparity study update.
10:10:20 If we can ask the technical staff to bring it up.
10:10:24 There you go.
10:10:24 In terms of the background, we did bring to you via
10:10:32 the consultant.
10:10:35 Immediately after that presentation, the city
10:10:38 formulated internal working group which consisted of
10:10:43 economic development, chief of staff, legal, contract
10:10:45 administration purchasing, and minority business
10:10:48 development.

10:10:49 We would like to share with you the purpose and also
10:10:52 the approach of the working group.
10:10:55 The working group first of all looked at the
10:11:01 committee.
10:11:02 We also conducted an evaluation of the study
10:11:04 recommendation to look at what would be the ease or
10:11:08 difficulty of implementing each of the
10:11:10 recommendations, the impact on the project, because
10:11:13 many of the recommendations will impact the way the
10:11:15 city actually does business.
10:11:17 And also resources that are required to put the
10:11:21 recommendations into place.
10:11:23 We also looked at the categorization, the
10:11:26 recommendations, about 33 of these recommendations
10:11:29 that came in from the consultant.
10:11:30 We looked at those by race and also by gender.
10:11:34 Some of these will be implemented on a very easy,
10:11:37 short term basis in terms of getting those
10:11:40 recommendations placed.
10:11:45 Others will require implementation on more of a
10:11:47 long-term basis.
10:11:49 The most important thing is that we must sure that the

10:11:51 legal basis to implement these recommendations is very
10:11:55 sound, very clear, so that we actually meet the
10:11:57 requirements of the decision.
10:12:00 Let's talk a minute about progress today.
10:12:03 We developed a process committee.
10:12:08 This is pretty historical but because for the first
10:12:11 time looking at the way the project actually comes in
10:12:13 terms of the concept to the plan that actually is
10:12:17 ready to bid on the street.
10:12:19 The reason we are doing that is because when want to
10:12:21 make sure that all along that we ensure for access.
10:12:32 We also want to make sure that as we look at how we
10:12:39 take the opportunity to do the outreach services
10:12:41 within the community.
10:12:42 Heretofore we have not really had the involvement of
10:12:45 the office.
10:12:46 When a project is in the development phase, and now
10:12:49 with the approach we can look at opportunities for
10:12:52 subcontracting, opportunities for solicitation, well
10:12:57 in advance of the project.
10:12:59 So that's another reason why we are doing the process
10:13:02 mapping initiative.

10:13:03 Also, we will be looking at putting new policies and
10:13:06 decisions in to place as we go through the process
10:13:08 mapping initiative so that we make sure of their
10:13:11 conclusion.
10:13:12 The other thing we are doing is we are building the
10:13:15 technology infrastructure.
10:13:17 We have been involved in the legal department
10:13:22 involving purchasing, involving minority business
10:13:25 development office and contract administration, and
10:13:28 developing a system that we can actually use to check
10:13:32 minority participation and outreach.
10:13:35 And of course we are implementing job order contract
10:13:38 to -- approved several months ago.
10:13:41 And this is a new web-based system that will involve
10:13:44 the bidding of small to medium size construction
10:13:49 projects, renovation projects and repair projects in
10:13:53 terms of helping us increase participation.
10:13:57 And the legal department is working on the development
10:13:59 of a draft ordinance.
10:14:01 Continuing the progress to date, the progress
10:14:04 administration department has developed a web site.
10:14:07 You may or may not be aware of that.

10:14:09 And this is what we have provided for council, within
10:14:15 the community, so they can determine how to be more
10:14:17 involved in the process, and construction process.
10:14:21 And on this web site, found bid notices, opportunities
10:14:25 for bid, they will also be able to look at the issue
10:14:28 and this is pretty new and historical in terms of
10:14:33 construction projects.
10:14:34 We are also standardizing the MBE.
10:14:41 One of the things we found in the research, the
10:14:43 department was setting up MBEs differently in
10:14:47 terms -- now we are standing by in the process so
10:14:50 everyone knows from beginning to end the
10:14:53 classification of minority enterprise.
10:14:56 And we are also continuing the expansion and use of
10:14:58 demand star.
10:14:59 This is a system that's used in purchasing, about bid
10:15:04 opportunities.
10:15:05 So between the contract administration web site, and
10:15:07 the demand star web site, we feel like we are in
10:15:10 pretty good shape in getting information out to the
10:15:13 community.
10:15:16 We have realigned the minority business development

10:15:19 function from economic development, now with the chief
10:15:23 of staff.
10:15:24 As you heard this morning, we have hired the new MBE
10:15:29 manager.
10:15:31 We also have the case law as it applies to
10:15:36 recommendations.
10:15:37 There's a lot of information in the disparity study.
10:15:39 We want to be sure we are on a sound legal footing.
10:15:43 Also obtained clarification of data analysis.
10:15:47 The next step, we are finalizing the data review,
10:15:51 adding stakeholders to our working group.
10:15:54 We are basically will go at finalizing recommendations
10:15:57 once they happen.
10:15:58 We are finalizing the tracking system.
10:16:01 And we hope to come back to council with a draft
10:16:09 ordinance in the necessary future.
10:16:11 Any questions?
10:16:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Spearman.
10:16:15 Mr. White.
10:16:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: A couple of questions.
10:16:17 First of all, Mr. Spearman, can you orderly define in
10:16:21 the near future?

10:16:23 >> Okay, that would tend to resolve the review of the
10:16:28 data that you are looking at between the city and the
10:16:30 consultant, in communication, and asking them to look
10:16:37 at some different things.
10:16:38 We hope to hear from them hopefully within the next
10:16:40 couple of weeks.
10:16:43 As soon as information comes back.
10:16:45 >> Can you give us a little more clarity on what
10:16:48 clarification in the analysis that we are will go at
10:16:50 that wasn't reviewed in the beginning?
10:16:55 >>> Initially evaluated and the initial analysis and
10:16:58 we've pointed out the consultants, and we are asking
10:17:01 them to go back and look at that to see what impact,
10:17:03 if any, that will have on the recommendation.
10:17:07 >> Is that the one that 119 were left out?
10:17:11 >>> That is correct.
10:17:15 >> Is there any explanation from either our staff or
10:17:20 the consulting company why those 119 organizations or
10:17:26 entities were not looked at?
10:17:28 >>> I believe the confusion may have resulted in the
10:17:30 fact that some data was given independently from the
10:17:36 purchasing department, and there was some confusion

10:17:39 how though that got to them, and be if that actually
10:17:42 got forwarded.
10:17:43 >>KEVIN WHITE: So the analysis from the previous time
10:17:49 that you hear is that we had a disparity, and not
10:17:57 subs, correct?
10:17:59 >>> That's correct.
10:17:59 >>: When we reevaluate this 119 different
10:18:02 organizations, we may find out that we have disparity
10:18:05 all the way around?
10:18:07 >>> It's really difficult to answer that question,
10:18:10 Councilman White, until the consultant looks at
10:18:14 additional data.
10:18:17 >> 119 different organizations were left out of the
10:18:20 particular study, off of our vendor list.
10:18:22 But more so than that, do you feel confident you have
10:18:24 come back before this council in two weeks with -- I
10:18:28 mean, you have been in constant contact with legal.
10:18:31 Maybe I should ask Mr. Smith this question.
10:18:35 Get you off the hot seat for a second.
10:18:37 Mr. Smith, do you feel confident with the
10:18:40 clarification of data analysis that we need to look at
10:18:48 where we are with the private contractor that's doing

10:18:50 the study that we should be able to come back and move
10:18:52 forward with a draft ordinance within two weeks?
10:18:56 Or do you feel that there's something that can be done
10:18:59 in the interim that we can be working on until we get
10:19:03 those results?
10:19:05 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:19:07 We will continue to work on the issues that we have.
10:19:10 There's a variety of things going on, including
10:19:13 potential remedies, how these approaches can be
10:19:16 structured, if we bifurcate contracts, how would that
10:19:19 be accomplished?
10:19:20 There's -- the dialogue is quite involved and quite
10:19:23 complex.
10:19:24 I would be reticent to provide a time frame as to what
10:19:27 the consultant will be able to do.
10:19:31 What we are doing, though, is we are going to make
10:19:32 sure that as we map that as we subject to appropriate
10:19:38 due diligence we found these areas of potential
10:19:40 discrepancy.
10:19:40 We provided that information to them.
10:19:43 They will reanalyze that data.
10:19:45 If necessary, we'll meet with them, because it's

10:19:47 extremely critical that this data is accurate.
10:19:50 Because this is the basis on which anything we do is
10:19:53 likely to be challenged, if it's going to be
10:19:55 challenged.
10:19:56 So we have got to make that data accurate.
10:19:58 And then they'll redo their analysis and determine we
10:20:02 have got more discrepancies or more disparities or we
10:20:05 have fewer, or in what areas they exist.
10:20:07 So once that's done we can then craft the ordinance,
10:20:12 because as you know I mentioned this before, but I
10:20:14 don't expect -- our remedy must be narrowly tailored
10:20:19 to the problem.
10:20:20 Until we can clearly identify the problem when
10:20:24 cannot -- because this has been heavily litigated as
10:20:30 now is a little more complex, and when you start
10:20:33 getting into this kind of statistical analysis, it not
10:20:35 that difficult to find an expert who can take a
10:20:38 different view.
10:20:38 So we are making sure that our records are clear, that
10:20:43 we analyze the data, any potential problem when found,
10:20:47 we brought to their attention.
10:20:48 We have done a good job, so the program that gets

10:20:52 implemented will be a program that's very defensible.
10:20:54 Time frame, mason Tillman may be able to look at this
10:20:58 information, and provide us an answer fairly quickly.
10:21:01 We did this.
10:21:02 Here's why we did that.
10:21:04 Here's why we class fade them this way.
10:21:05 So we could get an answer fairly quickly.
10:21:08 I would hope so.
10:21:09 If this data is literally information they didn't
10:21:12 have, they may have to re-do their calculations.
10:21:16 That's not a process that will happen quickly.
10:21:20 So I'm sorry, I can't answer your question directly
10:21:23 because it's going to be driven by the consultant.
10:21:25 >> It's fairly well answered but what I would like to
10:21:27 do in that case is make a motion that you all come
10:21:29 back with Mr. Spearman or our new head of that
10:21:32 department at that point in time, in two-week
10:21:36 increments and give us a constant update of where we
10:21:39 are with the consultant, and where we are with the
10:21:41 draft ordinance until we get this resolved.
10:21:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is that a motion?
10:21:48 >> That's a motion.

10:21:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
10:21:50 Discussion on that motion, Mr. Dingfelder?
10:21:56 Okay.
10:21:57 All in favor of Mr. White's motion signify by saying
10:22:00 Aye.
10:22:00 Opposed?
10:22:02 (Motion Carried).
10:22:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Spearman or perhaps Mr. Smith,
10:22:10 we have two very, very large projects coming down the
10:22:14 pike that are going to be in the tens of millions of
10:22:17 dollars, specifically the CAC major water line
10:22:23 project.
10:22:23 Not you, Mr. Smith, the other Mr. Smith.
10:22:28 And also the Dale Mabry/neptune stormwater pipeline.
10:22:33 And I know that, Darryl, you and Mr. Daignault and the
10:22:38 whole team have been talking about possibly doing a
10:22:41 big design build, you know, tens, millions, maybe $50
10:22:45 million.
10:22:49 There's a great opportunity, you know, with that huge
10:22:52 a project for that big contract to come into to hire
10:22:59 some major subcontractors.
10:23:00 And I think when all want to make sure that those

10:23:03 subcontractors will include the MBEs.
10:23:09 Have we got into that?
10:23:11 Are you part of that process?
10:23:13 I forgot his name. Anyway, you gays are part of that?
10:23:18 >>> Greg spearman.
10:23:21 We have not changed the process in terms of those
10:23:23 major projects.
10:23:24 So that will continue.
10:23:25 The current program will continue as it is today until
10:23:28 we actually come back to you with a recommendation to
10:23:31 follow.
10:23:31 We will on those projects.
10:23:39 >> Whatever our goal setting normal standards are is
10:23:41 fine.
10:23:41 I think we need to make an extra effort in those big
10:23:44 projects to make sure that there is MBE participation.
10:23:47 >>> We will make every effort to do so.
10:23:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:23:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions or discussion on
10:23:52 this item?
10:23:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wonder, when (off
10:23:57 microphone) I think it would be an exercise for

10:24:02 council members and the very large project to see what
10:24:05 the percentage of minority participation is.
10:24:08 I think this is an issue that seems to get our
10:24:14 awareness every eight, nine months, year, whatever, we
10:24:17 need to be aware of it on a weekly basis.
10:24:20 This is information that I assume you have that you
10:24:22 could easily include in your information to council
10:24:27 and would appear on our agenda when these contracts
10:24:30 come up for our approval.
10:24:33 >>GREG SPEARMAN: Greg Spearman.
10:24:37 That does happen in the goal setting.
10:24:40 It's in the goal review process out of the MBE office
10:24:44 and they measure whether or not the recommended
10:24:49 suppliers -- that is formally documented, part of the
10:24:52 contract, and we can include that in the council
10:24:55 packet that comes through if you would like to do
10:24:57 that.
10:24:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I assume when things come up things
10:25:02 are in the go stage and by the time we are really
10:25:05 paying the bills and they completed work and inspected
10:25:08 it, and at that point they know what they have
10:25:10 actually spent and what percentage has gone to

10:25:11 minority contractors.
10:25:13 I think that's the pointed at which it would be more
10:25:15 meaningful data.
10:25:16 Not what they aspire to, but what has actually
10:25:20 occurred.
10:25:20 I think that would be really helpful.
10:25:22 It would make all council members in the public aware
10:25:24 of how well we are. Org really doing.
10:25:28 >>> That's one of the initiatives, councilman, in
10:25:31 terms of the new diversity tracking.
10:25:34 We want to not only look at what the projected goal of
10:25:37 participation is by the client but also what the
10:25:40 actual experience is.
10:25:41 And we'll be tracking it.
10:25:44 >> I think it's great it's going to be on your
10:25:46 computer system but the City Council agenda is
10:25:48 available to the public, available to us, it's
10:25:50 downloadable and it's something that the public could
10:25:52 use.
10:25:53 It's a tool, for seeing how we are doing.
10:25:57 And I don't know how quickly you can implement this
10:25:59 but maybe come back to us when you come back with this

10:26:02 other information, tell us how quickly that
10:26:04 information could then appear on our agenda as part of
10:26:06 our paying bills.
10:26:10 >> We'll include that in the update.
10:26:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: Back to a question that Ms. Saul-Sena
10:26:18 asked you.
10:26:18 If we are going to continue to do it, if you are
10:26:21 saying those already in the process as we speak, then
10:26:23 how do we get in the situation that we are in now?
10:26:30 If all of those procedures have been overseen and
10:26:37 implemented, to make sure that the minority vendors
10:26:42 participation were in the contracting.
10:26:48 >>> The problem we have now, Councilman White, is we
10:26:50 have different systems in which we manage the
10:26:56 procurement process.
10:26:57 We have a system in purchasing.
10:26:58 We have the accounting.
10:27:02 We have the contract administration system in terms of
10:27:06 expedition.
10:27:06 What we are doing is actually building an
10:27:09 infrastructure to build all-oh pull all of those
10:27:12 systems together.

10:27:14 As far as goal setting goes, what they are doing
10:27:17 there, it's not automated today, but we can bring that
10:27:21 forward for you.
10:27:21 >>KEVIN WHITE: I appreciate that.
10:27:23 I'm saying if each different department had their own
10:27:27 set way of doing it.
10:27:28 But the goals should still be the same and the
10:27:32 percentile of the participation should still be there
10:27:35 for each department, even if it's not there in toto,
10:27:39 it should still be there per department.
10:27:45 >>> Assistant city attorney.
10:27:46 The existing executive order that sets forth the WMBE
10:27:50 ordinance and the WME plan addresses contractors so we
10:27:55 have been receiving reports and actually achieving
10:27:57 those goals in that particular area.
10:27:58 However, the disparity study is focusing on the
10:28:02 utilization of W MEs, and that's the area where, you
10:28:06 know, we haven't been monitoring because that wasn't a
10:28:12 portion of the executive order.
10:28:14 >>KEVIN WHITE: As we said a minute ago, we have to
10:28:17 look at 19 to see if that's the case.
10:28:21 >>> Yes.

10:28:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I asked for really, is it
10:28:24 workable?
10:28:25 Because I asked for the information.
10:28:26 We don't pay the bills.
10:28:31 So I would like to change what I asked for, would be
10:28:34 for you to suggest some kind of way for council and
10:28:37 the public as part of our agenda on a regular basis
10:28:43 for what their participation is, not of the goal
10:28:45 setting stage but of the bill-paying stage.
10:28:50 Thank you.
10:28:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think it would seem like whenever
10:28:53 we are approving a budget request to pay a bill, you
10:28:56 can very easily put like WMBE prime or WME sub right
10:29:02 there on the agenda, a one-line thing.
10:29:05 As long as your computer systems can talk to everybody
10:29:07 else, it would just pop up on every agenda item and we
10:29:10 could see it happening.
10:29:13 Mr. Smith.
10:29:13 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:29:15 One of the good things that's going to come out of
10:29:17 this process is Greg and people at WME are looking at
10:29:25 actual expenditures which is the important level.

10:29:26 The goals are fine.
10:29:27 And you can set them and you can try to achieve them.
10:29:30 But we have got to start looking at where the dollars
10:29:32 go.
10:29:35 I keep putting the burden on him. The system being
10:29:38 developed will do that.
10:29:39 What we envision happening when we get everything
10:29:41 clarified with the disparity study, we'll have the
10:29:44 basis for the council to set the current goals based
10:29:46 on that disparity.
10:29:48 Then we will have data literally every year because we
10:29:52 are going to have a very good system for tracking it.
10:29:55 And you will be studying goals each year based upon
10:29:59 actual expenditures so you will have better data,
10:30:02 current data and ongoing data.
10:30:03 So although this has been somewhat of a protracted
10:30:08 process to get to where we are going now, in the
10:30:11 future we'll be able to get there much more quickly
10:30:14 and you will have relabel data.
10:30:17 In essence, we will be gathering our own data as we
10:30:19 go.
10:30:20 And that will be presented at the council each year.

10:30:22 But we would contemplate bringing an ordinance to you
10:30:25 that essentially has you look at the data each year
10:30:27 and sets the goals for the next year.
10:30:30 That's going to be very defensible.
10:30:32 I like that kind of approach.
10:30:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
10:30:35 Greg, I guess congratulations on losing your job.
10:30:39 Now it's your Dale.
10:30:40 Thank you, Councilman White, for taking the lead on
10:30:43 this item.
10:30:44 And we look forward to the report in two weeks.
10:30:53 Item number 8.
10:30:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:31:03 We had a meeting in the Mascotte room where several
10:31:06 council members attended.
10:31:08 As you recall we had a pretty packed room of different
10:31:11 ideas and concerns about the four pieces that we
10:31:14 withheld from the chapter 27 changes.
10:31:17 Those four pieces were section 27-151, lighting, to
10:31:22 follow CPTED standards.
10:31:26 Section 37, residential design standards.
10:31:28 Is 32, solid waste.

10:31:30 And 323 which is the building elevations in the 3-D
10:31:34 models.
10:31:35 What we have back before you today are only two of
10:31:40 those items. The CPTED lighting is off the table at
10:31:44 this point.
10:31:45 We are trying to coordinate meetings with TECO and
10:31:48 several professional lighting engineers to discuss
10:31:50 what the options are for those lighting standards.
10:31:52 And the residential design standards.
10:31:55 I have received a lot of language from different
10:31:59 people, architects, other planners, I have done some
10:32:02 research on design standards, and we are looking
10:32:04 potentially to fold that in with the inevitable
10:32:08 rewrite of chapter 27, which is a couple years off
10:32:11 potentially.
10:32:13 Those two pieces are off the table right now.
10:32:16 But 27-132 is before you. That is solid waste.
10:32:20 And we did discuss that at length in that workshop.
10:32:23 And there was some confusion over how we provide
10:32:27 service for different uses residential versus
10:32:30 commercial.
10:32:30 And really what it boils down to is the definitions in

10:32:33 chapter 27 now, that mirror the chapter 26 definition
10:32:37 for what type of facility is being provided, not the
10:32:41 uses on the property, whether or not it's a refuse
10:32:46 bin, container or compacter. What we did is clarify
10:32:49 the language that you can have service inside or out,
10:32:51 if it's a container, which is the cart or the trash
10:32:55 can, if it's stored outside of the structure that it
10:32:57 simply has to be screened from public view in the
10:33:01 right-of-way by 6-foot high solid wood, fence, vinyl,
10:33:05 has to be solid some sort or wall, which follows then
10:33:10 under the fence regulations which is standard.
10:33:11 That is how people do it.
10:33:13 You put in the your side yard behind your fence or
10:33:15 your rear yard behind your fence.
10:33:18 If you keep it in the garage you have the area set
10:33:20 aside for those carts that Mr. McCary's group is
10:33:24 providing now.
10:33:25 The one word, I do have a substitute ordinance.
10:33:29 I did note on line 16 on page 2 of the ordinance, it
10:33:34 says right-of-way or adjacent property.
10:33:37 The word "or" is changed to "and."
10:33:40 That's the only change in that ordinance.

10:33:55 The second ordinance that you have for section 27-323,
10:33:59 the discussion in the meeting of the workshop was,
10:34:02 there was a lengthy discussion on the 3-D models,
10:34:06 project not so much on the building elevations.
10:34:08 What you have before you -- before you is simply the
10:34:10 requirement for providing building elevations.
10:34:13 What I wanted to discuss with you today, which is
10:34:16 unclear as a result of that meeting, was in the 3-D
10:34:19 model to come back with a separate ordinance for that
10:34:22 change, how when want to provide with those.
10:34:25 If we only wanted to do it in the central business
10:34:27 district, Channel District, we originally had them for
10:34:30 buildings over 80 feet in height which is considered a
10:34:32 high-rise in Tampa.
10:34:34 I had it in there that it was 3-D model, or digital
10:34:38 representation.
10:34:39 That would allow anyone to do any model as long as
10:34:48 it's properly scaled.
10:34:49 I would like some direction whether or not you want it
10:34:51 in the code at this point, or if you want to limit it
10:34:54 to certain areas.
10:34:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.

10:34:59 Question.
10:35:00 Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:35:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When we ask for elevation, do we
10:35:03 have a minimum scale that we ask for?
10:35:06 Because recently we had an elevation that was like --
10:35:11 you have to be an ant to see it.
10:35:13 It was really impossible to see what's going on in the
10:35:16 pedestrian level which is what we are concerned about.
10:35:18 It didn't have the dimensions identified.
10:35:22 Do we have a series of specific requirements about
10:35:28 what the elevations should be in terms of the quality
10:35:31 of them?
10:35:32 I know that A.R.C -- or BLC are very picky.
10:35:38 We don't need to be that picky but we Ned to be able
10:35:41 to see it.
10:35:42 >>> They are asking for all four sides of the proposed
10:35:44 structures.
10:35:46 It does not specify scale.
10:35:47 I can say, though, for the central business district
10:35:49 they are required to do color elevations and are
10:35:52 required to show you the pedestrian level.
10:35:55 In the Channel District regulations, we are going to

10:35:57 be adding that language.
10:36:01 >> I think it needs to have some scale so that the
10:36:03 average person can see what's going on.
10:36:05 Because we have like on an 8 1/2 by 11 a 35-story
10:36:11 building and couldn't really see what was going on on
10:36:14 ground level.
10:36:14 And I also think we need to have, you know, the public
10:36:17 areas dimensioned because you can't just look at it
10:36:21 and intuitively know what you are looking at.
10:36:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: On every single building that comes
10:36:28 --
10:36:29 >> No.
10:36:29 I think it needs to be proportionate to the scale of
10:36:31 the project so the small scale project -- although
10:36:39 small scale projects you need to see what's going on,
10:36:41 also.
10:36:42 I would look to you all professionally of what other
10:36:46 boards require.
10:36:48 And I think that legibility, basic legibility should
10:36:52 be the guiding force.
10:36:54 >> We can certainly work on that additional language.
10:36:56 If you would like to move forward on the one I have

10:36:59 before you just to require the basic elevation.
10:37:03 We are asking for them, requiring them through the
10:37:05 public hearing process, it's policy, it not
10:37:07 technically in the code today.
10:37:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we add to what's before us a
10:37:12 question of legibility, or language to that effect?
10:37:21 >>> We would have to do a substitute ordinance.
10:37:23 We would have to think about exactly how to do that.
10:37:27 We'll have five wet zonings and another rezoning
10:37:29 today.
10:37:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we went ahead with this, are we
10:37:33 going with to have to wait two years till we get
10:37:35 legibility in there?
10:37:37 >>> No.
10:37:37 >>: Didn't we have a meeting down in the Mascotte room
10:37:39 that was well attended, and I thought what was before
10:37:42 us here today was something that everybody agreed on.
10:37:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Correct.
10:37:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Now you presented an ordinance that
10:37:47 has a change.
10:37:48 And is that a change that you think is going to throw
10:37:51 everybody back into disagreement?

10:37:55 >>> It was a change of one word.
10:37:57 >> I know one word can mean a lot.
10:38:00 >>> It was "or" versus "and" and what I understand
10:38:03 from David McCary's group is "and" is actually in it
10:38:10 today and it was an "or" when I typed it.
10:38:16 >> An and or, or a combination thereof, can have
10:38:20 vastly meaningful changes.
10:38:21 So this isn't even set for a public hearing at this
10:38:25 point.
10:38:26 We are on new unfinished business and we've two
10:38:30 ordinances to read.
10:38:30 So procedurally are these both going to come back for
10:38:33 a second public hearing?
10:38:35 They will.
10:38:35 And we'll have a chance at that point.
10:38:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Cathy, would you elaborate a little
10:38:43 more on the CPTED standards that you were talking
10:38:46 about?
10:38:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It is for on-site lighting for
10:38:50 commercial properties and multi-family development.
10:38:53 It was very broadly stated, multifamily.
10:38:55 So it would have been some of those smaller townhouse

10:39:00 style developments as well.
10:39:01 We have some conversations and correspondence from
10:39:05 lighting engineers that stated potentially the way
10:39:09 that we were describing the lighting would have been
10:39:11 more like an arena-tape lighting.
10:39:14 Football stadium lighting.
10:39:16 Which is not what the intent of that was.
10:39:18 So we wanted an additional chance to speak with more
10:39:21 engineers on exactly how to write that.
10:39:23 It came through on the previous CPTED police officer.
10:39:27 So we need additional time to redraft that language.
10:39:29 We also need to discuss with TECO. They had some
10:39:32 concerns about service for a lot of these larger
10:39:35 developments, the demand, their capacity that they
10:39:39 have available.
10:39:39 So that's what we are will go to do.
10:39:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was unaware you were making changes
10:39:45 to that.
10:39:46 But I agree with you that it does Ned to have some
10:39:49 changes made.
10:39:52 Thank you.
10:39:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Cathy.

10:39:57 Procedurally, because these are not set for public
10:39:59 hearing but they are being -- they are on the agenda
10:40:01 before we have public comment, I'm going to hold these
10:40:04 until we read them, until after the public comment
10:40:07 section.
10:40:07 So if anyone is here to speak on these items, they'll
10:40:10 have that opportunity.
10:40:11 All right.
10:40:12 Requests for reconsideration by the public?
10:40:14 Anyone?
10:40:17 Okay.
10:40:17 Agendaed public comment.
10:40:24 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have been her before on these
10:40:27 chapter 27 changes.
10:40:28 And I wanted someone to weigh in on the record
10:40:32 regarding solid waste.
10:40:36 They are requiring under provision "A," which is a
10:40:42 rewrite, says ah all new construction, major
10:40:45 renovation and/or change of use for any use shall
10:40:49 provide facilities for the central storage of solid
10:40:51 waste within the lot.
10:40:52 You have built-up areas throughout the city where that

10:40:56 physically is not possible.
10:40:57 But you also have a provision on here under "H" which
10:41:01 says the director of solid waste or designee may
10:41:04 consider design or placement alternative provided they
10:41:07 don't obstruct the visibility standards which is fine,
10:41:10 the safety standard.
10:41:10 I just wanted to make sure that that provision also
10:41:13 applied to everything above that.
10:41:16 And I could hold until somebody answer that is
10:41:22 question.
10:41:22 Or do you want me to go on?
10:41:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:41:25 It does.
10:41:26 It applies to the entire section.
10:41:30 >>STEVE MICHELINI: The second provision is that the
10:41:31 discussion regarding providing elevations from all
10:41:34 four sides, I don't remember that there was a lot of
10:41:38 concurrence on that.
10:41:39 But the last provision was the council asked the 3-D
10:41:45 modeling provision be stricken from the code, which it
10:41:48 was.
10:41:48 And all four-side elevations for small projects is an

10:41:52 onerous requirement.
10:41:54 If you have -- at least the discussion I remember was
10:41:58 if the council wanted to require that, in the public
10:42:01 hearing process, to ask the developer or the
10:42:03 petitioner to come back with elevations from the other
10:42:06 side, that was entirely appropriate.
10:42:09 You are already required to provide an elevation as
10:42:11 part of the PD process to show that it's compatible
10:42:14 with the consistency of the neighborhood in the area
10:42:18 being proposed.
10:42:18 But what you are doing is adding design criteria into
10:42:21 a review process which already, the staff is coming to
10:42:26 you and complaining about review time and
10:42:28 compatibility.
10:42:31 For my understanding if you are going to use these
10:42:32 elevations somehow you need to have cray ter yeah for
10:42:35 how they are going to be used.
10:42:36 I think that's a dangerous precedent to set for all
10:42:39 rezonings, particularly when there is no size or scale
10:42:43 that's identified for this.
10:42:44 This is every PD zoning that comes to you, all four
10:42:47 elevations from all sides of the project.

10:42:49 I don't think it is appropriate.
10:42:52 If you want to set a larger scale parameter for it,
10:42:55 you know, whatever it is, 50,000 square FET or
10:42:59 something like that where you have a major impact,
10:43:01 that's one thing.
10:43:03 But on small in-fill projects, I think it's an onerous
10:43:06 requirement and it should not be presented in this
10:43:10 manner.
10:43:11 I would respectfully request that you not put that
10:43:13 burden on the smaller-scale projects.
10:43:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Michelini.
10:43:21 Next?
10:43:21 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherrill.
10:43:32 First of all the ordinance which you are talking
10:43:35 about, I know that the small scale development -- may
10:43:42 be an in-fill around it.
10:43:49 You needed to know what it is all going to la like
10:43:52 before you took a position on it.
10:43:55 That was referred to this morning.
10:43:57 Which brings me to the next issue of having definite
10:44:10 code in your denial.
10:44:11 That means you are going to have to be studying your

10:44:14 public hearings ahead of time.
10:44:15 I guess you have to put on the record why you need to
10:44:17 approve this, I hope, as well as deny, because the
10:44:24 neighborhood is now going to have real problems with
10:44:28 your looking at what the developer is proposing
10:44:31 without knowing where we are coming from, that's why
10:44:34 we are objecting.
10:44:35 And so council will really have to be listening to the
10:44:38 neighborhood.
10:44:39 And we ourselves are going to need as much of an
10:44:44 educational process as you will.
10:44:48 The issue of the sign, it came up at T.H.A.N. meetings
10:44:55 the meeting before last, neighborhood real concerns
10:44:59 about all the signs, not only the political signs, but
10:45:02 those that are popping upkeep popping up.
10:45:09 Several years ago it was recommended that when these
10:45:12 continue to pop up, especially on private property,
10:45:17 and big signs that are illegal, that there be some way
10:45:22 of giving some sort of a ticket or whatever of the
10:45:28 repeat offender.
10:45:29 These people with the electrical signs, they should
10:45:31 say they stop it but then they start again and the

10:45:34 process starts over again.
10:45:36 So if there's any way to look at that in the sign code
10:45:41 that's coming in, please do so.
10:45:43 And also, lastly, the issue of reconsideration that
10:45:47 you just moved on.
10:45:49 Could we have a little bit of an explanation about it?
10:45:51 Because I'm not quite sure that that was included.
10:45:55 Thank you.
10:45:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
10:45:58 Mr. Shelby.
10:45:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, council.
10:46:01 As you recall, there was an issue that came up with
10:46:04 regard to equal protection.
10:46:10 If something passes out of rezoning, there is no
10:46:17 opportunity for the neighborhood to come back and ask
10:46:18 for reconsideration because it becomes law, whereas if
10:46:21 there is a denial, the developer was able to come back
10:46:24 at the following meeting and request reconsideration,
10:46:27 and if a new process can be heard, they would allow
10:46:36 rescheduling, or reconsideration, or rescheduled a
10:46:39 rehearing.
10:46:40 As you know, when you reviewed that, revised chapter

10:46:43 27, what you did was change the process for which
10:46:46 somebody can, if they wish to address, the basis for
10:46:50 denial can come back and reapply.
10:46:52 But because of the disparity of treatment between the
10:46:56 party, council took away the issue of reconsideration
10:47:00 of quasi-judicial matters, not legislative matters.
10:47:04 They can always come back and make a request for
10:47:06 legislative matters.
10:47:07 But because of that reason why if a neighborhood
10:47:12 group, let's say, did have standing but it was signed
10:47:16 into law, council lost jurisdiction at that point.
10:47:19 So from the sake of due process, council removed that.
10:47:24 So we -- and that was already in effect.
10:47:26 That was in effect now presently.
10:47:28 So we removed that section from the rules of
10:47:30 procedure.
10:47:31 That's what's contemplated.
10:47:34 Do you want to add anything, Ms. Coyle?
10:47:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think there's been some concern
10:47:39 about that.
10:47:40 We probably ought to take a look and make sure that we
10:47:44 haven't done something that we all think that we

10:47:47 shouldn't have gone that far.
10:47:48 So, Mr. Shelby, we'll handle that later.
10:47:52 I don't want to interrupt the flow of public comment
10:47:54 at this point, Cathy.
10:47:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: This is related to public comment,
10:47:57 actually, if I may.
10:47:59 Ms. Vizzi --
10:48:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I speak to that reconsideration
10:48:02 issue before we move past it?
10:48:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
10:48:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you. Ms. Vizzi, I know you
10:48:07 are always a wonderful watchdog on these issues.
10:48:09 But I think in my experience, three and a half years
10:48:12 on council, I think that virtually every single
10:48:16 reconsideration that I can think of came from a
10:48:18 developer, and therefore by eliminating the
10:48:21 reconsideration I think it was really intended as a
10:48:23 neighborhood friendly motion.
10:48:24 But, anyway, that's, I take it, the intent of council
10:48:30 when we did it.
10:48:31 In addition to the due process issues raised by
10:48:34 council.

10:48:35 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:48:36 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:48:37 This is related to public comment, Ms. Vizzi's
10:48:41 comments.
10:48:41 She neglected to mention one item that she related in
10:48:44 chapter 27 and she was pretty passionate about it and
10:48:46 I just reminded her, I was wondering if you could give
10:48:49 her an additional 10 or 15 seconds to mention it.
10:48:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Robinson, we're next.
10:48:58 Come on up.
10:48:59 Ms. Vizzi, we'll see what we can do.
10:49:01 Come on up, Joe.
10:49:04 >>> Joe Robinson, RHC and associates, Inc., a
10:49:10 certified minority business with the City of Tampa
10:49:12 that didn't get a chance to speak when city staff was
10:49:20 here and vice chair of the basin board and SWFWMD,
10:49:24 here to speak on item 7 and 23.
10:49:27 Number one, I'm upset with the mayor, and
10:49:31 administration.
10:49:33 This has taken too long.
10:49:35 119 firms not counted for.
10:49:39 Contracts going out, like Mr. Dingfelder said, with no

10:49:43 requirement, no consideration for minority
10:49:45 participation.
10:49:50 An injunction getting ready to be filed.
10:49:52 This is nonsense. This is nonsense.
10:49:54 Discrimination is going on in the city.
10:49:56 And prime contracting.
10:49:59 Every day, every day we do nothing.
10:50:02 Let me read to you as vice chair of Swiftmud what we
10:50:07 require on agreements and go back to my board where we
10:50:11 have a meeting in October and demand that the City of
10:50:13 Tampa provide me with a list that reports to the
10:50:20 following.
10:50:24 It states specifically that the contract and
10:50:26 subcontractors, performance of all contracts
10:50:32 associated with this funding process.
10:50:36 The district requires the city to make good faith
10:50:38 efforts and encourage participation of minority owned
10:50:44 both as Plame contractors and request by sharing the
10:50:55 information, to have an opportunity to participate, at
10:51:03 my next board meeting because this is nonsense.
10:51:05 It's taken too long.
10:51:06 What is the mayor doing?

10:51:10 To provide a district upon final completion of the
10:51:13 project that has corporate funding.
10:51:16 We are talking about stormwater.
10:51:20 This is what we're talking about.
10:51:24 Advocate and provide the millions of dollars of the
10:51:29 City of Tampa.
10:51:30 And all contractors and subcontractors who perform
10:51:38 work associated with whatever project we agree on,
10:51:46 subcontractors, of what we are going to do for
10:51:56 performance of this agreement, and so indicate.
10:52:00 So City Council and mayor is right on with the
10:52:05 disparity issue.
10:52:07 I don't need the mayor and the city staff keep coming
10:52:10 up with excuses.
10:52:19 I want to see some results.
10:52:20 And I want to see some report.
10:52:23 And I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric.
10:52:25 That's all we had this morning.
10:52:27 And I was disrespected because I'm sitting here to
10:52:31 talk about minority business, and I didn't have an
10:52:34 opportunity to speak before they left.
10:52:37 (Bell sounds).

10:52:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
10:52:39 Next.
10:52:41 Anyone else?
10:52:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's possible they heard you from
10:52:45 across the hall.
10:52:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Committee reports, consent agenda.
10:52:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we go back to Ms. Vizzi?
10:52:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: You can have ask a question and
10:52:56 clarify.
10:52:59 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 South Sherrill Sheryl.
10:53:03 The reason I came back was in case the
10:53:04 reconsideration -- and I'm glad you all are doing what
10:53:06 you are doing.
10:53:08 But I just wanted to understand, and I wanted
10:53:10 everybody else to understand, that you would no longer
10:53:12 be considering zoning issues once you made that
10:53:19 decision.
10:53:19 Is that correct?
10:53:22 Okay.
10:53:23 So as of right now.
10:53:26 But the other issue was, the chapter 27 changes were
10:53:31 getting discussed, the issue of porches sort of

10:53:36 dropped to the wayside and we, T.H.A.N., just wanted
10:53:38 to be sure that it's still on the radar screen, and
10:53:41 that they will be coming back very soon to hopefully
10:53:44 make some changes to what was approved at the hearings
10:53:51 regarding front porches.
10:53:52 And we are waiting very patiently, or impatiently.
10:53:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That was something that we had at
10:54:02 that meeting to have consensus on a compromise there
10:54:04 as well.
10:54:07 >>MARGARET VIZZI: All of these other issues came up.
10:54:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: After awe dress that question we are
10:54:17 going to move on.
10:54:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:54:19 Front porches.
10:54:19 I went back through my notes and I didn't believe
10:54:21 there was a consensus.
10:54:23 There were some recommendations on what to do with
10:54:24 porches, whether or not to reduce rear yards, whether
10:54:27 or not to reduce the width of the porch to a certain
10:54:30 portion of the house.
10:54:31 But there was in a Clare consensus to me on what to do
10:54:34 with them.

10:54:35 So ask if you would like another workshop, if you
10:54:39 would like me to direct me to change it or eliminate
10:54:42 it or add to it.
10:54:44 I can certainly do that.
10:54:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Cathy.
10:54:47 Thank you, Ms. Vizzi for reminding us.
10:54:50 I think that there was some healthy discussion at the
10:54:52 workshop on this issue.
10:54:53 And I think that there were some really good
10:54:58 suggestions from the architects and the planners who
10:55:01 were there.
10:55:02 And so I would be very amenable to working with Cathy
10:55:07 and working with T.H.A.N. and the development
10:55:10 community to kind of flesh out those amendments and
10:55:16 see what we can come back with council.
10:55:19 I will even set a time certain so it won't just float
10:55:22 and say that -- I'll make a motion that we come back
10:55:25 with some amendments to that, or proposed amendments
10:55:30 to council 30 days.
10:55:35 >> Second.
10:55:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
10:55:37 (Motion carried)

10:55:40 Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:55:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
10:55:46 Back to the idea of being able to articulate our
10:55:48 concerns clearly about reasons for approving or
10:55:54 denying rezoning.
10:55:55 I checked my calendar.
10:55:57 And I would like to schedule a special discussion
10:55:59 meeting on Wednesday the 27th at unanimous in the
10:56:02 Mascotte room that has legal, specifically Julia Cole,
10:56:09 council members who can attend and the public prayer
10:56:11 to October, so that we are better able to understand
10:56:13 the new law and so my motion is special discussion
10:56:18 meeting on Wednesday the 27th at noon in the
10:56:22 Mascotte room to be able to better understand the new
10:56:26 state law and how to comply with it.
10:56:29 >> Second.
10:56:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
10:56:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I want an individual meeting with
10:56:40 Julia on that.
10:56:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is to make it more easily
10:56:43 available to the public for me.
10:56:45 >>: For me to be up some to speed.

10:56:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I won't be here.
10:56:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Further discussion, Mr. Shelby.
10:56:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a concern, council.
10:56:57 Two things.
10:56:58 Number one, I and I spoke with Ms. Cole after that
10:57:01 previous discussion.
10:57:06 She asked and I offered to meet with you if you wish.
10:57:10 I have a concern as to providing legal advice to
10:57:17 members of the public in our capacity, and work that
10:57:22 through.
10:57:22 But the thing is, I had discussions, I believe, with
10:57:25 Sue Lyon previously about T.H.A.N.
10:57:27 And than at one point did have workshops and had
10:57:31 people from the city come in to do that in the
10:57:33 neighborhood.
10:57:37 But I support this motion and I ask that I be able to
10:57:44 participate and be there as well.
10:57:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Of course.
10:57:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
10:57:48 Any other discussion?
10:57:50 (Motion Carried)
10:57:51 We are going to bow go back to item number 8.

10:57:54 We have two ordinances.
10:57:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move.
10:57:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you move the first one?
10:58:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
10:58:04 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida making
10:58:06 revision to chapter 27, zoning code, the City of Tampa
10:58:09 code of ordinances, amending section 27-132 solid
10:58:13 waste storage area, providing for re pale of all
10:58:16 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
10:58:19 providing an effective date.
10:58:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
10:58:23 Any discussion on the motion?
10:58:25 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
10:58:27 Motion carries.
10:58:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's a second one.
10:58:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance of the city of
10:58:39 Tampa, Florida making revisions to chapter 27, zoning
10:58:41 code, of the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter
10:58:46 27-323, review procedure, providing for repeal of all
10:58:50 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
10:58:52 providing an effective date.
10:58:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.

10:58:54 Any discussion on the motion?
10:58:55 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
10:58:58 Motion carries.
10:58:58 Thank you.
10:59:00 Ordinance being presented for first reading
10:59:02 consideration.
10:59:02 Item number 9.
10:59:05 Do we have any staff reports on item number 9?
10:59:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I may.
10:59:12 Just to refresh council's recollection.
10:59:14 This is linked to a second public reading number 60,
10:59:22 and I believe it's going to be a request when that
10:59:24 comes up to continue, is that correct?
10:59:27 Number 60?
10:59:27 So with regard to number 9, if council will recall,
10:59:35 looking at the clerk's motion it came before council
10:59:36 on September 7th and I believe the public herring
10:59:42 was held, the motion was closed and the motion was
10:59:44 made that the legal department be requested to prepare
10:59:46 an ordinance approving said petition.
10:59:48 The motion carried with Dingfelder -- council member
10:59:51 Dingfelder voting no. Today basically this is going

10:59:54 to play catch-up, if you read this on first reading
10:59:59 today it will come back in two weeks to be joined with
11:00:01 this public hearing at second reading that will be
11:00:03 continued until October 12th.
11:00:08 October 5th, I'm sorry.
11:00:10 So basically, council, to make a long story short,
11:00:14 this has already been heard at a public hearing,
11:00:16 brought back to you, if you wish to pass it, it will
11:00:18 be set for second reading in two weeks.
11:00:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It does not say that there's a
11:00:29 public hearing on this.
11:00:30 So if we are going to open this up to public comment
11:00:33 we are going to have to waive our rules to open this
11:00:35 up to public comment at this time.
11:00:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's correct.
11:00:40 Public hearing has been closed.
11:00:41 That's correct.
11:00:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: All we are doing is reading the
11:00:44 ordinance.
11:00:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And it will come back for a second
11:00:47 public hearing in two weeks.
11:00:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.

11:00:49 So if there's in a motion to waive the rules, why
11:00:51 don't we read it?
11:00:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Go ahead and read it.
11:00:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Ferlita.
11:00:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move -- doing number 9 now.
11:01:02 Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing,
11:01:05 and abandoning a certain right-of-way a portion of a
11:01:08 platted ditch right-of-way between state and lemon
11:01:10 Street West of Occident street in Cloverdale
11:01:16 subdivision, a subdivision in Hillsborough County
11:01:18 Florida the same being more fully described in section
11:01:20 2 hereof subject however to certain conditions
11:01:23 subsequent to described herein providing an effective
11:01:24 date.
11:01:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I want to clarify my no vote on
11:01:30 this.
11:01:30 I think I have been pretty consistent throughout my
11:01:32 tenure that I think this development should not only
11:01:34 come into a neighborhood and build a nice development,
11:01:37 but I think when given the opportunity, I think they
11:01:40 should also improve the surrounding conditions.
11:01:43 Our staff has testified in front of us in regard to

11:01:46 this matter that we have a stormwater problem in that
11:01:50 entire basin, and the developer was given the
11:01:54 opportunity to help the city and help the entire
11:01:56 community with that stormwater problem.
11:02:00 The developer respectfully declined.
11:02:03 And as such I'll respectfully decline to support the
11:02:07 project.
11:02:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other discussion on the motion?
11:02:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was driving yesterday morning
11:02:12 during the real gully wash that we all experienced.
11:02:16 And what I wish the developers were able to show us
11:02:19 what the stormwater conditions were on this site
11:02:21 because I dare say like the rest of Tampa it was under
11:02:24 several feet of water, and based on the concerns that
11:02:30 councilman Dingfelder raised I will not be supporting
11:02:33 this either.
11:02:35 A very low area, huge problems, and I think the
11:02:38 developer should be doing even more to address them.
11:02:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Any further discussion on the motion?
11:02:42 There's a motion and second.
11:02:43 >>THE CLERK: Dingfelder, Saul-Sena, no.
11:02:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion carries.

11:02:49 Item number 10.
11:02:51 Mr. White, would you read that, please.
11:02:58 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance city of Tampa,
11:03:00 Florida amending ordinance 2006-219 which amended the
11:03:04 comprehensive plan, fought land use element, future
11:03:07 land use map, the property in the general vicinity of
11:03:11 interstate 75 and south of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard
11:03:15 reference to the former fought land use designation of
11:03:19 suburban mixed use 6, providing for repeal of all
11:03:23 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
11:03:25 providing an effective date.
11:03:26 Second.
11:03:27 (Motion carried).
11:03:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Go to our committee reports.
11:03:30 Public Safety Committee.
11:03:31 >> I would like to move resolutions 11 through 16.
11:03:36 >> Second.
11:03:36 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion significant
11:03:39 Pi by saying Aye.
11:03:40 (Motion carried).
11:03:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez,
11:03:46 chair.

11:03:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move 17 through 21.
11:03:57 >> Second.
11:03:57 (Motion carried).
11:03:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Public Works Committee, Mr. John
11:04:01 Dingfelder.
11:04:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Roland, if I could, on item 26,
11:04:06 transmitting the flood plain management plan, it's my
11:04:15 understanding there's a typo.
11:04:17 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: The reference is 10,000.
11:04:22 We will submit a revised report for that.
11:04:25 >> So I'll move items 22 through 26 with 26 a slightly
11:04:31 revised typo.
11:04:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
11:04:35 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
11:04:38 Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
11:04:40 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move 27 through 29.
11:04:43 >> Second.
11:04:43 (Motion carried).
11:04:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Building, Zoning and Preservation
11:04:46 Committee, Linda Saul-Sena, chair.
11:04:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 39
11:04:56 through 49.

11:04:58 >> Second.
11:04:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
11:05:00 (Motion carried).
11:05:01 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Transportation committee, Mary
11:05:08 Alvarez, vice chair.
11:05:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move 50 through 57.
11:05:17 >> Second.
11:05:17 (Motion carried).
11:05:20 >> Motion carries.
11:05:21 All right.
11:05:21 Items being set for public hearing by council.
11:05:26 Sandy, 58, does that take us over our --
11:05:30 >>THE CLERK: On October 26th, council currently
11:05:34 has a continued code change for chapter 27 at 6:00.
11:05:40 Excuse me.
11:05:42 Three land rezonings.
11:05:43 One area-wide rezoning at six.
11:05:45 And ten land re zonings at six, the 26th of
11:05:51 October.
11:05:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe this is Central Park
11:05:53 Village.
11:05:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

11:05:56 Yes, that is correct.
11:05:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Don't you think this is going to
11:06:01 add to a lot of conversation?
11:06:02 >>> There may be some conversation.
11:06:04 However, they are under a financial deadline.
11:06:08 >> What I'm thinking is instead of starting the
11:06:11 meeting at 6:00, I think we should do this at 5:00.
11:06:13 Because Central Park Village is complicated.
11:06:15 How many acres is it?
11:06:17 >>> I believe your rules of procedure say it has to
11:06:20 start at 6:00 for rezoning.
11:06:22 I'll ask Mr. Shelby to double check.
11:06:24 >> I believe this is going to require a lot of
11:06:25 conversation.
11:06:26 I believe this is like at least 20 acres.
11:06:28 And I don't think it's responsible for us -- I don't
11:06:33 want to hold them up.
11:06:34 But I'm saying, I don't think we can put what I think
11:06:39 is going to be a pretty complex conversation into an
11:06:42 evening that's already so busy.
11:06:44 Could we -- are we allowed to set this for a day
11:06:49 meeting, and the other second reading for a night

11:06:55 meeting, and therefore have this at 5:00?
11:06:59 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I defer to legal for that.
11:07:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Can we waive the rule on that?
11:07:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Cole is going to verify.
11:07:11 Council does have the opportunity under its rules if
11:07:14 they wish to set it at 5:01 to do so.
11:07:17 On the 26th.
11:07:18 If it wishes to start an hour earlier.
11:07:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You guys, this is 23 acres in
11:07:25 downtown Tampa.
11:07:26 And when all know that when want something better to
11:07:28 happen there.
11:07:28 But I think we all need time to digest all the
11:07:32 information and to hear from the public, and this is a
11:07:35 big deal.
11:07:36 So I move to set this at 5:01.
11:07:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
11:07:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Set this item at 5:01 and then the
11:07:43 rest of the agenda will start at six.
11:07:45 >> Right.
11:07:46 And I guarantee you we'll use every bit of that 59
11:07:48 minutes.

11:07:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, my concern is at 5:01, that's
11:07:52 really -- I don't know that you are allowing a whole
11:07:54 lot of public comment, if people get off work at five,
11:07:58 to get down here.Coyle.
11:08:02 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:08:03 We are going to need to substitute the resolution if
11:08:05 we are going to change it to 5:01.
11:08:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the public of the --
11:08:11 quality of the public at 5:01 will be better than at
11:08:15 12:30 at night. This is a big, big deal.
11:08:18 I'm just asking staff.
11:08:19 I know you have been working with the housing
11:08:21 authority.
11:08:22 I know that they are kind of late getting their act
11:08:24 together.
11:08:24 I have spoken with Wilson Stair about this.
11:08:26 He says not all the detail they need to go forward
11:08:36 with this.
11:08:38 The only other thing I could suggest is if we were to
11:08:41 have some kind of thing prior to this to have a
11:08:45 discussion by the -- if there's such thing as a
11:08:49 pre-public hearing.

11:08:52 Then when need to do it.
11:08:53 >> We need to do it, needs to be at 5:01.
11:08:57 >> We have a motion and second to schedule this for
11:09:00 5:01 p.m. on the 26th.
11:09:02 And then 10 a.m., I assume, keep a second hearing at
11:09:07 the same time?
11:09:09 We have to have a resolution.
11:09:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Again --
11:09:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can.
11:09:16 >>JULIA COLE: I can come back in ten minutes with a
11:09:18 resolution.
11:09:22 >> We'll hold that one and come back.
11:09:23 Public hearings.
11:09:24 Second reading on proposed ordinances.
11:09:27 If there's anyone in the public that intends to speak
11:09:30 on items 59 through 70, please stand and raise your
11:09:36 right hand to be sworn.
11:09:39 (Oath administered by Clerk)
11:09:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Item 59 need to open.
11:09:56 (Motion carried).
11:09:57 >> 59 is open.
11:09:58 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak

11:10:00 on item number 59?
11:10:03 Motion to close and second.
11:10:04 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
11:10:06 Mr. White, would you take that, please?
11:10:09 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to adopt upon second reading.
11:10:12 Move an ordinance authorizing the installation and
11:10:14 maintenance of an encroachment a proposed awning
11:10:18 canopy by CDP holding LLC over a portion of the public
11:10:22 right-of-way known as East 7th Avenue and 13th
11:10:25 Street as more particularly described herein subject
11:10:27 to certain terms, covenants, conditions and agreements
11:10:30 and more particularly described herein providing an
11:10:32 effective date as more particularly described herein.
11:10:35 >> A motion and second.
11:10:36 Any discussion on the motion?
11:10:39 Roll call.
11:10:39 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Saul-Sena
11:10:46 and Miller being absent.
11:10:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Need a motion to open number 60.
11:10:57 >> So moved.
11:10:58 >> Second.
11:10:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Item 60 will Ned to be continued to

11:11:02 October 5th.
11:11:04 >> Is there anyone in the public that would like to
11:11:06 speak on item 60?
11:11:08 We have a motion to continue to October 5th.
11:11:12 And a second.
11:11:12 (Motion carried)
11:11:15 Item 61 is a continued public hearing.
11:11:17 >>
11:11:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:11:21 Item 61 and 62 run together. The site is vacating and
11:11:24 rezoning.
11:11:25 Would you like to hear the initial presentation of the
11:11:27 vacating or want me to move right into rezoning?
11:11:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: is there anything new on the
11:11:32 vacating?
11:11:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No.
11:11:59 >>> I sent the reports digitally but I wanted to make
11:12:02 sure you had them.
11:12:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have opened them both at the same
11:12:18 time.
11:12:18 So you will have an opportunity to speak on either
11:12:20 item 61 or 62.

11:12:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you recall, this petition is
11:12:31 located at 4410 Boy Scout Boulevard.
11:12:35 They are requesting the construction of three
11:12:38 commercial buildings including office use,
11:12:41 drive-through bank, restaurant, office and hotel.
11:12:46 The plan includes hours of operation for each use
11:12:48 within the city data table on the right side of the
11:12:52 plan.
11:12:52 Maximum building height for each type of use.
11:12:56 Listed at 45 feet for the bank.
11:12:58 30 feet for the restaurant.
11:13:00 130 feet for the hotel.
11:13:03 The hotel use is located on the either side of the
11:13:06 parcel and will include a parking garage.
11:13:07 The petition has requested a parking waiver.
11:13:10 You will note under the waiver section in the report
11:13:13 on page 1.
11:13:15 The code does not make provision for valet parking
11:13:18 currently.
11:13:18 They are asking for that consideration.
11:13:21 During normal business hours, so as not to create a
11:13:26 conflict in parking.

11:13:27 The restaurant will provide valet parking behind in a
11:13:30 stacked formation.
11:13:34 Number 12 does describe two scenarios, there's two
11:13:37 parking data tables on the site plan that you see
11:13:40 before you.
11:13:41 One is with the hotel and one without.
11:13:44 The first table noted, the if the hotel is implemented
11:13:51 there's a waiver of parking.
11:13:52 Petitioner did submit an architectural program for the
11:13:56 site.
11:13:56 You will note that I gave you the -- the elevation.
11:14:03 The side and the rear.
11:14:17 You will note on page 2 of the staff report that land
11:14:19 development, transportation hold to their technical
11:14:22 objection to the 22% waiver of parking.
11:14:25 There is a word missing from the site plan as well
11:14:29 under note 13-A where it says commercial uses, it
11:14:33 should say accessory commercial uses.
11:14:35 The findings of fact are listed as well for the
11:14:37 purpose criteria.
11:14:46 The RMU 100 land use category which is the most
11:14:49 intense we have in the comprehensive plan currently.

11:14:51 According to the report from the Planning Commission,
11:14:55 they found it consistent.
11:14:57 I did receive, or there were in the file, anyway, a
11:15:01 letter of objection from July from the Carver City,
11:15:06 Lincoln Gardens neighborhood association, not for the
11:15:08 project but for placing the pedestrian biking trail
11:15:10 along spruce.
11:15:12 They did submit a subsequent letter in a favor with in
11:15:16 a objection of the entire project.
11:15:18 And then we did receive a letter of objection from
11:15:21 Shoemaker, Luke and Kendrick.
11:15:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
11:15:28 I belief that the -- that this is within the Westshore
11:15:35 district design overlay.
11:15:37 >>> Commercial overlay?
11:15:38 I believe so, yes.
11:15:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm looking at the plan and it says
11:15:44 a pylon sign.
11:15:46 I thought the overlay says not pylon and I thought it
11:15:51 spoke to creating walkable street frontages, wider
11:15:56 sidewalks, and pedestrian amenities, and transparency.
11:16:00 And I don't see that Wilson Stair reviewed those in

11:16:04 terms of the Westshore design overlay.
11:16:06 >>> The current Westshore overlay allows grass and
11:16:08 pylon signs. The proposed changes to the Westshore
11:16:11 overlay eliminate the ability for pylon signs but that
11:16:15 hasn't come before you yet.
11:16:16 >> When is that scheduled?
11:16:17 I know they have been trying to get it for at least a
11:16:20 year.
11:16:20 >>> We hope to be coming to -- they are supposed to be
11:16:23 taking it to their Board of Directors, their Executive
11:16:25 Committee.
11:16:27 I believe this week or next week.
11:16:28 And hopefully within the next couple of weeks, I'll be
11:16:32 coming before you asking for time.
11:16:36 >> Maybe when the petitioner comes up they can address
11:16:38 whether they paid attention to the overlay design
11:16:40 guidelines.
11:16:41 >>> I'll let them address that.
11:16:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Planning Commission report?
11:16:49 Okay, very well.
11:16:49 Petitioner?
11:16:57 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: 501 East Kennedy, Fowler White.

11:17:01 Ms. Saul-Sena, this is not within the Westshore design
11:17:05 overlay district.
11:17:08 No.
11:17:11 We went through with that with your staff and it's
11:17:13 not.
11:17:13 However, the site does incorporate a lot of their
11:17:17 spirit and intent, you know, having the buildings up
11:17:19 closer to the street.
11:17:20 There is internal pedestrian circulation committed to
11:17:23 on the site plan.
11:17:26 Landscaping in excess of code which I am going to talk
11:17:29 about in a minute.
11:17:30 And I did actually meet with Ron Rotella of the
11:17:33 Westshore alliance, and showed him the site plan and
11:17:36 they don't object.
11:17:39 Mr. Dingfelder, he left?
11:17:41 And the only thing I want to ask is about vacating and
11:17:44 I know he takes an interest in vacations.
11:17:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: He's listening, I'm sure.
11:17:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Have you been sworn in, for the
11:17:54 record?
11:17:55 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Yes, I have.

11:17:56 I will try not to be redundant.
11:17:58 This is the second hearing we have had on this.
11:17:59 We were before you on August 17th.
11:18:03 And as you will recall at that time, we had six
11:18:06 different site plans, which has a lot of concern for
11:18:09 council.
11:18:09 So at that time you said, you know, cut it down to
11:18:12 two, no more than two.
11:18:14 And we actually went you one better, cut it down to
11:18:17 one.
11:18:19 But just to reiterate some of the things that we
11:18:21 discussed that night, this particular site is a very
11:18:25 unique and difficult site to work with, as you can
11:18:28 see, an elongated triangle, it's small, it's less than
11:18:33 three and a half acres.
11:18:35 There is a TECO substation to the south, and there is
11:18:39 both transmission and distribution poles that had to
11:18:42 be worked around.
11:18:43 All of those make this site somewhat difficult to
11:18:48 provide internal circulation and setbacks and all
11:18:50 that, and we think we've come up with a very good plan
11:18:53 that does take into account all those factors.

11:18:55 And just to remind you as I did the other nature, this
11:18:59 property was actually rezoned by the same applicant in
11:19:03 2004.
11:19:04 And I apologize, I have forgotten top introduce the
11:19:07 applicant construction management technology and I
11:19:10 have with me today Richard Rhoder and John McMillan,
11:19:16 also our traffic expert, and the architect.
11:19:19 So I apologize for that.
11:19:21 In any event, they rezoned back in 2004.
11:19:23 We have four alternative site plans then.
11:19:26 So again we reduced it now to one.
11:19:29 I would like to talk first about the vacating.
11:19:32 And I want to make the point at the outset that
11:19:35 earlier today you all were talking about a vacating
11:19:38 where apparently the city had asked the developer to
11:19:41 improve stormwater drainage, and the developer said
11:19:45 no.
11:19:46 Well, in this case the developer is in fact doing
11:19:51 improvements that estimate the cost of the $600 that
11:19:54 you.
11:19:54 Basically, and -- we are vacating on spruce Street and
11:20:10 what the vacating will enable this developer to do is

11:20:13 close that and install underground piping system.
11:20:20 When we rezoned this property in 2004, one of the
11:20:23 issues that the Carver City Lincoln Gardens
11:20:27 association felt very strongly about is they wanted
11:20:29 the ditch to go away.
11:20:32 It's unsightly, it's dangerous.
11:20:34 There is an elementary school for special needs
11:20:37 children nearby.
11:20:38 They were concerned about people being able to fall in
11:20:41 there, people dump in there, et cetera, et cetera.
11:20:44 But it was city right-of-way.
11:20:45 So my client began to look into the possibility of
11:20:49 vacating the right-of-way.
11:20:52 And I won't kid you, obviously vacating it also gives
11:20:57 him more property to develop on, but again part of
11:20:59 what the city wanted done was the ditch closed and the
11:21:01 underground stormwater system installed.
11:21:05 But it really created a win-win situation for both my
11:21:09 Clint and the city and the neighborhood.
11:21:11 And again, the neighborhood settle very strongly that
11:21:14 they wanted that ditch closed.
11:21:16 They also wanted us to ensure that spruce street never

11:21:20 became a threw Street between Manhattan and
11:21:24 Hesperides, and they made them design the driveway to
11:21:33 ensure there was a cut-off in the Spruce Street.
11:21:37 When we started meeting with the city to discuss the
11:21:40 possibility of vacating, we discovered that
11:21:48 right-of-way is typically held in trust for the city
11:21:51 and the city owns some of the right-of-way, and it
11:21:53 took us quite awhile to determine, does the city own
11:21:56 it?
11:21:56 There was some concern about whether the county owned
11:21:58 it.
11:21:58 We had to get did county involved, and long story
11:22:02 short, it was ultimately determined that the city did
11:22:04 own some of the right-of-way in fee, and therefore
11:22:08 this is an unusual case where if we are allowed to
11:22:11 vacate we actually have to pay you for some of the
11:22:13 right-of-way.
11:22:15 So that will also happen.
11:22:16 And that, again, we believe is a benefit for the city.
11:22:20 Because this is basically unused property that the
11:22:23 city is not using and now can actually sell and reap
11:22:26 some benefit from.

11:22:29 And your legal standard for vacating does require that
11:22:32 the vacating be in the public interest, and again, and
11:22:37 the courts have held that public interest can include
11:22:40 relieving the city at taxpayer expense to maintain a
11:22:44 road that's not being used, and that's absolutely the
11:22:47 case here.
11:22:47 This is an unused dirt road with an unsightly ditch
11:22:51 that the city is having to maintain because it's an
11:22:54 eyesore to the neighborhood.
11:22:56 Again allowing it to be vacated and allowing to us
11:22:59 close the ditch is actually a win for the city in that
11:23:02 regard.
11:23:05 And in fact the city felt -- that's why you will note
11:23:10 the city is actually the applicant, both because they
11:23:14 own some of it, and because again they determine that
11:23:16 it was in the public interest of the city to close the
11:23:20 unsightly ditch, and also to have the underground
11:23:24 stormwater system installed, which I believe Alex --
11:23:29 Alex Awad can testify to but that's actually a benefit
11:23:32 for the city.
11:23:33 Finally, when we went through the process with the
11:23:35 city talking about the vacating and buying the

11:23:37 right-of-way, there were two real estate appraisals
11:23:40 done.
11:23:41 We actually rounded up the numbers.
11:23:45 And in addition, the provides was arrived at, and then
11:23:50 started going through the zoning process.
11:23:52 My client, because of requests made by TECO and
11:23:55 because of requests made by the property owners to the
11:23:58 south, reduced by about 8 that you square feet the
11:24:02 amount of property being purchased and vacated, but
11:24:06 didn't reduce the purchase price.
11:24:10 They are actually now paying even more than they had
11:24:12 originally intended on a square foot basis.
11:24:15 I'll talk briefly about the project.
11:24:17 I know you probably saw six site plans, and now we are
11:24:22 down to one.
11:24:24 And basically -- just put this on the Elmo.
11:24:30 As you can see the site is triangular in nature.
11:24:46 We have got three pads there.
11:24:50 The first pad to the west will have either a bank
11:24:54 office or restaurant, it can be no more than 21,850
11:24:59 square feet. The second paddle have either a bank
11:25:02 office or restaurant no longer than 120,000 square

11:25:05 feet. The third pad will be either a bank, office,
11:25:07 restaurant or hotel, and if there's a hotel there will
11:25:09 be a garage built.
11:25:13 The developer committed to Mediterranean revival
11:25:18 architecture. The maximum height for either the
11:25:22 office or the hotel is 130 feet.
11:25:25 And obviously bank and restaurants are much less.
11:25:27 And I would note that the underlying zoning for the
11:25:29 this property is OP 1, an office or hotel of up to 200
11:25:37 feet so we are doing half of what the underlying
11:25:40 zoning would allow.
11:25:42 Likewise the maximum F.A.R. is 2.1.
11:25:44 Again under the underlying zoning in the comp plan we
11:25:47 could get between 3.0 and 3.5 so we are doing
11:25:50 significantly less than that.
11:25:52 Finally, since the Planning Commission isn't here, I
11:25:54 would note we are in the RMU 100 comp plan category
11:25:58 which is defined as areas suitable for high-rise,
11:26:01 residential, major office, and regional serving
11:26:03 commercial development.
11:26:07 I will note again we are doing landscaping and access
11:26:11 code requirements.

11:26:12 When this was re zoned in 2004 Ms. Saul-Sena was
11:26:15 concerned that the trees along the right-of-way were
11:26:20 only going to be 2 inches of caliper which is what
11:26:22 your code requires and agreed to 3 inches and we
11:26:25 carried that condition along with us every 40 feet
11:26:28 along the right-of-way.
11:26:30 We are also obligated to contribute 75,000 toward a
11:26:33 traffic signal if warranted.
11:26:37 Again, we have submitted elevations that your staff
11:26:39 has row viewed.
11:26:43 The one staff objection is to the use of valet parking
11:26:47 on-site for the restaurant.
11:26:49 And it's basically a waiver, because we're short by
11:26:54 approximately 22% of the necessary parking spaces.
11:26:57 And my understanding is 18% of the window which your
11:27:01 staff is comfortable.
11:27:03 So we have only exceeded that by 4% which translates
11:27:07 to about 9 spaces, I believe.
11:27:09 But I want to point out a couple things.
11:27:11 First the waiver is really in effect for daytime hours
11:27:14 only because at nature we are required by site plan
11:27:19 conditions, note 7 and 10 on your site plan, first of

11:27:21 all, to have valet parking, to have property
11:27:25 agreements with the other users on the site so at
11:27:27 night the bank and spaces will be used for the
11:27:32 restaurant.
11:27:32 So the only time there's a possible conflict is during
11:27:34 the day at which time the valet parkers would do
11:27:38 what's called stacking which is, you know, parking
11:27:40 cars behind other cars on the restaurant property
11:27:43 only.
11:27:44 Sort of like you do in the parking lot next door for
11:27:47 City Council.
11:27:49 We use this method in 2004 when we got the zoning
11:27:52 approved and it didn't seem to be a problem for
11:27:54 anyone.
11:27:54 Again I think your staff has said it's a technical
11:27:57 objection because your code doesn't recognize the use
11:27:59 of valet parking.
11:28:01 And then as far as the other objection Cathy had about
11:28:04 the -- when would obviously add that to the site plan.
11:28:10 I would like to reserve some time for rebuttal because
11:28:13 I know we have opposition here.
11:28:15 But I would like you to note we do have the support of

11:28:17 the neighborhood association, worked very long and
11:28:20 hard with them.
11:28:21 We have some other property owners that are here in
11:28:23 support.
11:28:25 I hope you will listen to them because I think they
11:28:27 are the ones that really have taken an interest in how
11:28:30 this neighborhood develops and what -- they are very
11:28:35 supportive of this project.
11:28:39 I would also ask you to take note of the staff report
11:28:41 that Ms. Coyle submitted to you this morning in which
11:28:44 she lists the numerous reasons that were consistent
11:28:46 with meeting the intent of your code for PD
11:28:51 development in section 27-3321 which allows for design
11:28:56 flexibility and integrated structures.
11:28:59 Again I would like to red those sometime for -- leave
11:29:03 those for rebuttal but again with a dumb of technical
11:29:08 objections the staff did not object, the Planning
11:29:09 Commission did not object, we have the support of the
11:29:11 neighborhood association, and hope we'll have your
11:29:13 support as well.
11:29:14 Thank you and I'm glad to answer any question.
11:29:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any questions of Ms. Zelman at this

11:29:19 point?
11:29:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All the uses are speculative at
11:29:23 this point, and up know that Westshore has done a big
11:29:26 initiative to beautify Boy Scout, they have put up the
11:29:30 banners and done a lot of landscape, done a lot of
11:29:33 money for landscaping, beaut beautification.
11:29:36 I would like you to consider deleting the pylon signs.
11:29:44 >>> I'll talk about that with my client.
11:29:46 Thank you.
11:29:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: excellent.
11:29:48 Thank you.
11:29:48 Is there anyone else in the public that would like to
11:29:50 speak on item 61 or 62?
11:29:52 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Barbara Lynch, land development
11:29:56 coordination.
11:29:56 I have been sworn.
11:29:57 And I'm representing the city on the vacating.
11:30:00 And I know you have seen these photos before.
11:30:02 Do you wanted top see them again?
11:30:10 The general location of this vacating is a portion of
11:30:14 Spruce Street running from Hesperides to Boy Scout
11:30:27 Boulevard.

11:30:33 This is Spruce Street looking west from Manhattan.
11:30:41 This is Spruce Street looking east from Hesperides.
11:30:51 I'll show you another photo of the ditch.
11:30:53 And that's the ditch at Spruce Street looking east
11:30:55 from Hesperides.
11:31:04 That's the property abutting spruce Street on the
11:31:06 north and that's west of Manhattan.
11:31:10 That's petitioner's property.
11:31:16 This is taken from Hesperides street.
11:31:21 This is the property on the south and this was taken
11:31:23 from looking west from Manhattan.
11:31:29 And this is the TECO property on the south.
11:31:32 Staff had no objection to this petition as long as
11:31:35 drainage and utility easements were reserved and all
11:31:38 conditions requested by take oh be adhered to.
11:31:48 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
11:31:57 I have prepared an ordinance in conformance to the
11:32:01 staff report.
11:32:03 That is all.
11:32:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's been asserted with the
11:32:08 vacating, A, the vacating has been made smaller, I
11:32:12 guess, as compared to the original vacating?

11:32:15 >>> That's correct.
11:32:16 It's been reduced.
11:32:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And, two, is it in the vacating
11:32:20 ordinance or in the -- some other development
11:32:22 agreement that speaks to undergrounding the drainage?
11:32:30 >>> Give me one second to verify.
11:32:47 No, sir, that is not in the vacating ordinance.
11:32:51 >> Maybe somebody can tell me if it's a conditioned
11:32:54 PD.
11:32:54 Thank you.
11:32:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Will you tell me about the size?
11:32:59 Is it going to be adequate to address the needs for
11:33:01 stormwater concerns?
11:33:04 >>> Alex Awad, stormwater department.
11:33:06 I have been sworn.
11:33:10 A 60-inch pipe would be constructed at that location,
11:33:12 and some of the reduction in the environmental benefit
11:33:16 that we have with open ditch will be taken care of on
11:33:20 the east side of Manhattan.
11:33:22 And that was agreed upon between the City of Tampa,
11:33:25 the developer and SWFWMD.
11:33:27 So we believe we don't have an objection at this point

11:33:31 to their proposed design.
11:33:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that a PD condition?
11:33:37 >>> Gentlemen.
11:33:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Petitioner?
11:33:41 Anyone else from the public, come up and give us your
11:33:46 name address, tell us if you have been sworn.
11:33:49 >>> Good morning Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of
11:33:51 the council.
11:33:52 I will speak to -- my name is Ted Cobb with the law
11:33:58 firm of Shoemaker Kendrick, 101 East Kennedy
11:34:01 Boulevard, Tampa.
11:34:02 I represent Cypress Tampa Limited.
11:34:06 I will speak to the location item, and Mr. Carruthers
11:34:12 will speak to the other item.
11:34:16 We have waivers --
11:34:19 >>THE CLERK: Speaker waiver forms.
11:34:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just one second.
11:34:27 We need to see how much tame.
11:34:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is for Mr. Todd.
11:34:48 Is Mr. Picasso here?
11:34:50 Mr. Picasso is also here to sign a speaker waiver
11:34:53 form.

11:34:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There are two different hearings.
11:34:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, there are.
11:34:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 62 over there.
11:35:00 An additional minute for each.
11:35:07 >>THE CLERK: Down to 2 minutes 17 seconds.
11:35:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We'll take his time off while we are
11:35:12 reconfirming.
11:35:13 Reset his time.
11:35:14 Thank you.
11:35:15 >>> As I understand it, we each have three plus one.
11:35:21 Mr. Chairman, our client cypress Tampa limited has
11:35:25 property immediately abutting the subject property
11:35:28 that is affected by the vacation and the rezoning.
11:35:34 I will address my remarks principally to the vacation
11:35:37 issues.
11:35:39 In 2004, with Ms. Zelman as their attorney, my client
11:35:46 brought before you a rezoning for luxury apartments
11:35:51 which you approved up to 350 immediately abutting the
11:35:55 subject property.
11:35:58 We are very much affected by the vacation and by the
11:36:02 sale of the city property, as well as the site plan
11:36:10 which frankly, without trying to be insulting, is

11:36:14 nothing more than a marketing plan, because it's so
11:36:17 amorphous.
11:36:18 But be that as it may, I would dwell on the vacation.
11:36:21 The city holds the property, as Ms. Zelman said, in
11:36:25 trust for the benefit of the public.
11:36:26 We object to the petition because there's no
11:36:30 legitimate public purpose for this proposed vacation.
11:36:34 The public drainage facilities currently exist in the
11:36:37 area to be vacated, although they are not pretty,
11:36:41 although they are not pretty.
11:36:44 There is no information or evidence in the record
11:36:49 other than Ms. Zelman's rhetoric to suggest that
11:36:51 there's a compelling reason to vacate the
11:36:54 right-of-way.
11:36:54 We did a 119 public records request relative to storm
11:36:59 drain annal in the area, and there's nothing, not one
11:37:03 finding in there, that the drainage system doesn't
11:37:06 work.
11:37:09 So is there an existing condition which should be
11:37:12 driving this city to even consider vacating this
11:37:15 right-of-way?
11:37:16 But for the rezoning application?

11:37:18 We don't think so.
11:37:19 At the August 31, 2006 hearing on this matter, both
11:37:22 Mr. Cook and Mr. Parkinson presented testimony in
11:37:25 support of vacation.
11:37:27 But I quote Mr. Parkinson: The city's interest, and
11:37:33 this is multiple, at the primary interest, aside from
11:37:36 the additional intensity of development that can be
11:37:38 allowed by vacating this.
11:37:41 He went on to say: Also in doing it that allows some
11:37:45 additional space for the developer to add parking over
11:37:47 that space.
11:37:50 Now, the project to which this vacation is tied could
11:37:52 not happen as proposed by you -- to you, without the
11:37:57 city being the seller of the subject property at $1.60
11:38:09 per square foot approximately.
11:38:10 $1.60 per square foot if you do the math for the
11:38:15 $100,000 that is being paid to the city.
11:38:18 This is a difficult site, as Ms. Zelman said.
11:38:21 But we are all grown, we are all big boys when we buy
11:38:25 property.
11:38:25 Normally, we don't pull a piece of property without
11:38:30 having due diligence done and maybe subject to

11:38:33 permitting it within the prompter property.
11:38:36 This is not redevelopment. This is not a
11:38:37 public-private partnership.
11:38:38 This is a straight zoning.
11:38:40 And what the city is being asked to do through the
11:38:42 medium of this vacation and purchase is to facilitate
11:38:46 this property owner having more parking.
11:38:49 Now, our interest is not against development.
11:38:51 We are going to build -- and I apologize.
11:39:03 It's going to be a lovely project immediately across,
11:39:04 no more than five stories, possibly four, and they are
11:39:08 talking about when you will at their site plan,
11:39:11 without this vacation, they can't do what they want to
11:39:14 do.
11:39:15 And they are going to put a hotel and a garage
11:39:18 immediately bought -- abutting us, not on the on the
11:39:22 part of the property and theoretically under this site
11:39:24 plan they can go to 12 stories.
11:39:26 That's 130 feet.
11:39:27 That's 130 feet.
11:39:28 So I wish you would look at tab 2 of our materials
11:39:33 which are handwritten notes of an unidentified city

11:39:40 staff member taken with in a meeting with the
11:39:44 developer which clearly shows that they requested the
11:39:47 city to file the petition on its own.
11:39:48 This has been done in an effort to deflect any
11:39:51 perception that this is being done at the request or
11:39:53 benefit of the developer.
11:39:55 That's the only reason.
11:39:56 You wouldn't even be looking at this vacation.
11:39:58 You would be looking at -- wouldn't be looking at this
11:40:02 property but for this proposed project.
11:40:06 >> Is that four?
11:40:09 >> Yes, it is.
11:40:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I wasn't sitting here
11:40:15 through the entire hearing the last tame I was here,
11:40:18 the beginning of it as indicated by the transcript.
11:40:20 But what I'm confused about, Mr. Todd, is what is the
11:40:25 direct impact -- is your client's building already
11:40:28 built?
11:40:29 >>> No.
11:40:30 >> And what is the -- what is the major impact or
11:40:34 item?
11:40:34 And are we taking away the public's access, potential

11:40:38 access to this side road, or your client's potential
11:40:42 access to this side road?
11:40:44 Tell me.
11:40:45 >>> Aesthetics have been approved by the supreme court
11:40:48 of the United States and supreme court as being a
11:40:51 legitimate concern.
11:40:52 We have luxury apartment owners who will have to look
11:40:55 out at a garage and a hi rise hotel immediately
11:40:58 abutting them, with all of the activity that goes with
11:41:00 a hotel that could possibly go to 12 stories.
11:41:04 Now, that's not compatible when it comes to good
11:41:07 planning.
11:41:08 >> How tall did we approve yours?
11:41:11 >>> No more than five stories.
11:41:13 No more than five stories.
11:41:14 That's all.
11:41:16 And I think the council, in further answer, if I
11:41:19 might, Mr. Dingfelder, I think the council, when it
11:41:22 considered ours, certainly was aware of the
11:41:25 surrounding properties, whether it be Lincoln Gardens
11:41:29 or the subject property, and what might or should
11:41:31 happen on those so that when council gets through with

11:41:35 various zoning petitions and looks at the aggregate of
11:41:42 what they have done in the area they have done
11:41:43 something that is consistent with good planning.
11:41:46 That's our objection.
11:41:49 We think this plan when you study it, to complete my
11:41:52 answer to you, Mr. Dingfelder, what it says is, pods 1
11:41:56 and 2 can be transferred and pods 2 and 3 can be
11:41:59 transferred.
11:42:01 Why don't they put the hotel and the garage in the
11:42:04 middle of the site, put the restaurants on a low-rise
11:42:08 basis close to us, and have something that would be
11:42:13 reasonably compatible?
11:42:16 Why have, notwithstanding architectural treatment of a
11:42:19 garage, a garage is a garage is a garage.
11:42:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
11:42:24 Next.
11:42:34 >> Do you have a speaker waiver form, Mr. Carruthers?
11:42:39 >> I do.
11:42:41 Graham Carruthers, West Kennedy Boulevard here in
11:42:45 Tampa.
11:42:45 I have been sworn for the record.
11:42:49 With respect to the site plan, our client objects on a

11:42:53 number of bases.
11:42:59 I will go through them as quickly as possible.
11:43:00 Number one, the site plan contains an incredible lack
11:43:03 of detail.
11:43:04 The detail of the insufficiencies which we identified
11:43:09 are set forth in a report by a professional land
11:43:12 planner retained by our client, Ethel Hammer, a
11:43:15 principal of Englehart, Hammer and Associates.
11:43:18 Without getting into all of the details, Ms. Hammer's
11:43:20 report is located behind tab 5 of your materials.
11:43:24 Her CV is located behind tab 6.
11:43:26 Among the highlights of the 15 or so -- site plan
11:43:34 deficiencies identified by Englehart, Hammer and
11:43:39 associates are the following:
11:43:40 There are two waivers which are not reflected in the
11:43:43 waiver table.
11:43:44 One is to -- they are requesting a landscape waiver.
11:43:48 Another is a front yard setback waiver, for Ms.
11:43:52 Saul-Sena's information.
11:43:53 I'm sorry she's not here.
11:43:55 That's a front yard setback waiver along Boy Scout
11:43:57 road which she was asking about before.

11:43:59 Those are in violation of chapter 27, article A of the
11:44:03 Tampa Land Development Code.
11:44:05 A copy of which is behind tab 7 of your materials.
11:44:08 The square footage figures that are shown on the
11:44:12 sketch within each building pad are entirely
11:44:14 inconsistent with the square footage figures set forth
11:44:17 on either of the site development tables.
11:44:19 Based on what you have before you it's impossible to
11:44:22 know which is correct.
11:44:23 The figures in neither of those tables equal the 2.0
11:44:27 F.A.R. which is set forth in the site plan.
11:44:31 As was previously mentioned there are now multiple
11:44:33 site development tables reflected on the site plan
11:44:36 which are substantially different from one another,
11:44:39 and require much longer period of time.
11:44:41 And I have here it's adequately explained to you.
11:44:45 Between that and the multiple different scenarios
11:44:48 which are provided for on the steps itself, we belief
11:44:51 that the purpose of the PD zoning process is really
11:44:53 entirely vitiated by the site plan.
11:44:56 What we really have here is a PDA, a PD alternative,
11:45:02 in the close of the PD.

11:45:04 One of the biggest issues and one of the biggest
11:45:07 objections of our client relate to the parking, which
11:45:10 is described in more detail in the Englehart Hammer
11:45:15 report.
11:45:16 There are 73 parking spaces shown on the site plan.
11:45:18 All the site development tables indicates they will be
11:45:22 providing 217 or 409 spaces on the site.
11:45:29 No parking area landscape plan is shown both as
11:45:33 required under the code.
11:45:34 The site plan fails to mention that the parking -- a
11:45:37 parking waiver will be needed even if a garage
11:45:39 structure is completed on the project.
11:45:42 It fails to show where the parking garage will be
11:45:44 located, how high it will be, how many cars it will
11:45:48 accommodate, et cetera.
11:45:49 Based on the proposed site plan, it doesn't look like
11:45:52 217, which is the minimum number of spaces that they
11:45:56 have indicated will be provided, will in fact actually
11:45:58 be on the site.
11:46:00 That's because the number of those spaces will be
11:46:02 achieved pursuant to this staff valet parking plan,
11:46:06 which, as was mentioned before is not even

11:46:09 contemplated under your code as an acceptable
11:46:11 alternative to real parking spaces.
11:46:14 So we don't even think it should be considered.
11:46:20 Our client had another professional engineer who
11:46:22 reviewed the site plan.
11:46:23 His name is Mr. Mark Sullivan, a principal of Florida
11:46:26 engineering and development services, Inc. Mr.
11:46:29 Sullivan was unable to be with us this morning.
11:46:31 His report is included among material -- the materials
11:46:34 you have been given behind tab 8.
11:46:36 His CV is behind tab 9.
11:46:39 The last point about the site plan.
11:46:41 Council should be aware that there is an agreement
11:46:43 between the applicant in this case and our client
11:46:46 recorded in the official records book 14103 page 516
11:46:51 of the Hillsborough County public records, a copy of
11:46:53 which is behind tab 10 of your materials.
11:46:56 That agreement requires my client's approval of all
11:47:00 plans and specifications for construction of
11:47:02 improvements on this property.
11:47:04 To date that does not occur without substantial
11:47:08 modifications to that site plan, it won't happen.

11:47:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Carruthers.
11:47:12 Is there anyone else in the public that would like to
11:47:14 be speak on items number 61 or 62?
11:47:23 >>> Good morning, council.
11:47:25 I'm Lorraine wily, 4201 west Nassau street.
11:47:29 And I have been sworn in.
11:47:32 I have reviewed the zoning site plan and have no
11:47:36 objection to it for what the developer is proposing to
11:47:42 build on this property.
11:47:45 We are also supporting the vacating of Spruce Street
11:47:48 for two reasons.
11:47:50 Our neighborhood association does not want Spruce
11:47:53 Street to be a through street.
11:47:57 We do not want cars to be able to travel between
11:47:59 Manhattan and Hesperides and spruce.
11:48:03 Our neighborhood association wants the ditch on Spruce
11:48:05 Street to be closed.
11:48:08 It is very dangerous and ugly.
11:48:11 And this is something we have asked for many, many
11:48:14 years to have taken care of.
11:48:18 And if you have seen this ditch, you would understand.
11:48:20 And I'm certain it will be closed in a manner to take

11:48:27 care of our water.
11:48:28 We appreciate all the time and effort he has put into
11:48:32 doing what we have asked him to do and we ask you to
11:48:37 vote in favor of this project.
11:48:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
11:48:40 We have a question for you.
11:48:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Glad to see you here.
11:48:46 Ms. Wyley, when this project came in, that they came
11:48:52 to talk to your neighborhood association, did they
11:48:54 mention the project next door to it?
11:48:57 >>> We are very much aware of it because we approved
11:49:00 it in 2004.
11:49:01 I think it was the year 2004.
11:49:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did they come back to you with some
11:49:06 objections to this property being developed, cypress
11:49:12 Tampa, did they come to you at that time and say, we
11:49:14 have an objection to this or anything like that?
11:49:17 >>> No.
11:49:20 >> They never came back to the neighborhood
11:49:22 association and they didn't ask for your approval or
11:49:25 disapproval of this?
11:49:28 They never came back at all?

11:49:29 >>> No.
11:49:30 In a one never came back to us and opposed Mr. RODA's
11:49:35 project.
11:49:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
11:49:38 Next.
11:49:40 >>> I'm Jim Mikas.
11:49:43 My office is 3702 west Kennedy, Tampa.
11:49:47 And I am the sole member of the LLC that owns the 3.5
11:49:53 acres that is immediately 300 feet east of and to the
11:49:59 south side of spruce, a site that you have already
11:50:02 approved for a 54 town home unit development.
11:50:07 My contemplation, discussing with Lorraine, the
11:50:10 possibility is to change a little bit of that portion
11:50:12 to that property to perhaps a moderate income senior
11:50:20 site at some point.
11:50:21 That's not before you.
11:50:22 But we have every concern for what happens to the
11:50:27 ditch primarily.
11:50:28 I want to see that ditch covered, whether it takes my
11:50:32 money to do it in front of that property, but what
11:50:36 step you're taking right now is you are accomplishing
11:50:38 something that I would like to see, that I have

11:50:41 already signed a letter several years ago to the
11:50:42 homeowners association that I would work to see that
11:50:46 that gets covered as well.
11:50:49 I do encourage you, at least on the vacation, that
11:50:52 that is something that you should permit.
11:50:55 You should permit Mr. Rhoder to cause that ditch at
11:50:58 that point to be paved.
11:51:00 Then allow us as we move to the east to do the same
11:51:03 thing.
11:51:03 That will take some coordination, obviously crescent
11:51:07 resources and other owners as well as me.
11:51:10 But I would be a participant in seeing that gets done.
11:51:13 The same thing would apply as you go to the other
11:51:15 homeowner association concerns which means going all
11:51:18 the way back to Dale Mabry.
11:51:20 That ditch should be covered all the way across.
11:51:22 And then when the developer comes in on that spruce
11:51:25 and Lois site soon, you should be requiring that same
11:51:29 thing.
11:51:31 Let them make certain that it happens.
11:51:33 Then over time you will accomplish what the homeowner
11:51:36 association needs.

11:51:37 Now with respect to the site plan, I don't have any
11:51:39 problems with it.
11:51:42 I'm not quite as impacted as the other project but I
11:51:48 am impacted.
11:51:50 I think it's a good use.
11:51:51 I don't have specifics of the same nature as they do.
11:51:54 I do remained you that crescent resources is right
11:51:59 across the street from my property.
11:52:01 They have a plan approval of some sort.
11:52:03 There is no reason that crescent resources will not go
11:52:07 through with a modification of that.
11:52:09 And I believe intention, in my discussions with them,
11:52:12 is to spread their high-rises throughout that
11:52:16 property.
11:52:17 So that more than likely, right across the street from
11:52:21 the town homes, and right to the north of me, and then
11:52:25 right to the east of Mr. Rhoder's property, is you are
11:52:29 going to see a high-rise development as well.
11:52:33 I would like to see that happen as I would like to see
11:52:35 Mr. Rhoder's.
11:52:37 But I do not have site specific issues to address with
11:52:40 you.

11:52:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Mikas, can you refresh our
11:52:48 memories and let us know where your development is
11:52:50 going to be?
11:52:51 >>> The 3.5 acres that is immediately abutting and
11:52:56 adjacent to the extended stay hotel on the south side
11:52:59 of spruce.
11:53:01 So I'm separated from Mr. POPSA project only by the
11:53:11 Manhattan project and the extended stay.
11:53:14 I'm south of spruce.
11:53:15 >> And right on Manhattan?
11:53:17 >>> The extended stay is right on Manhattan.
11:53:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
11:53:24 >>> And then there are a few other houses that I am
11:53:25 purchasing in that area as well.
11:53:27 That will be added to it at some point in time.
11:53:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
11:53:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are you aware of the restaurant
11:53:34 that's being planned?
11:53:35 >>> Yes.
11:53:35 And that was attempted to be incorporated.
11:53:38 And I agreed to do it on my PD plan, if you recall.
11:53:42 I would have no trouble putting the money, whether you

11:53:46 want it on my side of the street, or if you do
11:53:50 accomplish this covering of the ditch, go ahead go
11:53:53 ahead and put it on the other side.
11:53:55 I'll pay for that portion.
11:53:56 I don't have a problem which side it's on. If you do
11:53:59 cover the ditch, all up and down, I'm not sure the
11:54:03 traffic will necessarily agree with, I suggest if we
11:54:06 can cover it up, we can put in, at our expense, city
11:54:11 metered spaces that will generate some revenue, and
11:54:15 also provide us with some additional parking all up
11:54:18 and down Spruce Street.
11:54:20 And that side of the street could be enhanced
11:54:22 dramatically if you allow it starting with his and
11:54:27 moving east past ours.
11:54:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you very much.
11:54:33 >>> My name is Hani Adet and ima Tampa native
11:54:38 resident.
11:54:39 At the condominiums across the street from Mr. Mikas
11:54:43 'property and my French doors open to Mr. Mikas
11:54:50 property and that eyesore of a ditch that runs across
11:54:52 my property.
11:54:52 There is some drainage problems when it does rain.

11:54:54 And it does rain a lot.
11:54:56 I have seen several cars flooded.
11:54:57 And I can send you all pictures via e-mail however you
11:55:01 would like to take a look.
11:55:03 I am in support of the project which is proposed, of
11:55:11 all the projects.
11:55:11 That's the reason I moved to that area.
11:55:13 I work in that area.
11:55:14 I live in that area.
11:55:15 I think it's a great thing all these developers are
11:55:17 coming in and doing this.
11:55:18 As far as the right-of-way and easement being filled
11:55:21 in, I think that's going to be a great thing.
11:55:23 And the developer is willing to incur the cost of
11:55:27 covering up the ditch.
11:55:28 I think that's a wonderful thing.
11:55:30 And just wanted to come in today and support the
11:55:33 project.
11:55:34 And also keep in mind that the crescent resources
11:55:38 property that's already been approved that is going in
11:55:40 on the north of the property where I live is going to
11:55:43 be -- I'm not sure if you all are familiar with the

11:55:45 corporate center building.
11:55:47 But these are going to be hovering over our property.
11:55:51 I just feel that the project proposed on Boy Scout is
11:55:53 going to be a great addition to the property and as
11:55:57 long as it fits within the comprehensive plan I have
11:55:58 no objection with it.
11:55:59 I'm here to support it.
11:56:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: had you been sworn?
11:56:05 >>> Yes, I have.
11:56:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone else in the public
11:56:08 who would like to speak on item 61 or 62?
11:56:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to ask the staff some
11:56:19 questions that maybe you will able to address in the
11:56:22 rebuttal.
11:56:23 Anybody here from transportation?
11:56:29 It looks like the plan is more of a PD-A than a PD.
11:56:36 And my question is about pedestrian connectivity, and
11:56:41 the approval by the -- I assume Boy Scout is a State
11:56:45 Road, and how did they feel?
11:56:51 Can you respond to those questions?
11:56:52 >> Melanie Callaway, transportation.
11:56:56 Boy Scout is a State Road and they have to get

11:56:59 approved for any type of signal that may go in
11:57:02 location on Manhattan and Boy Scout.
11:57:04 The pedestrian, they did provide a sidewalk along Boy
11:57:08 Scout Boulevard.
11:57:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question specifically is about
11:57:14 the drive-through proposals that are part of this
11:57:19 gateway, and by pedestrian activity I meant internally
11:57:22 to the site.
11:57:25 >>> The first question is the drive-through.
11:57:27 I did not contact D.O.T. about the drive-through.
11:57:30 We have a standard of 154 feet of stacking.
11:57:33 They did meet that requirement.
11:57:36 As far as pedestrian circulation, I didn't take a real
11:57:43 close look at pedestrian internal circulation.
11:57:46 They are not required.
11:57:47 But that's usually looked at through the Planning
11:57:50 Commission.
11:57:51 They do look at internal.
11:57:53 We only looked at discounts and such.
11:57:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
11:58:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions?
11:58:02 All right.

11:58:05 Rebuttal.
11:58:06 Ms. Zelman.
11:58:10 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Don't know where to start.
11:58:13 Let me start by passing out.
11:58:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Santiago?
11:58:23 Hang on, Ms. Zelman.
11:58:25 I think we are going to have to take our break for
11:58:28 lunch and come back and give you rebuttal time.
11:58:30 Mr. Santiago, do you have something to add?
11:58:33 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: There is going to be two of us
11:58:37 speaking briefly here, myself and then Mr. Parkinson.
11:58:43 He will come up and address some points of law for
11:58:45 purposes of the record that behooves City Council to
11:58:47 have this matter cleared.
11:58:48 I typically prepare for you a memorandum that
11:58:51 describes for you what the standards of law are when
11:58:56 vacate ago right-of-way.
11:58:57 I have printed some additional copies of that.
11:59:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move that we break
11:59:07 for lunch.
11:59:07 This is going to require some conversation.
11:59:09 And we'll all be clearer decision makers after we have

11:59:12 had lunch.
11:59:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Our rules of procedure do stipulate
11:59:15 that we will break from 12 until 1:30 for lunch unless
11:59:19 the rules are waived by unanimous vote of council.
11:59:23 Does anyone desire to make a motion to waive the
11:59:26 rules?
11:59:26 I hear none.
11:59:27 So we will break at this point for lunch.
11:59:29 We will reconvene at 1:30.
11:59:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11:59:40 (city Council recess)

13:18:08 Tampa City Council reconvened.
13:41:55 [Sounding gavel]
13:41:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Tampa City Council is called back in
13:41:57 to session.
13:41:58 Roll call.
13:42:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:42:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
13:42:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
13:42:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
13:42:07 All right.
13:42:08 We were on item 61 and 62, and Mr. Santiago, I believe
13:42:12 you had the floor.
13:42:13 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Yes, sir.
13:42:18 I'll recap briefly.
13:42:19 We are on petition 61, C 06-08.
13:42:28 I present to you a memorandum which describes the
13:42:31 standard of review.
13:42:32 I prepared that memorandum for this petition as well.
13:42:33 There was some discussion as to what is your standard
13:42:35 of review and the legal criteria.

13:42:38 If you will allow me, I'll enter it into the record,
13:42:41 but the pertinent part, memorandum states, the
13:42:44 generally recognized principle of law applicable to
13:42:47 public rights-of-way is a publicly dedicated street
13:42:52 held in trust by the government and the power to
13:42:53 vacate streets must be exercised for the public or
13:42:57 general welfare.
13:42:58 And streets cannot be vacated to serve purely private
13:43:02 interests.
13:43:03 In determining whether a vacating is in the public
13:43:05 interest, wide latitude is afforded to the public
13:43:10 bodies making that decision.
13:43:11 And that determination will typically not be disturbed
13:43:14 except in a case of clear abuse of discretion or
13:43:17 unless there is an invasion of property rights.
13:43:21 Sufficient public interest to justify vacating a
13:43:23 Street has been found, quote, in relieving the public
13:43:28 from the charge of maintaining a Street or highway
13:43:30 that is in a longer useful or to the public.
13:43:37 Discontinuing the cost of maintaining a street or
13:43:39 alley used by only a few members of the public is a
13:43:42 public benefit.

13:43:44 Caution should be taken when vacating a street or
13:43:46 alleyway that will cut off all means of access to a
13:43:49 property because said action may result in an unlawful
13:43:55 taking.
13:43:55 However, loss of the most convenient access does not
13:43:58 necessarily constitute a taking.
13:44:00 Loss of access must be total and substantial.
13:44:03 When utilities or other public services are in the
13:44:06 right-of-way it is permissible for local government to
13:44:09 impose conditions or easements that serve a general
13:44:11 public interest.
13:44:12 There are footnotes throughout this two paragraphs
13:44:15 that cite the appropriate sections of law.
13:44:17 They are in the memorandum.
13:44:18 I'll submit this for the record.
13:44:21 That is all.
13:44:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any further presentation by staff?
13:44:29 If not, okay.
13:44:30 If not, we'll hear from the petitioner.
13:44:34 >> Dave Parkinson, development services manager.
13:44:38 I would just like to clarify an assertion or comment
13:44:43 earlier in the day that sort of called in to question,

13:44:45 you know, what their issue is in this petition.
13:44:50 And taking off on what Mr. San Diego just read, the
13:44:54 petitioner we heard this morning, the vacating would
13:45:00 remove the public from the charge to maintain that
13:45:02 right-of-way.
13:45:02 But additionally, the development would also result --
13:45:07 the development that would result in this vacating
13:45:09 would also the relief of maintaining the ditch.
13:45:15 By accomplishing two of their goals, fill in the ditch
13:45:19 and eliminating the cut-through traffic, it eliminates
13:45:22 an area that's attractive for illegal dumping, by
13:45:26 closing the ditch as was demonstrated this morning,
13:45:30 which makes this corridor more attractive,
13:45:32 economically strong, the developer indicated that he
13:45:34 would like to carry the stormwater improvement further
13:45:39 in this corridor and also the city's tax base will be
13:45:41 positively impacted, better assuring the city's
13:45:44 economic right.
13:45:45 So I don't think there should be any question about
13:45:47 the general welfare nature of the petition.
13:45:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
13:45:50 Petitioner, you have some rebuttal time.

13:46:10 >> You asked whether would agree to do a monument
13:46:15 sign, and, yes, he will.
13:46:19 Also you had asked about the internal pedestrian
13:46:21 connection you weren't here at the last one when we
13:46:27 had the six alternative site plans, we showed.
13:46:31 I think what happened was, when we -- because council
13:46:38 didn't like the alternative we weren't able to show
13:46:41 those.
13:46:42 Because it was always our intent to have those is we
13:46:44 just add a note saying petitioner shall provide
13:46:46 internal pedestrian connections between uses or
13:46:48 however your staff would like to word that.
13:46:51 But that was always our intent, and we do want to do
13:46:55 that.
13:46:57 I was going to start first -- I think Dave Parkinson
13:47:03 just covered the point that I wanted to address, is I
13:47:06 do believe that there is evidence in the record that
13:47:08 shows that there is a public purpose to close the
13:47:10 ditch here, and it clearly is what the neighborhood
13:47:13 wants, and is a benefit to the city.
13:47:17 This is a road that is not being used.
13:47:18 There's no intent of using it.

13:47:20 In fact, the city required, as I explained, the point
13:47:27 people so that there shouldn't be cut-through traffic
13:47:30 on that road.
13:47:31 But I do want to address Mr. Todd made some statements
13:47:35 about the purchase price that I think were very
13:47:39 misleading saying we are basically paying like a
13:47:41 dollar or something a square foot.
13:47:43 First of all, the purchase itself contract for that
13:47:47 right-of-way is not before council today.
13:47:49 It's my understanding it's going to come before
13:47:50 council soon, and that would probably be the
13:47:54 appropriate time to address that.
13:47:55 But since it's been brought up, let me just say two
13:47:59 appraisals were done, they took into account the fact
13:48:01 that the land was encumbered by easements, they took
13:48:05 into account the fact that right now the land is
13:48:08 basically unusable, and it's only with the closing of
13:48:11 the ditch and the underground piping that it becomes a
13:48:15 value.
13:48:16 The effective price my client is actually paying is
13:48:19 actually more than $33 a square foot since they are
13:48:22 taking on the cost of closing the ditch and putting in

13:48:25 the piping.
13:48:26 They are also being required by TECO to move some
13:48:31 poles at very significant expense.
13:48:33 So that's just incorrect to say that it is -- that
13:48:38 reduced price that he said.
13:48:40 And let me just real quickly talk about some of the
13:48:43 other items that cypress point brought up.
13:48:47 One of the things I think that's a little misleading
13:48:55 is it's kind of implied that their property abuts
13:48:59 ours, and this is one of the elevations we showed you
13:49:02 on August 17th, to just kind of show the general
13:49:05 massing and scale.
13:49:06 And this is their project.
13:49:08 And you will note that their project is separated from
13:49:13 ours by the private drive, which, by the way, is being
13:49:17 constructed on city right-of-way at no cost to them.
13:49:20 I mean, they are not paying the city for the use of
13:49:22 the city's right-of-way there.
13:49:24 And again, as I made the point earlier, this shows how
13:49:27 they were required to close off access to spruce.
13:49:31 So, again, there's never been an intent to make this a
13:49:33 through street by the city.

13:49:35 But, again, their site plan allows for zero setbacks,
13:49:40 60-foot of private drive.
13:49:42 And then our site plan specifically calls for a
13:49:46 40-foot rear setback.
13:49:47 So you're talking about 100 feet between the edge of
13:49:50 their property and the first structure on my client's
13:49:54 property.
13:49:54 So I think they have kind of given the impression that
13:50:00 the properties butt up to each other and they really
13:50:03 don't.
13:50:04 Again they are separated by a road, and then by my
13:50:06 client, significant rear setback.
13:50:10 One of the comments that Mr. Todd made was about, you
13:50:13 know, everything to look at a parking garage.
13:50:16 I think I have some pictures that nicely integrated
13:50:25 into the neighborhood, having to look at the garage
13:50:28 isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world, and
13:50:30 probably to my understanding that most people prefer
13:50:32 an enclosed parking garage rather than looking at
13:50:36 surface parking.
13:50:37 But again these are some buildings along Bayshore
13:50:40 where you can see that they nicely made the garage

13:50:44 attractive.
13:50:45 And we have a note on the site plan about providing
13:50:51 metal works in the screening area, a garage like you
13:50:56 see here, provided buffering for the garage, making it
13:50:59 architecturally compatible.
13:51:01 Again I believe this is along Bayshore.
13:51:10 And here is just an example of someone, here is
13:51:16 residential, here is a road, and here is a parking
13:51:18 garage which is more in the nature of what we're
13:51:20 talking about. Again, our garage isn't butting up
13:51:23 against their property.
13:51:27 So it can be done, it is done.
13:51:29 It's our intent to do it.
13:51:30 And it's quoted on the site plan that we will do it.
13:51:35 Therefore, I just think their arguments about
13:51:37 aesthetics just aren't borne out by the facts here.
13:51:41 They are objecting to the height of 130 feet.
13:51:44 Their site plan allows for 75 feet.
13:51:46 130 is not that much greater.
13:51:48 And again, their property, our property, the
13:51:52 underlying zoning will allow for buildings up to 200
13:51:56 feet.

13:51:57 So they really have in a reasonable expectation of
13:52:00 having low buildings in front of them.
13:52:01 We could actually go much higher under the underlying
13:52:04 zoning, but are putting a maximum height of 130 feet
13:52:08 on the property.
13:52:11 The arguments that they made about Ethel Hammer
13:52:16 finding things missing from our site plan.
13:52:18 Just before we broke, I passed out a copy of judge
13:52:21 naturally sen's order on the petition for writ of
13:52:24 certiorari that was filed in the Tampa General
13:52:26 Hospital case.
13:52:28 It felt a little like deja vu all over for some of us.
13:52:32 She did the same thing in that case, provided you with
13:52:35 a long list of things that were not on the site plan.
13:52:37 I can go through the list with you if you want and
13:52:39 tell you where things are.
13:52:41 But, you know, let me start by saying as judge Nielsen
13:52:47 found in that case, and your staff found when they
13:52:50 reviewed the site plan that was submitted, it did meet
13:52:52 the submittal requirements of your code.
13:52:55 It does have all those -- all that information on
13:52:58 there.

13:53:00 Judge Nelsen held that was acceptable at Tampa general
13:53:02 and is acceptable her today.
13:53:03 The site plan includes a lot of specificity.
13:53:07 It identifies there are only four uses allowed.
13:53:11 It shows the maximum F.A.R.
13:53:13 It shows the maximum square footage for each use.
13:53:16 It shows the maximum height for each use.
13:53:18 All of the setbacks are identified.
13:53:21 The specific detail regarding landscaping and
13:53:23 dimensions of parking spaces.
13:53:25 There's hours of operation listed for every use.
13:53:28 There's parking numbers listed for each use.
13:53:31 There's a very specific trade-off table that governs
13:53:35 changes between the uses.
13:53:37 And I think part of their confusion, just
13:53:43 understanding how the site plan works -- and I would
13:53:46 defer to your staff on this.
13:53:48 But it was designed so that everything we are showing
13:53:52 you is a maximum.
13:53:53 And if they decide, for instance, to build, you know,
13:53:58 one less use, as in the other, they can't take square
13:54:03 footage from one without reducing it from another.

13:54:05 So it's never going to exceed the maximum shown on the
13:54:07 plan.
13:54:08 And there's a very specific table that says if you add
13:54:11 a hotel room you have to reduce this much square
13:54:13 footage from an office, for example, or vice versa.
13:54:19 It ensures that the site can't be overbuilt.
13:54:25 Again there's very detailed site plans such as valet
13:54:28 parkings cross access agreements between users.
13:54:34 I think they made the comment we only showed 70
13:54:36 parking spaces.
13:54:37 Again you have to understand how the site plan is
13:54:38 drawn.
13:54:39 The spaces that are shown, we have very specific
13:54:42 information about the dimensions of those spaces.
13:54:44 But the parking tables govern and the parking tables
13:54:48 make very clear that depending on what -- the number
13:54:53 of parking spaces you have to provide, and again if
13:54:56 you reduce one use and increase another that's going
13:54:59 to shift the parking numbers.
13:55:01 But that's all spelled out in the tables.
13:55:02 And your staff are people that are going to have to
13:55:05 enforce that understand that.

13:55:15 You know, they brought up the fact that there is a
13:55:17 private agreement between cypress point and my client.
13:55:21 And that's absolutely correct.
13:55:23 That's not for this council to enforce, obviously.
13:55:27 If anything, I think it should give them some comfort
13:55:31 that ultimately before they can -- or my client can
13:55:34 construct, they have to design architectural approval
13:55:38 from their neighbors.
13:55:39 That's what the agreement says.
13:55:40 But again that's not for this council to enforce.
13:55:43 That's between the two parties.
13:55:45 And it doesn't apply to zoning approval.
13:55:48 The single site plan which I think is what was raised
13:55:52 some of these issues was again done in response to the
13:55:55 fact that the council and the neighbors didn't like
13:55:59 the alternative plans which was an attempt to show
13:56:01 every possible scenario and how it was going out.
13:56:04 So instead we combined and now have tables and
13:56:07 trade-offs that basically accomplish the exact same
13:56:11 thing.
13:56:11 But that was again done in response to the concern
13:56:14 about the alternative site plan.

13:56:17 I think I have addressed all their issues.
13:56:21 I regret the fact that council is put in the middle of
13:56:26 what's a dispute between the two neighboring property
13:56:28 owners.
13:56:29 And I don't want to get too carried away with that.
13:56:31 So I'll defer that unless you have any questions about
13:56:35 it.
13:56:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Ms. Zelman.
13:56:39 Any questions for the petitioner?
13:56:41 Ms. Saul-Sena?
13:56:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for the pylon signs, the
13:56:47 monument signs.
13:56:48 I was just looking on here.
13:56:50 I don't see where you all say what the maximum size of
13:56:54 the parking structure is.
13:57:02 Height, mass.
13:57:04 Maximum excluding garage.
13:57:07 I figure somewhere you say where the garage is at.
13:57:10 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I think that's true, we don't show
13:57:13 that.
13:57:15 We don't show that on the garage.
13:57:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says maximum usable floor area,

13:57:21 155,000 square feet.
13:57:26 So does that mean that there's a parking structure
13:57:28 that's part of the 155 or in addition to?
13:57:35 >>> No.
13:57:35 >> This is why I am really trying to have 3
13:57:38 dimensional.
13:57:38 You have a drawing that shows --
13:57:41 >>> This is what we showed.
13:57:44 >> I wasn't sure.
13:57:53 >>> This is our Zane for how the garage and hotel
13:57:55 could work with the garage being put underneath the
13:57:57 hotel.
13:58:04 >> So if you're saying the maximum is 155 excluding
13:58:08 the garage, how much is it with the garage?
13:58:19 >>> He's calculating.
13:58:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The other thing is, there's a
13:58:27 one-foot grass buffer, I believe, between your
13:58:32 building.
13:58:36 >>> I'm trying to figure out where she's talking
13:58:37 about.
13:58:47 >> Well, perhaps on the easterly edge?
13:58:50 >>> I think she's talking about -- I think she's

13:59:00 talking about this.
13:59:08 The TECO substation basically across the right-of-way.
13:59:13 This is the landscape buffer.
13:59:16 Again on the residential uses.
13:59:20 >> I would assume even though it doesn't -- I would
13:59:22 assume you're going to put in some very heavy duty
13:59:26 landscaping of your site.
13:59:29 >>> Yes.
13:59:30 This, remember, is the parking area.
13:59:32 But you can see, I would say one inch every three our
13:59:44 four feet isn't going to -- I'm sure you are going to
13:59:47 plant cypress or something that's dense or high
13:59:50 bamboo.
13:59:53 >>> And again what we are talking about is this little
13:59:55 stretch here.
13:59:56 Again this is the TECO substation.
13:59:58 And that's just the parking area.
14:00:00 >> Because the picture that's up, keep that up.
14:00:04 It doesn't show any driveways from Boy Scout to your
14:00:08 development.
14:00:09 Are they there but they are not on the picture?
14:00:12 Or is all your access off of this street to the east?

14:00:22 >>> I think in that picture, if you go back to the
14:00:26 site plan, it's the pod 2 and 3.
14:00:29 >> Right.
14:00:30 But it's not on that picture.
14:00:32 >>> I think under the circumstances just black.
14:00:34 This hotel.
14:00:37 >> Is there only one point of access?
14:00:41 >>> No.
14:00:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: On Boy Scout.
14:00:48 >>> Oh, yeah, okay.
14:00:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: And do you have any calculations for
14:00:51 her now?
14:00:58 >>> I'm going to have John McMillin come up because he
14:01:02 can explain that better than I.
14:01:13 >>> John McMillin.
14:01:16 I have been sworn in.
14:01:16 The garage is 130,000 square feet and the hotel is
14:01:19 approximately 130 square feet but the F.A.R.
14:01:23 calculations don't incorporate the garage.
14:01:28 And that allowed for the building.
14:01:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Did that take care of your question?
14:01:41 Mr. Dingfelder?

14:01:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of things.
14:01:45 And Cathy, we have a letter from Englehart Hammer and
14:01:57 they expressed some concerns about the site plan, and
14:01:59 I think you have had a chance to review those just at
14:02:02 lunch, not previously.
14:02:03 But anyway, I wanted to make sure that we are on good
14:02:06 grounds to consider this PD site plan.
14:02:11 Do you have any comments on Ms. Hammer's concerns?
14:02:15 >>> I did read through them briefly through lunch, and
14:02:18 of course before we came to council today, compared
14:02:20 the plan to the basic code and I believe that as
14:02:24 determined that the plan meets the minimum
14:02:26 requirements.
14:02:27 Council certainly has discretion to ask for additional
14:02:30 information and more specificity and I believe you
14:02:34 have done that today.
14:02:35 And there are additional notes that we will definitely
14:02:37 add to the plan regarding the signage, internal
14:02:41 pedestrian connection.
14:02:42 You can even add comments relating to the garage, the
14:02:47 height limitations on that piece.
14:02:50 It's really at your discretion.

14:02:52 The code requirements are very basic for submittal
14:02:54 requirements and for our consideration.
14:02:56 If this goes to the development review committee for
14:02:58 review, every agency found it compliant with their
14:03:01 regulations, with the exception of transportation and
14:03:05 land development, because they had a deficiency in
14:03:07 parking, and that's our technical objection.
14:03:09 As it stands right now, it does meet the minimum
14:03:12 requirements.
14:03:13 >> So you don't share the concerns of Ms. hammer?
14:03:18 >>> No, I do not.
14:03:20 >> And my second question, Mr. Santiago?
14:03:27 During lunch I talked to our legal council and
14:03:30 expressed some concerns about vacating being sort of
14:03:33 very independent from the PD.
14:03:36 In other words, theoretically, if we vacated this
14:03:39 land, I think one of the public purposes about
14:03:42 vacating the land is the public as testified to by the
14:03:46 neighborhood is very desirous to have the ditch
14:03:49 covered over and put pipes in for aesthetic and
14:03:54 probably practical reasons.
14:03:55 But that does not -- is not really played out in the

14:03:58 language we have before us.
14:03:59 I talked to Roland about it, where are we on that?
14:04:04 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: I went back to my office.
14:04:05 I prepared a revised ordinance that incorporates that
14:04:08 condition.
14:04:08 However, subsequent to that I spoke with staff, Mr.
14:04:11 Awad in particular, and he advised me that is in fact
14:04:15 a part of the condition for the sale, and it is
14:04:17 mentioned in the zoning conditions.
14:04:21 >> It's not in the vacating?
14:04:23 >>> It is not in the vacating.
14:04:24 >> Like I say, I think it's really important that the
14:04:26 vacating -- that it's all tied together, because it is
14:04:29 all tied together.
14:04:30 It's been laid out to us as being all tied together,
14:04:33 all three of those.
14:04:34 So I think to the extent -- and it sounds like we are
14:04:37 going to have an additional week or two anyway with
14:04:40 staff revising the site plan so you have a little more
14:04:42 time to work on this.
14:04:43 But I want to make sure the vacating is tied to the
14:04:47 PD, tied to the sale and the public is well protected.

14:04:50 >>> The vacating is tied with all of that.
14:04:52 And I do have a plan B ordinance, if you make that a
14:04:56 conditional condition.
14:04:57 I have that plan B ordinance ready to go at council's
14:05:00 discretion.
14:05:02 >> I'll take a look at it now while we are
14:05:04 deliberating.
14:05:05 >> Thank you.
14:05:06 Ms. Ferlita.
14:05:07 >> Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask, I guess Cathy.
14:05:10 We are talking back and forth about the parking
14:05:12 configuration and stuff.
14:05:13 Does that have to be defined on the site plan at this
14:05:16 point?
14:05:17 Exactly what they are going to do with the parking
14:05:19 garage?
14:05:20 >> It's required in the code that the baits I can
14:05:21 parking layout as noted on the plan, as shown on the
14:05:24 plan, and they have shown the surface parking lot.
14:05:28 The garage itself inside that building can be
14:05:32 configured through a schedule change review. The way
14:05:35 this plan is drawn and the way that it's done is going

14:05:38 to force a substantial change review of staff for
14:05:41 whatever building they configure.
14:05:42 Unless they actually do it exactly like it is on this
14:05:45 plan.
14:05:45 This is something that we teal with on a daily basis.
14:05:48 We get substantial change reviews almost every single
14:05:51 day.
14:05:51 The more specificity that council requires on plans
14:05:55 pretty much triggers that review through our office
14:05:57 because it's very rare that people build exactly
14:06:00 what's on the plans that are affected.
14:06:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: Before you go any further, those are
14:06:07 some of my concerns or apprehensions.
14:06:10 Let's go back a little bit, I guess in 2004 we allowed
14:06:13 this petitioner to give us four different
14:06:15 configurations -- configurations.
14:06:18 Some of us were very surprised and some of us were
14:06:21 more surprised we were part of that group that agreed.
14:06:23 How it happened, I don't know, but I have to take part
14:06:26 of that blame, I understand.
14:06:27 And I agree with Ms. Saul-Sena's comment before we
14:06:30 broke for lunch.

14:06:30 This sounds top me more like a PDA versus a PD.
14:06:34 It could be this and it could be that and could be the
14:06:37 next thing.
14:06:37 I'm not sure exactly how that's ultimately going to be
14:06:41 built out.
14:06:42 So concern about the parking.
14:06:43 I know that some of the parties involved were talking
14:06:45 about an agreement, and some of the neighbors saying
14:06:48 that maybe we shouldn't give in to but it's a concern
14:06:51 nonetheless.
14:06:51 And, at the same time, this is not directed to you.
14:06:54 I don't know if this is the right time to say.
14:06:56 But I know that in the nine years or eight and a half
14:07:00 years that I have been here that particular
14:07:01 neighborhood has wanted somebody to do something about
14:07:03 the ditches.
14:07:04 And that's fine.
14:07:05 That's a public purpose.
14:07:06 And I know Mr. Parkinson and I talked about that.
14:07:10 However, as the city agrees to vacate that area, so
14:07:15 that they can close it over, it also gives them more
14:07:18 property on which to build.

14:07:19 But on the heels of that, then the petitioner is still
14:07:23 asking for parking space waiver up to 22%.
14:07:27 So that appears to me a little bit counterproductive.
14:07:30 City giveth the vacation but then we still need a 20%
14:07:34 waiver.
14:07:34 I have a lot of issues.
14:07:35 I know that there is, as Ms. Zelman said, a street
14:07:40 across or driveway a park, but their parking garage is
14:07:43 not smack up against the neighbor's development.
14:07:46 But, at the same time, maybe because -- and I'm not
14:07:49 trying to judge why they did what they did in terms of
14:07:51 their configuration -- maybe the neighborhood didn't
14:07:53 want that parking garage on the other side, so they
14:07:59 slapped it over here.
14:08:00 If I were a neighbor in the process of getting a new
14:08:02 development started and they are trying to attract
14:08:04 people to come to that development, buffering
14:08:06 landscape otherwise or streets separating or otherwise
14:08:09 or whatever else this is going to guarantee, it still
14:08:13 would concern me as a developer next door.
14:08:16 I'm not directing that to you, for my first question,
14:08:19 but those are some of the concerns that I have that

14:08:20 make me a little bit hesitant about supporting this.
14:08:25 And I just wanted that on the record.
14:08:27 I don't expect a response from you.
14:08:29 Thanks.
14:08:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern is that this is
14:08:35 nebulous, and we are being asked to approve something
14:08:38 that's deficient in parking, that if it's popular --
14:08:43 and I know the people who develop it want it to be
14:08:45 popular -- could create a hardship for the surrounding
14:08:48 folks by having 22% of those people who need to park,
14:08:51 parking where they shouldn't be because there isn't
14:08:53 parking on this site.
14:08:55 I think the humane thing to do is to continue it to
14:08:59 allow the developer to revisit this with an eye toward
14:09:04 meeting the parking requirement.
14:09:06 I think that that would make me feel comfortable in
14:09:10 supporting it.
14:09:11 I don't feel comfortable approving something with so
14:09:13 much parking waived.
14:09:15 And we all know that we have not -- I believe we have
14:09:18 changed our compact requirements, so probably 60% of
14:09:21 these spaces are compact anyway, which is kind of a

14:09:24 push for people.
14:09:25 But I feel like the other thing that I'm concerned
14:09:28 about -- and I appreciated the information that there
14:09:32 will be 130 that you square feet of extraordinary
14:09:35 parking, I don't see why we didn't require that to be
14:09:38 mentioned.
14:09:39 To me 130,000 square feet of anything is a big deal.
14:09:42 And you need to mention it somewhere on the site plan.
14:09:44 So what I would like to do is to allow the petitioner
14:09:47 to think about how long they would like to continue
14:09:49 this before they bring it back something that meets
14:09:53 our parking requirements.
14:09:55 Because as opposed to an urban setting, such as
14:10:00 downtown, I think that the majority of the easements
14:10:04 here are going to attract people that need to park and
14:10:07 I think we need to meet our requirement.
14:10:09 So my motion would be to -- to allow a continuance,
14:10:13 but I would like the petitioner to think how long they
14:10:16 would need that continuance to be for.
14:10:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Why don't you make a motion to
14:10:22 continue and we'll see if it's seconded, and then go
14:10:25 to the petitioner.

14:10:26 Because we don't know what they are going to say.
14:10:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to continue in
14:10:29 any case because you haven't addressed many things
14:10:32 specifically on the site plan.
14:10:33 But I would like to see it meet our parking
14:10:36 requirements.
14:10:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council, this being a
14:10:40 quasi-judicial proceeding, the petitioner does have
14:10:45 the right to ask for an either up or down vote.
14:10:48 If the petitioner, after getting the sense of what the
14:10:50 council's consensus is, wishes to request a
14:10:52 continuance, that's certainly the prerogative of the
14:10:54 petitioner to do so.
14:10:56 But in terms of getting a continuance for this, that
14:11:01 would be the petitioner's request, if that's what's
14:11:04 desired.
14:11:07 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: A couple questions, if I may.
14:11:09 Under your new code, if we revise the plan requested,
14:11:14 does it have to be so many days before the hearing?
14:11:16 Because I have to factor that in to how long we need.
14:11:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:11:21 It's ten days.

14:11:22 If you were to continue it, the minimum of two weeks,
14:11:24 which the code requires, you have to have it in on
14:11:26 Monday at 10:00 which only gives them essentially the
14:11:29 weekend to do it.
14:11:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: How did B -- let's just go out 30
14:11:34 days.
14:11:35 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Can we do three weeks?
14:11:39 My other question is -- I don't know how to ask this.
14:11:41 We have been through this now twice where last time
14:11:46 our plan was rejected, we changed the plan and
14:11:48 addressed what they wanted to address what council
14:11:50 wanted.
14:11:51 Now they brought up new things.
14:11:52 Now we are going to change the plan.
14:11:56 Does it open the door to a whole lot of other
14:11:58 discussion about the new plan and what they object to?
14:12:00 Or are we limited to just changing it per what you
14:12:04 have discussed today?
14:12:06 Will discussion be limited to what we are discussing
14:12:08 today?
14:12:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If we continue this hearing, it will
14:12:13 be continued.

14:12:14 And that means that you will present your new site
14:12:17 plan, it will be open to public hearing, public
14:12:21 comment on whatever issue the public wants to comment
14:12:23 on.
14:12:26 So you do have that to think about.
14:12:29 I don't think we can limit it.
14:12:31 We can limit it because when don't know what you are
14:12:32 going to come back with.
14:12:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:12:35 If I could clarify for the record.
14:12:36 I have written down some of the points that we
14:12:38 discussed.
14:12:40 We need to add language for internal pedestrian
14:12:42 connections, ground signs only.
14:12:45 We need to add the buffer waiver to the site plan for
14:12:49 the south portion of the property.
14:12:52 Work on adding more parking.
14:12:53 Get as close to code requirements as possible.
14:12:55 And then what I understood from the garage is to
14:12:58 actually have them specify, maybe limit the number of
14:13:00 storage for the parking garage.
14:13:02 Language is on there for the architecture treatment.

14:13:06 But maybe we could limit the size or stories.
14:13:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern is, we are all trying to
14:13:12 visualize what this is going to be.
14:13:14 And in terms of the bulk, the mass, all that, 130,000
14:13:18 square feet is a lot.
14:13:19 And it's currently not identified on here.
14:13:22 So I think it needs to be identified.
14:13:25 And I don't think --
14:13:29 >>> We could ask them to provide the 3-D models that
14:13:32 they have done if they wanted to submit those as part
14:13:34 of the record to give you an example of what it looks
14:13:36 like.
14:13:38 The site plan, I'm sorry.
14:13:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just one other thing I was talking
14:13:45 about and this doesn't necessarily mean the petitioner
14:13:47 has to adhere to that.
14:13:49 But I think depending on the configuration, the large
14:13:52 amount of square feet may be more obtrusive or less
14:13:56 obtrusive depending on the reconfiguration in terms of
14:13:59 location.
14:14:01 That's just this council person's concern.
14:14:05 I think if it's not set in stone we really want to

14:14:08 look at it again.
14:14:10 >>> The only thing I found in the record referencing
14:14:12 what the neighborhood wanted was in their letter,
14:14:14 Lincoln Gardens Culver city.
14:14:18 About the uses, whether they wanted the hotel on the
14:14:21 far eastern portion.
14:14:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: Because that would probably retrigger
14:14:26 the location of the parking lot and I think this
14:14:28 council has always been very amenable to what the
14:14:30 neighborhoods want.
14:14:31 But at the same time as we look at something that is
14:14:32 going to be supported by the neighborhood, so too
14:14:35 should we look at the compatibility with the neighbor
14:14:38 there that's another development.
14:14:40 So, you know, obviously I can't or any of these
14:14:43 council members cannot tell you exactly what to come
14:14:46 back with, but depending on what they come back with,
14:14:48 I think Ms. Zelman said, what do they want?
14:14:51 Well, they are bringing up a good point.
14:14:52 It not what they want.
14:14:53 It's what we want, based on what they bring forward
14:14:55 and what they reconfigure.

14:14:57 That's what's going to make my determination as to
14:15:00 whether or not I am going to support it.
14:15:01 >> Well, the one thing that the PD does speak to
14:15:04 regarding flexible setbacks is with additional height
14:15:07 you require additional setbacks.
14:15:08 You could ask for a specific setback for that larger
14:15:13 building to the south, and basically mandate that on a
14:15:18 site plan that it maintain a specific setback and
14:15:20 doesn't get any closer to the southern property line.
14:15:22 That way it stays further to the north.
14:15:25 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think we'll just see what they want
14:15:28 to bring back in terms of necessity -- negotiable
14:15:31 reconfiguration and go from there.
14:15:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know there's been a very
14:15:37 authorize are oh plan for Westshore developed, and I
14:15:39 know that it addresses this area.
14:15:41 And I spoke with Ms. Coyle, surprised the Westshore
14:15:45 overlay is included here but there are really solid
14:15:50 points about the pedestrian experience.
14:15:52 And I would like to see those concerns addressed in
14:15:55 the site plan.
14:16:00 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.

14:16:01 Do we have a motion to continue this for three weeks?
14:16:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
14:16:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion.
14:16:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ask Ms. Zelman on the record.
14:16:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: She asked for three weeks.
14:16:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Three week continuance?
14:16:17 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: Yes.
14:16:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: What is that date, Sandy?
14:16:23 Somebody has to second the motion.
14:16:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
14:16:26 I just want to make sure that council is good with my
14:16:29 suggestion of Mr. Santiago about making sure that the
14:16:34 vacating is tied to the PD and back and forth.
14:16:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't think anybody has a problem
14:16:42 with that.
14:16:42 Okay.
14:16:46 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
14:16:48 What we need to do is continue the vacation for three
14:16:51 weeks.
14:16:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We are getting ready to do that.
14:16:54 We have a motion to continue item 61 and 62 for three
14:16:57 weeks at 10 a.m.

14:16:58 Further discussion on the motion?
14:17:01 Motion carries.
14:17:02 Thank you all for coming down.
14:17:04 Item number 63.
14:17:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to open.
14:17:13 >> Second.
14:17:14 (Motion carried).
14:17:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 63 is now open.
14:17:18 Do we have a staff presentation on 63?
14:17:21 ,
14:17:23 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: Legal department.
14:17:32 I have got two documents in memorandums, 14 pages.
14:17:37 This memorandum has been submitted to you before.
14:17:40 It's a standard memorandum that describes, for the
14:17:44 sake of speed dense I, I'll read the pertinent part of
14:17:48 this particular memorandum.
14:17:51 What's before you today is a petition to establish the
14:17:56 independent development district, Florida statutes
14:18:00 district.
14:18:00 CDDs are created -- I'm sorry.
14:18:03 Community development district, CDDs, are
14:18:05 independent special purpose units of government

14:18:07 established under Florida general law.
14:18:10 The main rule is to provide alternative funding for
14:18:13 on-site infrastructure, such as roads, stormwater
14:18:17 management systems, utilities, and recreational
14:18:20 facilities.
14:18:22 They have the power to issue tax exempt bonds, to
14:18:25 collect fees, and to levy redeemable assessments for
14:18:28 ad valorem taxes against property within the community
14:18:32 district for repayment of debt.
14:18:36 There has been a petition failed to create the
14:18:38 independence park and redevelopment district.
14:18:39 That petition has been reviewed and has been found to
14:18:42 come part with the six requirements of law set forth
14:18:44 in Florida statutes chapter 190.
14:18:47 I have prepared an ordinance that adopts and
14:18:50 establishes the CDD.
14:18:52 That is all I've got for you.
14:18:54 The petitioner is here to make any further remarks
14:18:57 necessary for the record.
14:18:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:18:59 Petitioner?
14:19:04 >>> Mark Stralley, and I have been sworn.

14:19:11 I don't believe there is anyone in the audience in
14:19:13 opposition to the petition to establish the district.
14:19:17 I think council is generally familiar with community
14:19:19 development districts.
14:19:20 We have here in the audience Mr. Ron wiser, a
14:19:25 representative with petitioner, as well as our land
14:19:28 use and zoning consultant, Randy Coen, and Mace and
14:19:31 would be happy to answer any questions that council
14:19:33 might have.
14:19:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:19:39 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
14:19:41 to number 63?
14:19:42 >> Move to close.
14:19:43 >> Second.
14:19:43 (Motion carried).
14:19:44 >>CHAIRMAN:
14:19:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder, would you read this
14:19:49 ordinance?
14:19:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Be glad to.
14:19:52 Ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida establishing
14:19:54 the independence park community development district
14:19:57 for the purpose of managing and delivering basic

14:19:59 community infrastructure improvements generally
14:20:01 located south of memorial highway and independence
14:20:04 parkway, west of the veterans expressway 589 and north
14:20:07 of Dana shores drive x-raying 43.811 acres more or
14:20:12 less, said district to be located entirely within the
14:20:15 boundaries of the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
14:20:17 Florida, the same being more fully described in
14:20:19 section 2 hereof pursuant to chapter 190, Florida
14:20:23 statutes, providing for severability, providing an
14:20:24 effective date.
14:20:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
14:20:28 Discussion on the motion?
14:20:31 >> Second.
14:20:32 (Motion carried).
14:20:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion carries unanimously.
14:20:36 >>> Mr. Cohen has a minor scheduling issue that
14:20:39 involves this particular project, and with council's
14:20:42 permission, we have spoken to Mr. Shelby and believe
14:20:45 we could appropriately bring it up now while we are
14:20:49 talking about independence park.
14:20:51 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Shelby, is that all right?
14:20:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's fine.

14:20:54 He can either do this now or the end of the meeting.
14:20:56 A letter was received from the law firm of mechanic
14:21:00 Nuccio, September 20th.
14:21:02 Do you want to go through that?
14:21:06 >>> For the record my name is Randy Coen, Cohen and
14:21:08 company.
14:21:09 I have been sworn.
14:21:09 I regret to be in front of you today to actually bring
14:21:12 this up but we have found ourselves in a situation
14:21:14 where we could not provide notice for the notice of
14:21:18 proposed change, that's the DRI aspect of this
14:21:21 project.
14:21:21 We were scheduled to have this hearing on October
14:21:24 12th.
14:21:25 Unfortunately, we received notice of this date and
14:21:29 schedule the day after we would have had to posted
14:21:33 notice.
14:21:34 So when found ourselves not being able to complete
14:21:36 notice.
14:21:36 Therefore, with all due respect, we are requesting
14:21:38 that it be reset for October 26th for the DRI
14:21:43 notice of proposed change, public hearing, and that

14:21:46 would also entail that on October 12th, which is
14:21:49 when our zoning is scheduled for, and has been
14:21:52 appropriately noticed, on October 12th, we would
14:21:54 ask for that to be continued to October 26th.
14:21:57 So they can be heard together.
14:21:58 That way, you would only have one discussion rather
14:22:01 than two discussions on the item.
14:22:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
14:22:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Hang on.
14:22:06 We just put something mainly on October 26th.
14:22:11 And that was adding things to an already full agenda.
14:22:15 >>THE CLERK: And I believe on DRI that requires
14:22:17 another resolution to be prepared.
14:22:20 That's a new public hearing and to provide 30-day
14:22:22 notice.
14:22:24 That will not provide 30 days.
14:22:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If there's a notice problem, then
14:22:33 we shouldn't do it.
14:22:34 But I have to tell you, this project has been going
14:22:43 along without one person to discuss anything.
14:22:45 Nobody showed up.
14:22:46 It doesn't mean it's always going to be that way but

14:22:49 we sure haven't heard any neighborhood opposition.
14:22:51 Well, there is a neighborhood.
14:22:52 All Dana shores is right there.
14:22:56 They still get notice.
14:22:59 >>> We have noticed a substantial -- my client sent to
14:23:06 all the noticed individuals and associations in the
14:23:07 neighborhood even though they are in the county, not
14:23:09 the city.
14:23:10 That's why I have no opposition to the land use plan
14:23:13 amendment that's been planned, we are very hopeful
14:23:17 that will be the same thing for the DRI and the
14:23:19 zoning.
14:23:20 That has also been the history of this project.
14:23:23 I actually did the previous re zoning in the DRI for
14:23:27 J.P. Morgan chase which is on this property.
14:23:30 We also have no objections and in one participating in
14:23:32 this particular public hearing.
14:23:33 So it was something that went very smoothly before and
14:23:35 worry very hopeful it will do that again this time.
14:23:38 >> You all could be mad but I don't think we are going
14:23:41 to be wrong.
14:23:41 I think we should just go with that date.

14:23:43 It's adequate time to do the notice.
14:23:46 >>>
14:23:47 >>THE CLERK: A DRI requires a notice to be prepared.
14:23:50 They have to do land rezoning.
14:23:54 There's no 30 days.
14:24:00 >>> We can do the resolution and bring it back to you,
14:24:03 if not by the end of the meeting then certainly by
14:24:05 tonight.
14:24:08 >> Second.
14:24:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you have anything to add?
14:24:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, as long as the resolution is
14:24:15 prepared.
14:24:17 >> Bring it back tonight.
14:24:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You will be the last item on the
14:24:21 agenda on the 26th so you are going to have to sit
14:24:24 through however long we are going to have to sit
14:24:26 through.
14:24:26 >>> It's the penalty we have to pay, unfortunately.
14:24:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion and second.
14:24:30 Discussion on the motion?
14:24:33 (Motion carried).
14:24:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.

14:24:37 I want as many hours in here before I leave as
14:24:39 possible.
14:24:40 I look forward to it.
14:24:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
14:24:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That was a motion to direct legal to
14:24:48 come back with a resolution.
14:24:50 Thank you.
14:24:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open number 64.
14:24:57 (Motion carried).
14:24:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 64 is open.
14:25:02 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:25:04 The wet zoning is located at 3404 east Lake Avenue.
14:25:08 They are requesting a 2(COP-R).
14:25:09 They did receive a one-year conditional ordinance,
14:25:13 2005-83.
14:25:14 Last year which granted the one-year conditional
14:25:17 office of the 2(COP-R).
14:25:19 There are conditional hours listed.
14:25:23 Hours of operation are 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday
14:25:25 through Thursday.
14:25:26 11 to 11 Friday and Saturday.
14:25:28 And 11 to 9 p.m. on Sunday.

14:25:30 The condition wet zoning expired on March 24th.
14:25:34 They did apply in time to redo those.
14:25:37 There is one wet zone property within a thousand feet,
14:25:43 grocery store.
14:25:44 One residential property within 1,000 feet located on
14:25:47 31st Avenue.
14:25:48 And five institutional uses within 1,000 feet.
14:25:52 We have no objection to the request.
14:25:56 We did supply the petition to TPD.
14:25:59 You can see it's at the corner of 34th and lake.
14:26:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:26:13 TPD.
14:26:14 >>> Officer Don Miller, Tampa Police Department, I
14:26:17 have been sworn.
14:26:17 We have in a objections to this wet zone.
14:26:20 I went out personally for the site inspection. The
14:26:24 place is cleaned up considerably.
14:26:27 No opposition.
14:26:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
14:26:30 Petitioner?
14:26:40 >>> Good afternoon.
14:26:41 My name is ... I am here with the petition for (COP-R)

14:26:54 license, 3404 east lake, condition and license.
14:27:07 I am asking for unconditional license.
14:27:11 I have been here for 22 years in that location.
14:27:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: You have a conditional now.
14:27:16 And you are now asking that your one-year is up and
14:27:19 you're asking to convert.
14:27:22 >>> Yes, sir.
14:27:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
14:27:24 would like to speak on item 64?
14:27:26 >> Move to close.
14:27:27 >> Second.
14:27:35 (Motion carried).
14:27:39 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move an ordinance repeal ordinance
14:27:42 2005-83 laking lawful the sale of beverages containing
14:27:47 alcohol of more than 1% by weight not more than 14% by
14:27:51 weight and wines regarding alcoholic content beer and
14:27:55 wine for consumption on premises only in connection
14:27:56 with a restaurant business establishment on that
14:27:58 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 3404
14:28:02 east Lake Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more particularly
14:28:04 described in section 3 hereof waiving certain
14:28:07 restrictions pursuant to distance based upon certain

14:28:09 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
14:28:12 conflict, providing an effective date.
14:28:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any discussion on the motion?
14:28:19 Motion carries.
14:28:21 Thank you.
14:28:22 We have a motion to open 65.
14:28:24 Second.
14:28:24 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: A matter of housekeeping.
14:28:30 I have that revised memorandum for item number 26 to
14:28:35 be received and filed.
14:28:36 Item 26.
14:28:37 >> So moved.
14:28:38 >> Second.
14:28:38 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay, Mr. Santiago.
14:28:41 You just have free reign to pop up whenever you want
14:28:45 and address us on any issue, okay?
14:28:47 We have a motion and second.
14:28:48 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:28:50 All right.
14:28:51 Back on 65.
14:29:03 >>CATHERINE COYLE: He pushed me out of the way.
14:29:06 Land development.

14:29:06 This is located at 951 East 7th Avenue suite D, for a
14:29:12 2(APS) beer and wine package sales incidental to the
14:29:16 retail sales of goods related to a package store. The
14:29:20 grocery store is approximately 954 square feet.
14:29:24 They are asking for incidental use. That way they can
14:29:28 waive the distance requirements.
14:29:30 There are two wet zone properties within a thousand
14:29:31 feet.
14:29:32 No residential properties within a thousand feet.
14:29:34 And one institutional within a thousand feet.
14:29:37 Staff has no objection.
14:29:44 Here is the property, with the parking located.
14:29:46 And this is the portion that is wet zoned.
14:29:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Cathy, this map you handed out, this
14:30:00 yellow square is in the middle of all these things.
14:30:02 What are those?
14:30:03 Those look like residential.
14:30:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it Tampa park apartments?
14:30:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are they closed?
14:30:16 There's a lot of residential around there then.
14:30:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The report was written based upon
14:30:21 the survey.

14:30:33 The surveyor certified there is no residential within
14:30:36 a thousand feet.
14:30:39 There is an error in the application.
14:30:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Bad survey.
14:30:45 What does that mean?
14:30:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It needs to be corrected.
14:30:49 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So do we continue it or do we allow
14:30:51 it to be withdrawn, amended, or procedurally --
14:30:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Probably be friendlier to correct
14:31:02 it.
14:31:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Continue it for 30 days?
14:31:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Well, we have to ask to see how
14:31:07 long it would take to get a new survey.
14:31:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Why don't you ask him that?
14:31:12 We'll go to the next item.
14:31:13 Item 66.
14:31:14 >> Move to open.
14:31:16 >> Second.
14:31:18 (Motion carried).
14:31:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 66 is open.
14:31:27 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:31:36 This petition is located at 8021 North Armenia Avenue.

14:31:40 They are requesting a 2(APS), beer and wine package
14:31:43 sales.
14:31:43 Property contains 1,930 square feet.
14:31:46 Petitioner is requesting this wet zoning in order to
14:31:49 sell beer and wine in field containers for consumption
14:31:53 off premises.
14:31:53 The alcoholic sales are incidental to the use. The
14:31:56 current use is a convenience store.
14:31:58 As noted in the record there are five wet zoned
14:32:00 properties within 1,000 feet.
14:32:04 One property within 1,000 feet for residential and
14:32:09 four institutional uses within 1,000 feet.
14:32:13 To give you a point of reference.
14:32:17 Located at Armenia and -- not Su Sulphur Springs,
14:32:22 Armenia gardens, up there in that area.
14:32:26 The corner, Armenia and burns.
14:32:37 It's a fairly small building.
14:32:45 Staff had no objections.
14:32:49 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police.
14:32:52 I went out to this location, spoke to the neighbors,
14:32:54 didn't have any objection.

14:32:55 We have in a objection.
14:32:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner?
14:33:11 >>> Sammer Saleh, beer and wine.
14:33:17 Nothing else.
14:33:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone to speak on item 65?
14:33:21 >>> I'm pastor of new life Christian fellowship
14:33:24 church.
14:33:25 Our church is approximately 75 feet across the street
14:33:30 from this location.
14:33:33 Not only is our church there, I don't represent the
14:33:38 daycare center but there's a daycare center directly
14:33:40 across the street from this location I am against this
14:33:47 particular item.
14:33:50 There are areas in the community that currently sell
14:33:54 alcoholic beverages.
14:33:59 But for the council to consider your current code, the
14:34:04 distance, from churches and schools, I would
14:34:09 appreciate if that's considered in denying this
14:34:13 petition.
14:34:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, again, the report doesn't
14:34:20 seem to indicate the church.
14:34:22 Oh, has the church been there awhile?

14:34:27 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's on page 2 of the report.
14:34:30 >>> 1996.
14:34:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: New life.
14:34:35 And the kiddie corral daycare center that he
14:34:38 mentioned, I believe, is 800 feet.
14:34:41 I'm sorry, the golden angel learning center is 60 feet
14:34:44 across the street.
14:34:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is the daycare?
14:34:49 Where is the church?
14:34:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm not as familiar with the area.
14:34:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Look on the overhead.
14:35:15 >>> We are actually 75 feet diagonally across the
14:35:19 street.
14:35:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, have you ever had a problem
14:35:27 with people hanging out?
14:35:29 Because one of the things that council has noticed
14:35:32 over time is that some property owners are really
14:35:39 responsible, and others aren't.
14:35:41 And one of the ways, one of the things that we
14:35:45 consider sometimes is allowing the petitioner to have
14:35:49 a one-year conditional license, and then seeing if
14:35:53 indeed the license is a problem for the neighborhood

14:35:57 or if it isn't, and it gives the property owner --
14:36:00 it's a privilege to sell alcohol -- an opportunity to
14:36:03 prove themselves and see whether they are responsible
14:36:05 or not.
14:36:08 >>> You asked the question if we had any problems.
14:36:11 >> With people hanging out.
14:36:13 >>> Yes, we have had people in the community with beer
14:36:14 bottles on our property.
14:36:20 And I think this will simply add to the problem.
14:36:22 I personally go over and clean up beer bottles from
14:36:25 the property.
14:36:27 Yes.
14:36:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Sir, you have number 2, the store in
14:36:35 the same vicinity.
14:36:36 Are you having any problems with them?
14:36:38 They are asking for 2(APS), too.
14:36:40 >> I have only received notice from St. Thomas.
14:36:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I know.
14:36:48 They are there now.
14:36:49 Have you had any problems with that grocery store
14:36:52 that's there now?
14:36:54 >>> Well, I can't tell you whether or not the problems

14:36:56 we are experiencing currently are associated with that
14:36:59 facility.
14:37:00 But we are having problems.
14:37:03 I have not gone out to do a personal survey to
14:37:05 determine where the beer bottles are coming from.
14:37:12 >> Well, are your hours in the morning?
14:37:15 When are your hours?
14:37:16 >> We have ongoing activities there.
14:37:20 On Sunday it's mornings.
14:37:21 We have activities going on during the day.
14:37:26 We are in the process of extending.
14:37:31 >> So you are adding ongoing activities during the
14:37:33 week?
14:37:34 >>> We have different things that occur during the
14:37:35 week.
14:37:36 >> But during the day, during the day, or is it at
14:37:39 nature?
14:37:39 >> during the day also.
14:37:41 We have a staff over there during the day.
14:37:48 >> Is there anyone else in the public that would like
14:37:50 to speak on item number 66?
14:37:52 >> Move to close.

14:37:53 >> Second.
14:37:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Petitioner, you have heard the
14:37:55 concerns.
14:37:56 Come on back up.
14:37:57 You have heard the concerns of your neighbor.
14:38:00 Do you have anything to add at this time?
14:38:06 >>> Again I have been in this business 15 years, in
14:38:10 Pinellas Park.
14:38:10 I never had any opposition, and I get thank you
14:38:17 letters from the Pinellas Park, and show that I never
14:38:21 had any violation of selling beer to a minor.
14:38:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Give us a copy.
14:38:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sir, what will your hours of
14:38:36 operation be?
14:38:37 >>> It's going to be eight to eight.
14:38:38 Then closed on Sundays.
14:38:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And you will be supervising?
14:38:47 >>> The family is going to manage the store.
14:38:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Question for our legal department.
14:38:59 I know we changed the rules.
14:39:00 I'm not quite sure what they are.
14:39:02 Do we have the ability to impose a conditional use?

14:39:05 Or does it have to be requested by the petitioner?
14:39:10 >>> One year conditional.
14:39:12 >> I would be -- it seems to me that the concerns of
14:39:15 the church are valid, and it seems to me that the
14:39:18 petitioner is a very responsible person.
14:39:21 So I would lick the petitioner to consider requesting
14:39:24 a one-year conditional.
14:39:26 But I think the staff would need to explain to him
14:39:28 what that is so that he will be able to make that
14:39:31 request.
14:39:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. White.
14:39:34 >>KEVIN WHITE: Thank you.
14:39:36 I wanted to put on the record, due to the proximity of
14:39:39 the daycare as well as the church and all the
14:39:42 institutional uses that are listed less than 100 feet
14:39:45 away, I will not be in support of the petition.
14:39:50 We went over this a couple of weeks ago with the
14:39:55 Hooters.
14:39:59 One thing about that with Hooters they had already
14:40:01 been selling alcohol there and had been selling
14:40:03 alcohol for years.
14:40:06 I don't think this area needs any more alcohol uses in

14:40:11 that area.
14:40:12 I won't be supporting the petition.
14:40:16 >>ROSE FERLITA: Same thing on the record.
14:40:17 I think there are ample opportunities here for people
14:40:19 in that neighborhood to go to a 2(APS) or 2(COP-R) to
14:40:24 purchase their beer and Wayne and alcohol.
14:40:27 I know that the gentleman is passing around something
14:40:29 that shows his credentials someplace else but that
14:40:32 really is not Jermaine to this petition.
14:40:36 The petition would be fine except for the fact that
14:40:37 it's in close proximity to a church, to two churches
14:40:40 actually, pentecostal and the learning center, the
14:40:44 kids' achievement center, and I think this is really
14:40:47 counterproductive to what we want to do.
14:40:49 We certainly cannot blame this gentleman.
14:40:51 He may be a very reputable business owner but we are
14:40:55 not talking about the owner, we are talking about the
14:40:57 site and we are talking about it as it relates to the
14:40:59 distance between the church and the business.
14:41:03 I certainly don't want this to be construed, sir, as
14:41:06 saying you're responsible for what's going on here.
14:41:08 But the point is that another additional 2(APS) that

14:41:12 exacerbates what we have already, in addition to which
14:41:16 it's too close to institutional uses.
14:41:18 I will not be supporting it conditionally or
14:41:20 otherwise.
14:41:21 I'm very sorry.
14:41:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, just a couple.
14:41:25 I guess it was just last week, we went ahead and gave
14:41:29 the Hooters on Hillsborough Avenue, which had
14:41:32 Alexander school 300 feet from there, and a church
14:41:35 next door to that, and a recreation center next to
14:41:40 that.
14:41:42 If we are going to be consistent we have to be
14:41:44 consistent and be fair to everybody.
14:41:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Sir, do you wish to ask us for a
14:41:49 conditional at this point?
14:41:51 >>> Yes.
14:41:52 To give me a chance, one year and sea how it goes.
14:41:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: This is now a conditional
14:41:58 application.
14:41:58 So we need a motion to close the public hearing.
14:42:03 >>KEVIN WHITE: Send it back to legal to draft.
14:42:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We do?

14:42:13 >>> Right now it's not a conditional so you have to
14:42:14 send it back for us to change to the a conditional.
14:42:18 >> We need to close the public hearing to do that?
14:42:20 >>> Yes.
14:42:20 >> Move to close the public hearing.
14:42:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to close the public hearing
14:42:23 and second.
14:42:24 (Motion carried).
14:42:28 >> Move to send it to legal for drafting of the
14:42:30 conditional use.
14:42:32 Is there a second?
14:42:33 >> Second.
14:42:34 >> One year conditional.
14:42:35 >> There's a motion.
14:42:36 And a second to send this to legal to change to the a
14:42:39 conditional.
14:42:41 Is there a discussion on the motion?
14:42:45 I will pass the gavel.
14:42:47 I will not support even with a conditional at this
14:42:49 site.
14:42:49 It is 60 feet away from a daycare.
14:42:53 I'm going to stick to -- I just don't think it's

14:42:57 appropriate.
14:42:57 And I appreciate the fact that you, sir, everybody a
14:42:59 good neighbor in other places.
14:43:01 This is a different site.
14:43:03 All in favor.
14:43:05 Ms. Ferlita?
14:43:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: To defend my continuity in terms of
14:43:08 position, the reason I did support the Hooters
14:43:11 position location and the request for an upgrade on
14:43:14 their liquor status, as Mr. White said, they had been
14:43:17 there already, and they were just asking for an
14:43:20 enhancement of the same liquor license and that's the
14:43:22 reason they had proven already that they were not a
14:43:25 bad neighbor in terms of liquor sales.
14:43:27 And so I felt that those two things were a little
14:43:30 different.
14:43:31 Again I am not going to support this.
14:43:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a plosion to send this to
14:43:35 legal to prepare a conditional ordinance.
14:43:37 Any further discussion?
14:43:38 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:43:40 Opposed, Nay.

14:43:42 >>THE CLERK: Harrison, Ferlita and white voting no.
14:43:46 >> This will carry over into next week's agenda and
14:43:49 will be on the agenda as a motion to send this to
14:43:51 legal to prepare a one-year conditional.
14:43:57 >> Will Ms. Miller be back next week?
14:43:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: She will be back next week.
14:44:01 We need a motion to open item 67.
14:44:06 (Motion Carried).
14:44:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: 67 is now open.
14:44:19 >>> A quick question on this one to cut to the chase
14:44:22 S.this to expand the use just to include the sidewalk?
14:44:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's correct.
14:44:32 Is that enough?
14:44:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
14:44:35 >>> I can be really quick.
14:44:37 1704 East 7th Avenue, Green Iguana bar and grill, they
14:44:41 have a 4(COP).
14:44:42 They are asking for 4(COP-X) in connection with a
14:44:44 sidewalk cafe.
14:44:45 Staff has no objection.
14:44:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does it change the inside?
14:44:49 >>> No.

14:44:50 >> Just for the outside.
14:44:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Cathy, you said an X and this is no X.
14:44:55 What are they asking for?
14:44:58 >>> Are you looking at the agenda?
14:44:59 The agenda is incorrect.
14:45:00 The staff report is.
14:45:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: The current status inside is 4(COP) or
14:45:06 4(COP-R)?
14:45:09 >>> 4(COP).
14:45:11 And you want to do the sidewalk cafe.
14:45:17 This is for the permit.
14:45:18 The actual sidewalk permit.
14:45:20 This was wet zoning.
14:45:26 >>> TPD, officer Miller, we have in a objection.
14:45:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:45:29 Petitioner?
14:45:32 >>> Karen Rhoder with the Green Iguana bar and grill.
14:45:36 We are just asking for a couple tables that we have in
14:45:39 front for sidewalk cafe for wet zoning.
14:45:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
14:45:44 would like to speak on item 67?
14:45:47 >> Move to close.

14:45:47 >> Second.
14:45:47 (Motion carried)
14:45:57 >> Motion and second to move the resolution.
14:45:58 (Motion carried)
14:46:04 Congratulations.
14:46:06 >>: Move to open 68.
14:46:08 >> Second.
14:46:08 (Motion carried).
14:46:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Number 68 is open.
14:46:21 Staff.
14:46:22 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:46:23 The request for the 2(COP-R) located at 2202 west
14:46:27 Waters Avenue, suite 7, is before you.
14:46:30 There is one wet zoned property within 1 that you feet
14:46:32 which is 7-Eleven convenience store, one residential
14:46:35 property within 650 feet on Juno street.
14:46:39 You will note this is the corner of celery and waters.
14:46:54 This is a diagram.
14:46:57 This is the one lease space.
14:47:02 Staff had no objections.
14:47:09 >>> Officer Miller, City of Tampa police department.
14:47:11 We have no objections.

14:47:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:47:13 Petitioner.
14:47:13 Put your name and address on the record, if you would.
14:47:17 >>> I have already been sworn in.
14:47:22 We intend to operate a more upscale restaurant,
14:47:24 serving Mexican dishes.
14:47:29 We would like ...
14:47:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Excellent.
14:47:38 Anyone to speak on item 68?
14:47:41 >> Motion to close.
14:47:42 >> Second.
14:47:42 (Motion carried).
14:47:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have an ordinance on this one?
14:47:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Again with your good eyesight,
14:48:02 residential across waters?
14:48:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we have another survey issue?
14:48:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It says closest residential on
14:48:15 Juno, which that's probably the closest single-family
14:48:18 residential.
14:48:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't know if this might be all a
14:48:25 mistake, or is it a survey issue?
14:48:30 If it's a survey, we might have to go back to the

14:48:32 drawing board.
14:48:33 Cathy, did you hear the concern?
14:48:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I believe it's a residential issue
14:48:40 again?
14:48:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:48:41 Right across waters.
14:48:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Looks like there's an apartment
14:48:46 complex with a swimming pool or something?
14:48:51 >>> That is an apartment complex, yes.
14:48:53 Let me look at the survey.
14:48:56 Same surveyor.
14:49:07 He only certified the Juno street.
14:49:13 We called him on the other petition and he can have it
14:49:15 back in two weeks.
14:49:16 Maybe we can call him bang and have him do it at the
14:49:19 same time.
14:49:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's continue it to the same time.
14:49:22 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You I guess we can do both if you
14:49:24 want.
14:49:26 >>THE CLERK: You haven't moved on the other one
14:49:28 because you were waiting to find out how long.
14:49:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Oh, yes.

14:49:32 So he says two weeks.
14:49:35 Ooh.
14:49:35 >>> He can Vermont back when we meet again in two
14:49:38 weeks, and submit the corrected survey to us, to give
14:49:41 you the proper number for the waiver.
14:49:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: He needs to recertify his surveying
14:49:47 lay sense.
14:49:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, Ms. Saul-Sena, because
14:49:54 what comes back if there were in fact residence that
14:49:56 is need to be noticed especially if there's a waiver
14:49:59 involved.
14:50:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They would have gotten a notice.
14:50:03 >> Huh-uh.
14:50:07 >>> The notice provisions are different.rose
14:50:19 >>> The only time they would not have received noticed
14:50:22 if they were and should have, is if they were outside
14:50:25 the 250 feet that were within the 1,000 feet which
14:50:28 would require a waiver.
14:50:29 So if they were within the 250 feet they would have
14:50:34 had notice anyway.
14:50:35 I don't know how close they are.
14:50:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think what we ought to do since

14:50:39 this is not our fault, I think two weeks is a little
14:50:42 ambitious.
14:50:43 I think a month would probably be more accurate.
14:50:45 Sorry about that, petitioner, but you got a bad
14:50:47 survey.
14:50:51 >>THE CLERK: Item 68 you need to reopen your public
14:50:54 hearing.
14:50:54 >>: Move to reopen.
14:50:56 >> Second.
14:50:56 (Motion carried).
14:50:57 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have a motion to continue item
14:50:58 68.
14:50:59 And what was the other one?
14:51:02 >> I believe 65.
14:51:03 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion to open 65 and 68 for 30 days
14:51:07 which will be 10 a.m. on what date, Sandy?
14:51:10 >>THE CLERK: 30 days would be October 19th.
14:51:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
14:51:16 >> Second.
14:51:17 (Motion carried).
14:51:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just to make sure, Ms. Coyle and
14:51:24 petitioner, maybe we should make sure that there's a

14:51:30 neighborhood association and doing all the other
14:51:31 things.
14:51:31 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can check with the clerk later on
14:51:34 to make sure the notice --
14:51:36 >> Thank you very much.
14:51:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It would be all right for you to check
14:51:39 the surveys as they come in and make sure it's not the
14:51:42 same surveyor?
14:51:46 >>> We normally do collect the surveys, to be quite
14:51:49 honest with you.
14:51:50 We take their certified information.
14:51:55 >> Well, if this surveyor is the same one that's doing
14:51:57 it, maybe you need to check him out.
14:52:00 >>> He does a lot of surveys in the city.
14:52:03 >> Oh, don't say that.
14:52:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We need a motion to open item 69.
14:52:10 Motion and second.
14:52:11 Item 69 is open.
14:52:15 Cathy, do you have a staff report on 69 or 70?
14:52:21 >>> This is for second reading.
14:52:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I know.
14:52:25 Any staff to put on these?

14:52:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's part of that mediated
14:52:33 settlement agreement for the designation of the
14:52:37 Woolworth.
14:52:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Is there anyone in the public that
14:52:43 wants to speak on 69?
14:52:44 >> Move to close.
14:52:45 >> Second.
14:52:45 (Motion carried).
14:52:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If could you give that to Mr. White.
14:52:52 Would you handle that one?
14:52:53 >>KEVIN WHITE: 69.
14:52:56 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
14:52:59 rescinding ordinance 2006-67 which designated the
14:53:02 facade of the property known as the J.J. Newberry
14:53:05 building located at 815 North Franklin Street, Tampa,
14:53:08 Florida as an addition to the North Franklin Street
14:53:10 downtown local landmark multiple properties group as
14:53:13 more particularly described in section 3 hereof as a
14:53:16 local landmark, providing an effective date.
14:53:18 >> Discussion on the motion?
14:53:21 Voice roll call.
14:53:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being

14:53:31 absent and Saul-Sena voting no and Miller being
14:53:34 absent.
14:53:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Need a motion to open number 70.
14:53:39 >> So moved.
14:53:40 >> Second.
14:53:40 (Motion carried).
14:53:41 >> Is there anyone in the public that would like to be
14:53:43 speak on item number 70?
14:53:45 >> Move to close.
14:53:46 >> Motion to close and a second.
14:53:48 (Motion Carried).
14:53:48 >> Ms. Ferlita, would you read 70, please?
14:53:53 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance of the city of
14:53:58 Tampa, Florida rescinding ordinance 2006-68 which
14:54:01 designated the facade of the property known as F.W.
14:54:04 Woolworth building located at 801 North Franklin
14:54:07 Street, Tampa, Florida, as an addition to the North
14:54:09 Franklin Street downtown local landmark multiple
14:54:13 properties group, as more particularly described in
14:54:15 section 3 hereof, as a local landmark, providing an
14:54:18 effective date.
14:54:19 >> We have a motion and a second.

14:54:21 Any discussion on the motion?
14:54:22 Roll call vote.
14:54:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Miller
14:54:31 being absent and Saul-Sena voting no.
14:54:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
14:54:36 Information reports and new business by council
14:54:38 members.
14:54:39 Starting with Ms. Saul-Sena.
14:54:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On October 19th we have
14:54:45 scheduled a report from Paula Dine, Allen Wright.
14:54:50 Wind if we can schedule that for the following week at
14:54:53 10:00.
14:54:55 Looking at the calendar it looks like there's only one
14:54:57 thing on the 26th and --
14:55:02 >>SHAWN HARRISON: At 10:00?
14:55:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At 10:00, yes.
14:55:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's a motion.
14:55:07 Is there a second?
14:55:08 Motion and second.
14:55:09 Any discussion?
14:55:11 (Motion Carried)
14:55:16 Ms. Alvarez?

14:55:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one thing.
14:55:22 I had a notice from someone in the Westshore alliance
14:55:26 about banners on Kennedy Boulevard.
14:55:35 >> Let me ask for a report back.
14:55:37 I asked legal.
14:55:38 >>> I believe I am supposed to be come back next week
14:55:41 to discuss that.
14:55:43 >> Thank you.
14:55:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14:55:46 Just a couple of things.
14:55:47 As you all probably received as well, got several
14:55:51 letters from constituents on the homeless issue and
14:55:55 last week, I believe it was, actually the week before,
14:56:00 we had concerns about what the church was doing based
14:56:02 out of Temple Terrace, trying to get an appointment
14:56:04 with the mayor, and I assumed it was on the
14:56:08 nontelevised portion of the program.
14:56:10 But I thought he had had an opportunity to talk to the
14:56:13 mayor.
14:56:13 In fact he had not.
14:56:15 He down played that a little bit.
14:56:17 He spoke with major Degara who helped him quite a bit.

14:56:22 Because of all these letters and because we haven't
14:56:24 had an update lately about homeless issues on this
14:56:28 coalition, et cetera, I would like in two weeks, I
14:56:31 guess our representative on that -- correct me if I am
14:56:34 wrong if anybody knows -- Fran Davin had something to
14:56:37 do with that.
14:56:39 But I think people still are confused about what their
14:56:43 churches want to do, what their groups want to do in
14:56:47 terms of the homeless, that at the same time not
14:56:51 violating any kind of ordinance they may have or
14:56:53 process.
14:56:54 I would like somebody to give us a five-minute
14:56:58 presentation and let us know what the rules are so
14:57:00 people know.
14:57:02 That's the motion in two weeks.
14:57:04 >> Motion and second.
14:57:05 Discussion?
14:57:08 (Motion carried)
14:57:08 Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
14:57:09 One quick thing, not to incite any kind of heated
14:57:13 discussion here but referring back to last week, and
14:57:15 the 2% millage rate that caused 2.3 mills to be taken

14:57:23 off of the windfall, not a budget cut but a windfall
14:57:26 of $28.5 million, of course, for whatever reasons, and
14:57:31 we don't need to rehash that, we were put in a
14:57:34 position where we had to discuss it at the last minute
14:57:36 and everybody's patience was very thin, et cetera,
14:57:40 et cetera.
14:57:40 I know I have to qualify this and I can't say in terms
14:57:42 of emotion administration get something to us so we
14:57:45 can look at it before Thursday morning's meeting.
14:57:47 But I am asking that the administration, in an effort
14:57:49 to be courteous to the constituents than when all
14:57:53 represent, to try to get that to us maybe perhaps at
14:57:56 the first of the week or as soon as possible, so that
14:57:58 we can look at it, and I think we have all separately
14:58:03 but together said we were going to look at things that
14:58:05 might be reasons we could cut or where we could cut
14:58:08 without cutting services, so if we have an opportunity
14:58:10 to look at what their suggestion is they might agree,
14:58:12 disagree or give some constructive additions to that.
14:58:18 Just so when don't have to have that last minute thing
14:58:20 and not know what's in front of us.
14:58:22 Just asking.

14:58:23 But it sure would be nice if we saw their suggestions
14:58:25 and we had an opportunity to share ours with them and
14:58:28 come to some sort of agreement that would help our
14:58:30 constituents in this city.
14:58:33 Not a motion, just a suggestion.
14:58:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Okay.
14:58:37 Ms. Ferlita, I agree with you, and I think -- I don't
14:58:41 know that we need to schedule a public special
14:58:46 discussion meeting but it would seem to me when we
14:58:49 receive what their recommendations are, we should have
14:58:54 as much time as we possibly can to digest it, and to
14:58:59 Michael alternative suggestions, or for us to discuss
14:59:02 it amongst ourselves, so that everyone is not coming
14:59:06 in here on Thursday night -- we have a bunch of
14:59:11 different ideas and we have never had a chance to talk
14:59:13 about them.
14:59:14 And I do note that we have a -- we have a workshop on
14:59:17 the Gandy transportation study on Tuesday, I believe,
14:59:21 right?
14:59:23 >>: Right.
14:59:26 >> So Mr. Shelby, procedurally, it would be
14:59:28 appropriate for us to schedule, say, a 30-minute

14:59:34 special discussion on that same date, so in the event
14:59:39 we do have the administration's proposed budget we
14:59:41 have an opportunity then to discuss that amongst
14:59:44 ourselves, and invite someone from the administration
14:59:46 to be here and have some indication of where we all
14:59:49 might be going prior to next Thursday night?
14:59:55 >>> I'm sorry, I was in discussion with counsel. What
14:59:57 date were you suggesting?
14:59:59 >> We have a workshop.
15:00:03 >> At the convention center.
15:00:04 >> What is the date?
15:00:05 26th?
15:00:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I believe that time is
15:00:12 scheduled for nine to eleven or 9:30 to 30.
15:00:18 11:30 but in a later than 11:30 and my understanding
15:00:21 is that Mr. Daignault and the staff are going to have
15:00:24 quite an extensive discussion.
15:00:26 I don't even know whether two hours is enough time for
15:00:28 that issue.
15:00:31 In the south of Gandy study.
15:00:32 So I see Mr. Smith approaching the lectern.
15:00:36 So I will very carefully defer.

15:00:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm happy you're here because you
15:00:44 appear to be a very reasonable part of this
15:00:45 administration so what do you think?
15:00:47 All I'm saying is opposed to putting it at the
15:00:50 eleventh hour, and it becomes administration versus
15:00:53 us, us versus administration and the citizens
15:00:55 contained of stand on the wayside.
15:00:57 It doesn't make any suggestion --
15:01:00 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, city attorney.
15:01:03 You will have a complete set Monday morning so you
15:01:06 will have everything you need to evaluate and GOP
15:01:08 through that information, prepare for whatever it is
15:01:11 you want to say Thursday evening.
15:01:15 Now, I left after you had mentioned that, I thought
15:01:19 you came in and we were talking about perhaps a
15:01:21 workshop.
15:01:22 You have got a problem there, because the statute
15:01:24 unfortunately, particularly in the section that deals
15:01:26 with the taxpayers Bill of Rights, specifically sets
15:01:29 up a procedure.
15:01:30 And the intent is for the taxpayers to hear all of
15:01:33 your deliberations.

15:01:34 And the first hearing, you set the date for the second
15:01:37 hearing.
15:01:38 So I think what you are going to need to do is start
15:01:41 that hearing at the time appointed because the statute
15:01:44 requires it be after 5:00.
15:01:46 Start your hearing 5:00 on that Thursday.
15:01:49 Use that time as necessary to talk about the budget
15:01:52 internally before you take any additional info, if you
15:01:54 need any additional input.
15:01:56 But I have been told you will have the information
15:01:58 Monday.
15:01:58 I know that the folks over there are working very hard
15:02:00 to get that information.
15:02:02 I know I provided my comments with respect to my
15:02:05 budget.
15:02:05 And so I don't see why it would be a problem.
15:02:08 So you should have it in plenty of time to evaluate.
15:02:10 Okay?
15:02:11 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's fine.
15:02:12 Okay.
15:02:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's all, Mr. Harrison, thank you.
15:02:20 >>KEVIN WHITE: I want to thank all the council members

15:02:22 that came out to the 40th street ground breaking
15:02:24 this week especially those of you who serve who I
15:02:27 serve on the MPO with, chairman, councilman Harrison
15:02:33 and Saul-Sena, who was out there as well, long-time
15:02:36 coming.
15:02:36 I'm sure the residents of 40th Street appreciate
15:02:39 it.
15:02:39 I want to thank the body for voting for that.
15:02:42 Also, this Saturday at nine we'll be doing the ribbon
15:02:45 cutting at the Highland pines activity center.
15:02:47 And this Saturday at 10:30 we'll be doing the ribbon
15:02:51 cutting for the long-awaited EPC -- which is in a
15:02:57 longer in effect, in the Belmont Heights area at
15:03:00 22nd and MLK, and those two projects have been
15:03:04 long coming and well awaited in the community.
15:03:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Excellent work, Mr. White.
15:03:09 Is that it, sir?
15:03:11 Okay, Ms. Saul-Sena.
15:03:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I will be very quick.
15:03:15 It's Rosh Hashana and I asked staff not to have ribbon
15:03:19 cutting.
15:03:19 It was an oversight, I'm sure.

15:03:24 In November, I was reading our calendar.
15:03:27 I'm not clear on whether or not we only have one
15:03:30 nature for rezoning.
15:03:31 But given the number of rezonings that we just stacked
15:03:35 up in October, I wondered if maybe, since there are
15:03:39 three Thursdays in November, and one big holiday, if
15:03:42 maybe we should schedule for the evening the 16th
15:03:46 when we need to be here anyway for plan amendment.
15:03:48 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:03:50 You have a significant number of plan amendments on
15:03:51 the 16th already.
15:03:54 And you just moved the joint land use study to that
15:03:56 nature as well.
15:03:59 It's over 10.
15:04:00 It may be less than 15.
15:04:01 I don't know the exact number but it's a significant
15:04:03 number.
15:04:04 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, hang on a minute.
15:04:07 I don't remember moving the joint land use study yet.
15:04:11 We can't do that until 5:01.
15:04:13 >>> I'm sorry, I apologize.
15:04:14 You are correct.

15:04:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My fellow council members, looking
15:04:20 at November, in order to make December not completely
15:04:23 insane, I'm wondering if we should, everyone though I
15:04:25 know that the clerk doesn't really want to work --
15:04:29 anyway, I think we should consider having a night
15:04:31 meeting on the 9th, which is the second Thursday
15:04:35 which is when we usually have meetings and I believe
15:04:38 the request is not to have it on the 9th because
15:04:40 it's veterans holiday being on the 10th.
15:04:43 I just think we need to have that meeting.
15:04:44 Because otherwise December is going to be even
15:04:47 crazier.
15:04:48 I just bring that up.
15:04:49 >>THE CLERK: The only problem we would have would be
15:04:52 the publications that require --
15:04:56 >> We haven't set the meetings yet.
15:04:57 I'm tell you that if we have a meeting on the 9th,
15:05:00 then we could -- the things that get continued from
15:05:03 all the meetings in September and October, we could
15:05:05 have it on the 9th.
15:05:07 Otherwise, I think December is just going to be like
15:05:09 till 3 in the morning, and I would like to point out

15:05:13 for Mr. White and Ms. Ferlita that you gays don't have
15:05:16 to be here.
15:05:18 We do.
15:05:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's a reason why maybe we shouldn't
15:05:24 vote.
15:05:24 >>THE CLERK: First reading, they would be published on
15:05:27 three weeks, the following November 30th, and you
15:05:30 are trying to keep that agenda light because that's
15:05:32 the day for your interviews with your potential
15:05:35 candidates.
15:05:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: why don't we deal with this next
15:05:42 week?
15:05:46 >> The reason I think we should do it now is things
15:05:48 are stacking up and if we are going to do it, we are
15:05:50 going to do it.
15:05:51 In my opinion, it's better to have -- otherwise,
15:05:55 December is just going to be incredibly slammed.
15:05:59 And the meeting of the 9th is the second Thursday,
15:06:02 and, you know, if we could even knock off five
15:06:05 rezonings that night that could mean five --
15:06:11 >>> Trying to get the agenda out for the follow week,
15:06:13 also.

15:06:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let me say, on November 7th I will
15:06:19 either have a lot of time or a lot of time depending
15:06:22 on winning or losing so it is really not that
15:06:24 burdensome for me.
15:06:25 But I think since you have two other council members
15:06:27 that will be part of the ongoing process, I think it
15:06:30 would be -- you should look at it when they are here.
15:06:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like the clerk to come to
15:06:38 us next week with Land Development Coordination with a
15:06:41 sense of October, November and December, and what the
15:06:43 implications are for doing this or not doing this in
15:06:45 terms of petitions and when they are going to be
15:06:49 heard.
15:06:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:06:51 The way that we have taken cases and scheduled them
15:06:53 tentatively for hearing, on the we are on the second
15:06:57 meeting in January now taking in cases for that
15:06:59 nature.
15:06:59 When you add a new hearing, once we are already booked
15:07:01 up that far, it's my recommendation that you use that
15:07:05 kind of catch-all for continued cases or for
15:07:09 misnoticed cases so we don't push into cases that are

15:07:12 timely submitted and in the sense they are moving
15:07:15 forward at a certain time.
15:07:16 So whenever you add them, I would recommend --
15:07:19 >> If could you give thaws information, that will be
15:07:20 the basis.
15:07:24 >>> Sure.
15:07:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have two items.
15:07:26 When we raised the permit fees recently, and we had an
15:07:30 unintended consequence, the Jaycees have come to me
15:07:34 and they will be coming to you to advise that their
15:07:37 bench permits, which I didn't even know there was such
15:07:40 a thing, went from three dollars to ten dollars per
15:07:43 bench.
15:07:43 And that means the Jaycees, which is a charitable
15:07:46 organization for all intents and purposes, their costs
15:07:50 ever doing their bench project has gone up something
15:07:52 like four fold.
15:07:54 So I would like for us to take a look at revising that
15:08:00 ordinance, so that if the benches that you are putting
15:08:06 out contain public service announcements, or are
15:08:09 advertising for charitable organization, that we
15:08:13 somehow -- we cut the fee in half, or just think about

15:08:16 this.
15:08:16 Because I think there's going to be a fairly
15:08:18 significant impact on them.
15:08:19 And they are doing a community service.
15:08:21 >>CATHERINE COYLE: These are the fees through chapter
15:08:24 22, I believe.
15:08:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So could we maybe schedule this for
15:08:29 a staff report discussion next Thursday during old
15:08:31 business?
15:08:33 Reduction of the bench permit fees for benches that
15:08:37 contain public service announcements.
15:08:43 >>CATHERINE COYLE: And for nonprofits.
15:08:45 Are you looking for back to $3 or some other -- it's
15:08:49 cost associated.
15:08:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm looking to you all for some
15:08:55 direction here.
15:08:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to add onto that, the
15:09:00 reason staff looks at these, are they in the right
15:09:03 place and are they ADA compliant?
15:09:06 There's a lot of stuff that bench placement can be
15:09:08 good or bad.
15:09:09 If you just comment on the whole picture of bench ad

15:09:15 permitting.
15:09:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Got it, Cathy?
15:09:19 Motion and second.
15:09:19 (Motion carried)
15:09:20 And I have one more thing.
15:09:22 I received a request from a neighborhood group that we
15:09:29 need to take a comprehensive look at our
15:09:32 transportation code when it comes to petitions, and
15:09:36 they have a whole litany of items they would like us
15:09:39 to look at.
15:09:39 Most particularly is about traffic patterns.
15:09:41 Apparently our code only requires to us look at A.M.
15:09:48 and P.M. peeks generated and they would like to us
15:09:51 expand that so we look at origin and destination.
15:09:56 We need to take a serious look at this.
15:09:58 And we do have a discussion on the transportation
15:10:01 concurrency exception area.
15:10:03 I think that's for -- is that next Tuesday?
15:10:07 So I'm going to give you this, Cathy.
15:10:10 And let's be prepared to talk about some of the points
15:10:14 of that.
15:10:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If would you like my input on it.

15:10:17 I used to do transportation analyses when I was in the
15:10:20 private sector.
15:10:21 And doing -- gathering that information for origin and
15:10:24 destination is very labor intensive.
15:10:26 I can tell you, you actually have to put not field
15:10:30 surveyors but people out in the field to actually
15:10:32 question every single person that comes in and asking
15:10:35 them where they come and go from.
15:10:39 You can make tens of thousands more but we can report
15:10:44 back to you.
15:10:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Let's hear about it.
15:10:46 So that's a motion as well.
15:10:47 Motion and second.
15:10:47 (Motion carried)
15:10:50 Is there any further business to come before council?
15:10:52 We need a motion to receive and file all documents.
15:10:55 Motion and second.
15:10:56 (Motion Carried).
15:10:57 >>THE CLERK: We have several other items.
15:11:00 We do have the resolution to reset the public hearing
15:11:04 of the DRI to October 26th at 6 p.m.
15:11:08 We need to that resolution.

15:11:10 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
15:11:12 (Motion carried).
15:11:13 >>THE CLERK: We have also the resolution to reset the
15:11:18 area rezoning for Central Park to October 26 at 5:01.
15:11:23 (Motion carried).
15:11:26 >>THE CLERK: Last Thursday council set three wet
15:11:28 zoning public hearings for October 19th for
15:11:36 MacDill Avenue, 2303 west Hillsborough, two
15:11:39 locations for Kash N' Karry.
15:11:40 We were unable to meet the publication requirement due
15:11:43 to short notice.
15:11:44 We tried to get it in the paper and they didn't have
15:11:47 sufficient space to run the ads so we are asking to
15:11:51 set for October 26th to accommodate the
15:11:53 petitioners.
15:11:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: At what time?
15:11:57 >>THE CLERK: At 10:00.
15:11:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion and second.
15:11:59 (Motion carried).
15:12:00 >>THE CLERK: That's all I have.
15:12:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder to council.
15:12:05 9:00 2349 morning next Tuesday the 26th of

15:12:08 September at the convention center will be the special
15:12:11 discussion meeting on the TCEA and the south of Gandy
15:12:15 study.
15:12:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
15:12:17 Is there anything else to come before council?
15:12:20 We'll go to audience comments.
15:12:24 Anyone in the public to address council on any issue?
15:12:27 Seeing none we are adjourned to 5:01 this evening.
15:12:30 We need four people here to open this meeting.