Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, November 2, 2006
8:30 a.m CRA (not held)
9:00 a.m. City Council

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


09:05:37 [Sounding gavel]
09:05:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:05:44 The chair will yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita.
09:05:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Good morning.
09:05:52 Colleagues, good morning.
09:05:54 Ladies and gentlemen, good morning as well.
09:05:55 It is my pleasure this morning to introduce my guest,
09:05:58 Reverend Bernie Lieving, Hyde Park United Methodist
09:06:03 Church on Platt Street.
09:06:07 He received his masters in divinity from United
09:06:11 Theological Seminary.
09:06:12 He also holds two other masters degrees in education.
09:06:15 He's married to his wife Dorothy and has three grown
09:06:18 children.
09:06:18 Following his retirement from the Army, which was
09:06:22 around 27 years as an Army chaplain, he came to Hyde
09:06:25 Park United methodist where he continues to serve as
09:06:28 the care pastor.
09:06:31 We are glad to have him here with us this morning to
09:06:33 lead us in invocation and our prayer.
09:06:35 I ask that everyone please stand while the Reverend
09:06:37 Lieving leads us in prayer and also remain standing
09:06:39 for the pledge of allegiance.
09:06:41 Reverend, thank you for joining us.
09:06:44 >>> Thank you.
09:06:44 And I invite all of you now in the -- in what is
09:06:48 appropriate for your faith tradition, if you bow your
09:06:50 heads with me and close your eyes or leave your head
09:06:54 up and your eyes open.

09:06:55 But let's pray together.
09:06:56 Holy, eternal God, as we gather this morning to begin
09:07:00 the business of the City Council, we pause.
09:07:11 And give thanks for the last night of rest.
09:07:15 We are grateful for this nation and heritage of
09:07:19 freedom and to the men and women who wear the very
09:07:21 uniforms of our military forces and for defense.
09:07:25 We lift in prayer before you now all elected and
09:07:28 appointed city officials, Mayor Iorio, and especially
09:07:33 in this moment these men and women of the City
09:07:35 Council.
09:07:36 Thank you for their commitment to serve the city and
09:07:38 its residents.
09:07:39 Grant to them, we pray, the wisdom, courage, patience,
09:07:45 and strength for their tasks today.
09:07:49 Save them from any confusion or pride or arrogance
09:07:52 that will hinder them in their duties.
09:07:55 Help all of us never to take for granted the beauty of
09:07:57 this city that we call home, and the commitment of all
09:08:01 of those who serve to keep our city safe and clean.
09:08:06 With great Thanksgiving, we offer these our prayers in
09:08:10 your most holy name.

09:08:11 Amen.
09:08:13 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:08:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:08:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:08:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:08:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:08:45 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:08:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
09:08:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:08:47 Before we start our agenda, we have a group of
09:08:52 visitors this morning.
09:08:53 It's the third week you have had students here from
09:08:56 McFarland elementary magnet school.
09:08:59 And they are here to study.
09:09:04 They have been visiting to find a better understanding
09:09:06 of local government and how it works.
09:09:12 I have one of my special youngest constituents here
09:09:16 this morning.
09:09:16 And she is Riley Johnson visiting here today.
09:09:21 Would you raise your hand?
09:09:24 He worked in my campaign and knows a lot about
09:09:29 government and was really helpful in my campaign.

09:09:37 Riley, glad to have you here with your class this
09:09:39 morning.
09:09:40 There are two other students that I would like to do a
09:09:43 recognition to council members.
09:10:14 >> Good morning Madam Chair.
09:10:16 I'm Karen.
09:10:19 This is my classmate.
09:10:24 School for international studies.
09:10:27 >> We are studying different types of government in
09:10:30 social studies.
09:10:31 We are hear to learn about the city government of
09:10:35 Tampa, Florida.
09:10:36 Thank you for allowing us to come to your meeting.
09:10:41 [ Applause ]
09:10:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We would like to thank you all for
09:10:50 being with us and I know your teacher is going to give
09:10:52 you extra credit for being here.
09:10:54 So don't worry about it.
09:10:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to go to our sign-in
09:11:27 sheets for staff.
09:11:29 We have Kathryn.
09:11:39 >> Catherine Ginster, on behalf of the legal

09:11:42 department, to announce a public hearing on a
09:11:45 brownfield application.
09:11:48 The state normally only requires two public hearings
09:11:51 in front of council for a brownfield application.
09:11:55 And in this particular situation, because of property
09:11:58 falls outside of the designated statutory area, any of
09:12:07 the sites to allow for the neighbors to give input.
09:12:11 And this property is located on the southwest corner
09:12:14 of white street and Laurel street, and the written
09:12:22 memorandum with the actual announcement.
09:12:31 The public hearings required by the state statute.
09:12:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Is there a specific time you wanted to
09:12:37 us do this?
09:12:39 >>> Yes.
09:12:40 In the announcement I do. Public hearing will be held
09:12:42 regarding the proposed brownfield designation.
09:12:45 It's going to be held at the Hilton Tampa Airport,
09:12:48 Westshore hotel, 2226 North Lois Avenue, Tampa,
09:12:53 Florida 33602 on Thursday, November 9th, 2006,
09:13:02 6 p.m. until not later than 8 p.m
09:13:07 Would you like a copy of the announcement?
09:13:08 >> We have it already.

09:13:12 Can we get a motion?
09:13:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:13:14 >> Second.
09:13:14 (Motion carried).
09:13:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to read that?
09:13:24 >> Yes.
09:13:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does the chair have to read it or can
09:13:29 it be a member of council?
09:13:32 >>> A member of council can.
09:13:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Public hearing will be held regarding
09:13:36 a proposed brownfield designation applied for by NHG
09:13:41 Tampa LLC and the Pippin Hotel Group, Inc., at the
09:13:44 site located at the southwest corner of West Spruce
09:13:45 Street and Laurel street, Tampa, Florida. 33602.
09:13:49 This public hearing will be held at the Hilton Tampa
09:13:52 Airport Westshore hotel, 2226 north Lois Avenue Tampa,
09:13:57 Florida 33602 on Thursday, November 9th, 2006,
09:14:01 between 6 p.m. until not later than 8 p.m.
09:14:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:14:10 Will you provide information to us about what
09:14:12 transpired at this meeting?
09:14:13 I read that we don't have to attend but you will let

09:14:15 us know what sort of testimony you received?
09:14:18 >>> Yes, we will.
09:14:21 Thank you.
09:14:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Sal Territo.
09:14:25 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department here for two items.
09:14:28 I would like to ask you to withdraw item number 26
09:14:31 dealing with a supplemental resolution that we are
09:14:33 doing on a bond issue.
09:14:36 Pull that and resubmit it this week in doc agenda.
09:14:39 We are making some changes on the documentation so we
09:14:41 would like to withdraw that for today and resubmit it
09:14:43 for you for next week.
09:14:44 >>KEVIN WHITE: So moved.
09:14:46 >> Second.
09:14:46 (Motion carried).
09:14:47 >>SAL TERRITO: The second item is item number 22.
09:14:51 It's a reimbursement resolution dealing with a future
09:14:55 bond issue.
09:14:55 The IRS requires us to do a reimbursement resolution
09:14:59 if we are going to be incurring any cost prior to the
09:15:02 issuance of the bond -- prior to the issuing bonds.
09:15:10 The numbers got mixed up.

09:15:11 We have 320,000.
09:15:14 It should have been 32 million. Commas got misplaced.
09:15:16 I'll give you the correct resolution for 32 million
09:15:17 instead of 320,000.
09:15:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:15:23 >> Second.
09:15:24 (Motion carried).
09:15:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Catherine Ginster again.
09:15:36 >>> Me again.
09:15:37 I'm here on item number 7 which is the management
09:15:43 ordinance to suggest that the revised ordinance that
09:15:47 you received yesterday be substituted -- grease
09:15:51 management ordinance be substituted for one that is
09:15:53 currently on the agenda.
09:15:59 >>GWEN MILLER: She's going to hold 7 until we get to
09:16:01 unfinished business.
09:16:03 With we have people to speak on it so we'll hold up.
09:16:08 Cathy Coyle.
09:16:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:16:24 This is regarding item number 62.
09:16:27 I have been on vacation for the past several weeks and
09:16:29 I was unable to transmit these documents to you ahead

09:16:31 of time.
09:16:33 If you like, given the nature of the language that you
09:16:35 have before you, this is related to the rezoning in
09:16:39 the Channel District regulation revision.
09:16:41 If you would like to take the next week to review
09:16:43 those, I can certainly come back at 1:30 next week.
09:16:47 I believe the discussion may take longer than ten
09:16:50 minutes.
09:16:52 I have met with individual council members ahead of
09:16:54 time and the discussion has been 30 to ha minutes to
09:16:57 go over the issues.
09:16:58 So I think maybe an after-lunch session may be better
09:17:02 suited so that you can ask your questions and
09:17:04 hopefully I can give you the adequate information that
09:17:06 you need to have an open discussion.
09:17:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:17:12 I had an opportunity to discuss this with Cathy Coyle
09:17:15 and the conversation took over an hour.
09:17:17 It's really complicated.
09:17:19 And I think we do need to set time aside on Thursday
09:17:22 maybe after lunch to look at it.
09:17:23 >> There is no night meeting next week also.

09:17:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Coyle, I really would like us to
09:17:30 meet with you on this.
09:17:33 >>> Absolutely.
09:17:34 I can make myself available in the next week.
09:17:36 >> Check with my aide, please.
09:17:43 And I'd like to make a motion that we do meet at 1:30
09:17:47 next week.
09:17:48 >> Second.
09:17:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
09:17:49 Mr. Dingfelder?
09:17:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe the better approach would be
09:17:52 to have legal talk with us individually.
09:17:59 Some of us might take 15 minutes.
09:18:01 Some might take longer than that hour.
09:18:03 Depending on different factors.
09:18:05 And then we could just put it into the normal part of
09:18:09 the meeting.
09:18:12 Because at that point we would all have discussed it
09:18:16 with you.
09:18:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I just wanted to say, Mr. Dingfelder,
09:18:21 that while she may discuss it with us all, we all have
09:18:24 different opinions.

09:18:25 Like I really have a lot of things that I would want
09:18:27 to change in what's before us.
09:18:29 And because of sunshine I can't tell you ahead of time
09:18:33 with all my writing on the memo.
09:18:36 And some of the background on this.
09:18:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: By way of background, council, very
09:18:52 briefly, as you know, the Channel District plan, and
09:18:59 what you have before you is the proposed draft
09:19:01 legislation from your staff to implement the proposal
09:19:10 within that plan.
09:19:11 And as your attorney, I must remained you that you as
09:19:17 the legislative body are not legally bound to
09:19:20 implement those provisions within the plan with which
09:19:25 you disagree.
09:19:28 So what you will have the opportunity to do and what I
09:19:31 would ask that you do is look through, particularly
09:19:35 recall last week's meeting when there were issues with
09:19:40 individually and maybe collectively with which you had
09:19:42 concerns about the plan.
09:19:45 And this is an opportunity from a public policy basis
09:19:49 to look at whether these legislative proposals as a
09:19:56 whole -- and when you get down to details to review

09:20:00 them, look closely, whether they truly reflect, from a
09:20:03 public policy basis, that which this City Council
09:20:06 wishes to implement.
09:20:08 So the plan basically, ladies and gentlemen, is a
09:20:12 guide post for your professional staff to bring forth
09:20:15 regulations that are consistent with that proposal.
09:20:18 It is up to City Council to either accept it, or if it
09:20:21 has issues with any particular provision, of a
09:20:24 majority, to amend it to reflect your public policy.
09:20:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Shelby.
09:20:31 And, you know, I always listen to your advice.
09:20:34 And that's exactly why I think that we need to be
09:20:38 talked to individually.
09:20:39 Because I had no idea what this says.
09:20:42 I'm sure I have gotten this before but I haven't had a
09:20:44 chance to take a look at it.
09:20:48 So that way, when we do meet collectively, we have a
09:20:52 chance to discuss this, because if we meet together
09:21:01 like this and she's telling us, you know, what this
09:21:05 contains, it means nothing to us and we can't discuss
09:21:09 it until we hear.
09:21:10 So we would be better to have Ms. Coyle come talk to

09:21:18 us individually and that way we can ask her the
09:21:21 question and we can be intellectually ready to ask
09:21:24 questions and to talk about it when we meet next week
09:21:28 at 1:30.
09:21:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would also like to ask that you
09:21:33 make this available in some e-mail format and that you
09:21:36 alert the people in the Channel District.
09:21:39 This is coming to council at 1:30 next week so if they
09:21:42 have the opportunity to provide any feedback or input.
09:21:46 I mean, some people in the Channel District have been
09:21:48 pretty engaged in this whole process.
09:21:50 So I would really be interested in their input.
09:21:53 And the developers, too.
09:21:55 Even though we have already made decisions about 80%
09:21:57 of the land, things might be coming back to us, and
09:22:00 there's still that additional 20% which is really
09:22:02 important.
09:22:03 And the port people, too.
09:22:04 I think we really need to hear from all the folks that
09:22:08 are going to be affected by our decision busy this.
09:22:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again just to reaffirm the importance
09:22:15 of it.

09:22:15 The Channel District plan that we received is a
09:22:18 guideline.
09:22:19 When you enact this, this becomes law.
09:22:21 And you and the community are bound by it.
09:22:24 So you might want to give it some scrutiny just to
09:22:28 make sure that you are comfortable with the results.
09:22:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
09:22:34 We have a motion and second to have a work session --
09:22:40 not a work -- a workshop?
09:22:44 Okay.
09:22:47 Just discussion.
09:22:49 Okay, workshop next Thursday at 1:30.
09:22:52 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
09:22:53 Opposed, Nay.
09:22:54 (Motion Carried)
09:23:00 All right.
09:23:00 We need to approve the agenda.
09:23:02 >> So moved.
09:23:02 >> Second.
09:23:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Any items you would like to pull?
09:23:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: I note Mr. Daignault in the audience.
09:23:10 I would like some clarification on the details of item

09:23:12 21 when we come under that, under Mr. Dingfelder's
09:23:17 consent agenda.
09:23:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Clarification for point of order.
09:23:27 Would you like Mr. Daignault to handle that during
09:23:30 staff reports or wait until we get to consent?
09:23:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: If he's not here for something else
09:23:35 that's fine.
09:23:36 Steve, whatever is easier for you.
09:23:38 I don't want to you hang around just for that one but
09:23:40 I do want some clarification.
09:23:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we pull it up under
09:23:44 staff?
09:23:47 >>CHAIRMAN: Any other items?
09:23:49 Need to get a motion to approve.
09:23:51 We have a motion and second.
09:23:52 (Motion carried)
09:23:53 We go to item number 1.
09:24:09 >> Cindy Miller, director of growth management
09:24:12 development services.
09:24:13 Item number 1 was an item that was pulled from last
09:24:18 week.
09:24:18 And what I have distributed to the clerk and Mr.

09:24:23 Shelby, there's a memo to be distributed to City
09:24:27 Council, prepared by our real estate manager.
09:24:32 The item before you is an extension or an amendment to
09:24:35 an existing license for the use of city-owned property
09:24:42 which is what I guess would be best described as a
09:24:46 pocket park, 1208 east park circle.
09:24:49 And raised the issue last week as part of the audience
09:24:53 agenda.
09:24:53 And I ask with appropriate due diligence you hold this
09:24:59 for one week.
09:25:00 Way would basically outline for you is this has been
09:25:02 an ongoing area that the adjacent property owner to
09:25:08 store construction materials and such.
09:25:10 This item before you only extends this license to
09:25:15 December 10th of this year.
09:25:17 We would like to extend to the that time period.
09:25:19 What I would like to identify for you is it's true
09:25:22 that there was not a rent or monetary receipt but that
09:25:27 the homeowner in the adjacent property was to make
09:25:31 some improvements to the adjacent house and he would
09:25:35 be able to do that in that time period.
09:25:37 I think the key thing that we need to commit to you

09:25:40 and to the neighborhood is that we will do all
09:25:43 appropriate monitoring and due diligence so when that
09:25:52 comes that the property remove the debris, remove
09:25:56 construction material, take the park back to at least
09:26:00 the level that it was before the period began.
09:26:03 I understand it's been a construction area for a
09:26:05 couple of years now, and that they will make whatever
09:26:07 improvements or changes that are outlined in that
09:26:09 memo.
09:26:10 I do have something if you want me to outline that on
09:26:14 the Elmo, I also have that before you on that memo.
09:26:17 But it includes just generally to repair an existing
09:26:21 retainer wall, improve the landscaping, remove some of
09:26:25 these trees, and again to return the properties to the
09:26:29 original condition or better and to city specifics.
09:26:32 So working with parks and recreation, our real estate
09:26:34 office does intend to monitor this work.
09:26:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for clearing that up.
09:26:43 The neighbors were concerned that we were selling the
09:26:45 property to the neighbor without any opportunity for
09:26:48 public input.
09:26:49 And this really clarifies the issue.

09:26:53 When we are done I have an additional question.
09:26:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Miller, do we do this often?
09:27:02 >>> Councilwoman, this is the first time I have seen
09:27:04 it.
09:27:04 We have a park that is an actively used area.
09:27:10 This I believe started around 2003 or 2004.
09:27:14 So I think I can say with some assuredness at this
09:27:18 point that with our new management in the real estate
09:27:24 office, we don't intend to make anything as a pocket
09:27:28 park or other facility available from the without
09:27:31 informing the neighborhood.
09:27:32 And I think that was the key concern of the
09:27:35 neighborhood.
09:27:35 Yes, there was a council resolution going back to the
09:27:38 2004-2005.
09:27:41 And again it showed up on the agenda and the
09:27:46 neighborhood was not aware so we do intend to make
09:27:49 sure the neighborhood is aware and not just the
09:27:51 immediate adjacent owners.
09:27:52 >> And who removed the diseased trees and so on?
09:27:56 >>> Well, that is going to be the responsibility of
09:27:58 the party that has been occupying the site. The

09:28:02 property owners have been utilizing it.
09:28:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Miller, just like Mrs. Saul-Sena,
09:28:09 I have a generic question after we finish with this.
09:28:11 But it seems to me that first of all, I'm sorry, I
09:28:14 don't know your name, ma'am, the lady in the fourth
09:28:16 row, that brought this concern to us.
09:28:18 I'm glad that she did because I for one wasn't aware
09:28:21 of this.
09:28:21 And that seems to be unfair as far as my opinion to
09:28:25 the surrounding neighbors and residents.
09:28:27 So I'm glad that's going to be reconciled.
09:28:30 I frankly -- we did do this same type of relationship
09:28:35 or agreement with the developer next to the memorial
09:28:38 aids park on Bayshore.
09:28:40 And that was a good example because I think when they
09:28:42 finished it, they made that place so much nicer than
09:28:45 it was before.
09:28:46 That was great.
09:28:49 But I guess I will go to my generic question now
09:28:52 anyway.
09:28:52 Is that okay?
09:28:53 But something like that, you know, it doesn't have a

09:28:55 residential component immediately around it.
09:28:57 They committed to use it but they also committed to
09:29:00 improve it.
09:29:01 And I am just wondering overall what is the policy,
09:29:04 Cindy, about doing those type of things both for
09:29:07 parks, or for say, for instance, I have gotten several
09:29:10 complaints -- maybe this is not the arena but while I
09:29:13 am remembering to clean everything up on my plate as
09:29:15 we go forward the next couple of weeks, lots of people
09:29:18 have complained about the amount of time that part of
09:29:21 Ashley has been barricaded off for the Trump Tower
09:29:25 development and I know different things are going on
09:29:26 with that about who is going to take over and who is
09:29:29 not.
09:29:29 But there has to be a reasonable amount of time that
09:29:31 we allow the developer to block part of the street in
09:29:34 an area that is highly trafficked, and we still don't
09:29:38 know when that's going to go on.
09:29:39 But somebody needs to address it.
09:29:41 But probably not even you.
09:29:42 I don't know, transaction.
09:29:45 But again I think it does take coordination among all

09:29:47 of the city departments, whether it's my real estate
09:29:49 section, public works, or whether it's parks and
09:29:53 recreation.
09:29:54 And I think we should be monitoring to make sure there
09:29:57 is not undue problems for the surrounding properties,
09:30:01 or for the public.
09:30:02 >> So would that be Mr. LaMotte?
09:30:04 >> Mr. LaMotte, or I think it might be under a
09:30:07 different section of public works, Mr. Daignault.
09:30:09 >> Well, I have got kind of a laundry list of things
09:30:13 for next week.
09:30:14 I just think that there needs to be something
09:30:16 reasonable.
09:30:16 Some people care about development.
09:30:18 Some people care about getting home quicker.
09:30:20 I think there has to be a balance.
09:30:21 And that's been blocked off too, too long.
09:30:23 >> And I believe that will be again coordination
09:30:25 between the departments, construction services
09:30:27 division which is under my jurisdiction working with
09:30:29 the right-of-way section, under Mr. Daignault's.
09:30:32 I think that's the kind of thing we need to work

09:30:34 together to make sure we can address.
09:30:35 It will take coordination among a variety of us.
09:30:37 >> Okay, Cindy, thank you.
09:30:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question about the Centro
09:30:42 Espanol in West Tampa.
09:30:44 My question is, will the city in general, and will
09:30:48 council in particular, have a role to play in how that
09:30:51 property is dealt with?
09:30:52 I just wanted to share my thoughts.
09:30:56 It's a very significant building, a beautiful
09:30:58 building.
09:30:58 It's a great significance to the community.
09:31:00 And it seems to me that there should be some sort of
09:31:03 public process on a request for proposal or something
09:31:07 like that with the determination of what happens with
09:31:10 it rather than it being something that is not a public
09:31:14 process.
09:31:15 And I wonder if you could share with us what's
09:31:17 happening.
09:31:21 >> I'm sorry, but I will have to defer to Mark Huey
09:31:27 because the Centro Espanol is really under the West
09:31:31 Tampa area and I am not personally handling that

09:31:33 particular item.
09:31:34 So I don't want to give you incomplete information.
09:31:37 I think that's a question we have to defer to another
09:31:39 member of the administration.
09:31:41 >> Well then maybe this is a question for legal.
09:31:43 And that is, will it be a public process?
09:31:46 And will City Council have a role in this decision?
09:31:52 Thank you.
09:31:54 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:31:56 I'm not familiar with this issue either.
09:31:59 I would maybe request to come back later in the day or
09:32:02 maybe next week.
09:32:10 >> Thank you.
09:32:11 Other questions of Ms. Miller?
09:32:12 Okay.
09:32:12 We go to item 2.
09:32:15 >>> If I may, also on the agenda for item 12.
09:32:19 This was a motion originally, I believe, from
09:32:21 councilwoman Saul-Sena regarding what is really a
09:32:27 rather at that time complicated calculation,
09:32:31 transaction or calculation, that I am going to try to
09:32:34 explain.

09:32:37 It took me about four explanations for someone to tell
09:32:40 me what I was looking at.
09:32:41 I like math and I like numbers.
09:32:43 So I will try to explain it as quickly as possible.
09:32:49 I couldn't find an easy way to do a handout so I am
09:32:52 going to try to give an explanation.
09:32:54 About four weeks ago, I believe this question was
09:32:56 raised as to if individual families are applying for
09:33:05 our down payment assistance.
09:33:08 What was happening is that there was a very narrow
09:33:11 range that they would qualify from a salary
09:33:14 standpoint.
09:33:14 And let me just give an example.
09:33:17 We have to make sure verification of income, that
09:33:23 people make enough money to be able to pay their
09:33:26 mortgage, real estate taxes and insurance, but don't
09:33:28 make so much money that it takes them outside of our
09:33:31 program.
09:33:31 So we have to look at their applications and identify
09:33:33 them.
09:33:34 The issue that was raised and concerned among lenders,
09:33:39 not for profits, as well as contractors and

09:33:41 developers, is we do a calculation that is called --
09:33:45 and I am going to read this directly -- is that there
09:33:47 is a housing expense ratio, which includes the
09:33:52 principal and interest, taxes for real estate and
09:33:54 insurance, otherwise called the PIPI, and that has
09:33:57 been divided by the monthly income of the individual.
09:34:01 What we were using was a basis of 31%, meaning that
09:34:06 your total for your housing cost could not exceed 31%
09:34:10 of your monthly housing income.
09:34:11 We were finding that people were missing a calculation
09:34:14 by like .25%.
09:34:18 And that when we went through and looked at the
09:34:20 calculation, that range of what your salary had to
09:34:24 be -- I'll give one example -- is that if you were at,
09:34:28 say, a single person, the difference between what you
09:34:33 would qualify for and not qualify for was a range of
09:34:37 only $724 in annual income.
09:34:40 It was just way too narrow.
09:34:42 So we sat down with a group of us, not for profits,
09:34:49 talking with lenders, developers, and contractors.
09:34:51 I said, what is a good way to address this?
09:34:54 What we basically identified was that the federal

09:34:56 government under other programs allows to you look at
09:34:58 other factors.
09:35:00 Is the person bringing some down payment to the table?
09:35:03 Do they have a good credit history?
09:35:06 Do they have an opportunity for promotion in their
09:35:08 jobs?
09:35:09 And you can verify some of these through their
09:35:11 employment verification.
09:35:12 So what we said is, okay, 31% doesn't work.
09:35:16 We'll go to 33%.
09:35:17 And again, this is getting -- we are trying to give
09:35:21 people opportunities.
09:35:22 And still a pretty high percentage of your principal
09:35:24 and interest of your income to be paying for principal
09:35:27 and interest but if they show they have other
09:35:31 compensating factors we'll go with 35% but the key was
09:35:34 their total debt for their income couldn't be too high
09:35:37 of a level.
09:35:38 We don't want to set people up for failure.
09:35:40 We don't want to see foreclosure.
09:35:44 We were able to identify we could make some
09:35:45 modification, expand the universe of the folks that

09:35:48 can apply, and we have heard from lenders.
09:35:52 I'll give you an example there. Was one particular
09:35:54 credit union employee that missed it by one half of
09:35:58 one percent and they were able to qualify and make the
09:36:00 change on the policy.
09:36:01 And they were good employees, had ongoing employment
09:36:05 opportunities, and we think we are benefitting a
09:36:07 number of more of our citizens by being able to offer
09:36:11 them.
09:36:11 So I believe, Mrs. Saul-Sena, that is the information
09:36:13 that you had received, and we were able to basically
09:36:17 direct that about three or four weeks ago is when I
09:36:21 made the change in policy.
09:36:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Fantastic.
09:36:24 Because we want to let people be able to afford these
09:36:28 houses.
09:36:28 And perhaps on a quarterly basis you will be able to
09:36:33 start giving us statistics on how we are doing in
09:36:36 terms of the numbers of families that are able to use
09:36:42 these loans and get into housing.
09:36:45 >> How about if we do it where -- I'll provide a
09:36:47 written memo to you at this point, looking at where we

09:36:50 are as of September 30th.
09:36:53 We'll give that to you and then do that quarterly at
09:36:56 the close of each quarter.
09:36:57 >> That would be really great.
09:36:58 We would love to track that.
09:36:59 Thank you.
09:37:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Is this information available to
09:37:05 citizens?
09:37:06 >>> Absolutely.
09:37:07 Any citizen that is interested, get in touch with our
09:37:10 housing and community development division, which can
09:37:16 be -- that would be available through the housing and
09:37:21 community development division, Sharon West, and I'll
09:37:29 give you a phone number in a few minutes.
09:37:33 And Ms. Ferlita raised a question about where we stand
09:37:34 on our real estate transactions. We have just
09:37:34 completed requests for qualifications for
09:37:34 not-for-profits for contractors.
09:37:52 We intend to request for proposals. We have basically
09:37:53 a 30-day window to request proposals.
09:38:22 We intend to have 50 properties primarily in east
09:38:22 Tampa being made available for infill housing and

09:38:22 first-time homeownership that we are going to be able
09:38:22 to put restrictions on or incentives to say that the
09:38:22 developer, not-for-profit needs to have these
09:38:22 basically completed by 4th of July weekend next year.
09:38:22 And we can get you a phone number.
09:38:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2.
09:38:31 The resolution that we need to pass.
09:38:33 Is everybody ready to vote on the resolution?
09:38:37 >> I'm just concerned as to why -- I don't have a
09:38:41 specific recollection.
09:38:42 >> It was pulled from committee reports.
09:38:46 Item number 2.
09:38:49 >> Continued from October 26th.
09:38:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll move the resolution.
09:38:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to move the
09:38:57 resolution.
09:39:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
09:39:02 I just don't have a specific recollection as to why
09:39:05 it's on the agenda.
09:39:05 I'm just concerned why it appeared.
09:39:07 >>GWEN MILLER: It was pulled from some committee on
09:39:09 the 26th of October.

09:39:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: For what purpose, is my concern.
09:39:11 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't know who pulled it.
09:39:16 Ask council members.
09:39:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Could we hold that, if you don't
09:39:19 mind?
09:39:19 >> Why?
09:39:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Because of the concern that I have.
09:39:21 I don't know why it appears on the agenda under
09:39:24 unfinished business.
09:39:25 And if it's ministerial I don't have a problem it
09:39:27 with.
09:39:28 Well, you can move it, council.
09:39:30 If it has to be reconsidered I'll find out as to why.
09:39:33 >> I'll move it.
09:39:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to move the
09:39:36 resolution.
09:39:36 (Motion carried)
09:39:37 Item number 3.
09:39:45 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator public works
09:39:47 utilities and services.
09:39:48 Item number 3 is a question regarding the signs that
09:39:53 are being erected on Bayshore relative to Tampa

09:39:57 General Hospital.
09:39:58 I'd like to show you a couple of items first of all on
09:40:03 the Elmo if I could.
09:40:13 This is condition 3 that was on the C 03-57 rezoning
09:40:20 for Tampa General Hospital.
09:40:24 It was also included in the comment here.
09:40:28 This is Z 04-123 which was the last rezoning for Tampa
09:40:34 General Hospital.
09:40:35 And I just want to read that for you.
09:40:38 It says Tampa General Hospital is working
09:40:40 cooperatively with the City of Tampa to develop and
09:40:42 implement at the hospital's expense City of Tampa
09:40:49 transportation division an off-site signage plan that
09:40:52 may include the addition of new signs, replacement of
09:40:54 existing signs, at the location and in general
09:40:57 vicinity of the hospital and the major approaches
09:40:59 there to.
09:41:03 Subsequent to that requirement on their rezoning, the
09:41:05 hospital hired the firm of Gresham, Smith and partners
09:41:10 who provided -- I am going to put this on the Elmo
09:41:13 here -- that provided -- did a study and provided them
09:41:16 with recommendations on locations and signage.

09:41:21 Some of it is replacing existing signs.
09:41:25 I can walk you through which ones are replacing
09:41:29 existing signs.
09:41:29 Some of them are new signs.
09:41:31 There's a couple of new signs.
09:41:32 There's a couple that had some difficulty.
09:41:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you would pull that higher.
09:41:40 >> It's missing one on Bayshore.
09:41:45 >> That one right there is further down on Bayshore.
09:41:48 Let me show you a couple of pictures.
09:42:00 >> Is Debby here?
09:42:02 >> This is the one further on down, down on Bayshore,
09:42:08 that seems to have caused some concern.
09:42:11 This was a new sign and a new location, and the intent
09:42:15 of this was to give drivers going to Davis Island and
09:42:19 to the hospital earlier notification.
09:42:29 Then there is this sign, which you can see the new
09:42:34 pole, the black pole, is going to replace an existing
09:42:37 pole over there.
09:42:40 And then --
09:42:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for clarification going back
09:42:43 to the first --

09:42:49 >> This one here is a brand new sign?
09:42:52 >>
09:42:52 That's going to be 12 feet wide and 8 feet tall.
09:42:58 Which is pretty massive even compared to the existing
09:43:01 green sign on the other one which looks to be about
09:43:03 six feet wide.
09:43:09 >> The sign will be, right, 150 by 9.
09:43:11 Now, these signs are based upon the size of the
09:43:23 letter, based on the distance and the type of travel
09:43:28 on the roadway.
09:43:30 It dictates then the size of the sign, and wind loads
09:43:35 take over after that.
09:43:36 The consultant provided a recommendation to Tampa
09:43:42 General Hospital.
09:43:43 They submitted this for permitting.
09:43:46 We found that it complied with the requirements.
09:43:51 And I know you all are anxious to express your
09:43:55 concerns.
09:43:56 >> You bet.
09:43:57 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: What I would like to do, if I could
09:44:00 jump forward here a little bit, I think we can do away
09:44:05 with this sign, this advanced sign.

09:44:12 We believe that this pole should replace the existing
09:44:18 one.
09:44:19 Because the old one is rusty.
09:44:20 It's not very sightly.
09:44:22 Again it's one for one replacing one that exists.
09:44:29 And this sign, although I'm not too sure how
09:44:33 objectionable it is, we could look at the possibility
09:44:36 of putting the sign on the bridge.
09:44:39 We would have to see if it could be engineered to be
09:44:42 mounted on the bridge.
09:44:43 But that would allow us to eliminate two of the three
09:44:50 new poles on the Bayshore.
09:44:56 That's what we'd like to propose.
09:45:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
09:45:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
09:45:02 Mr. Daignault, thank you for looking into that.
09:45:09 I called TGH and talked to Mr. High tower's office and
09:45:16 to Mr. Dunn and he looked into it in his authority.
09:45:19 It's hard to sort these things out.
09:45:21 But he indicates that the city, working with their
09:45:25 consultant, picked the location, or worked with them
09:45:30 and drove around with them and picked the location.

09:45:32 So I don't know that we can point the finger at TGH
09:45:37 and absolve themselves.
09:45:38 >>> Not pointing any fingers.
09:45:40 We are proposing how we can move on with this.
09:45:42 >> Definitely move on but we have to see how we got
09:45:44 here to start with.
09:45:45 And I think that somebody on city staff drove around
09:45:49 with TGH, with their consultant, and picked the
09:45:51 location.
09:45:53 The size of the signs are very, very large.
09:45:56 But the one I have a big problem with is that brand
09:45:59 new one that you said you are going to work with TGH
09:46:02 and see if we can eliminate.
09:46:04 I'd like to give -- the council to give you the chance
09:46:07 to do that.
09:46:08 Because I think that's really the egregious one.
09:46:10 It's brand new.
09:46:11 If they want to have a little 2 by 1 sign with an H on
09:46:14 it. The H is the international symbol for hospital.
09:46:17 With an H this big and a little arrow going out that
09:46:20 gives people an advance notice that a hospital is
09:46:22 coming up.

09:46:23 Then right around the corner they are going to see
09:46:25 that big huge brand new sign that replace it is old
09:46:27 sign.
09:46:28 So coming from the south, I think that's okay.
09:46:33 But I think we are almost on the verge, council, of
09:46:36 having to create an ordinance or resolution or policy
09:46:40 to say that nothing should happen on the Bayshore
09:46:44 unless it's signed off by the mayor.
09:46:49 Or possibly council.
09:46:50 I'm not sure that these administrative tasks can
09:46:52 actually come to council.
09:46:53 But maybe Mr. Shelby or Mr. Smith, together, can look
09:46:56 at that.
09:46:59 But I just think that we can't allow these decisions
09:47:02 to be made, you know, at the level where somebody is
09:47:07 looking at the transportation code book and saying,
09:47:11 well, this is what the code says.
09:47:12 You know, the letters have to be this size, yada yada,
09:47:15 and it takes it out of the context that it's on the
09:47:17 Bayshore.
09:47:18 And it has to have special consideration and special
09:47:24 convention.

09:47:25 I'm saying we can move forward with a week or two,
09:47:28 Steve, see how you can do in negotiating with TGH to
09:47:31 resolve the issue.
09:47:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
09:47:42 I can't help but make the observation to council to
09:47:46 illustrate what a site plan.
09:47:52 I just think illustrative of that, you may want to ask
09:47:57 legal or myself or working with legal to look into --
09:48:00 I believe -- and I don't have a specific recollection.
09:48:03 But there was something brought, I believe, Ms.
09:48:05 Saul-Sena, about issues with the Bayshore.
09:48:10 >> Could I just respond to the site plan?
09:48:11 I remember that discussion at the TGH meeting on the
09:48:14 issue of the approaches and the sign.
09:48:16 I thought they were just talking about on the bridge.
09:48:18 I thought it had to do with, you know, people are
09:48:22 winding -- remember that discussion?
09:48:24 Nobody knows where to go when you get on the bridge
09:48:26 and it gets dangerous and everybody is going in and
09:48:28 out.
09:48:29 I thought the discussion was we need better signage on
09:48:31 the bridge.

09:48:33 I had no idea that this was going all the way out to
09:48:36 Platt Street, down a half mile down the Bayshore.
09:48:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Council members, I think as you go
09:48:43 forward, I don't know if this is exactly what you are
09:48:45 saying, John, but something to that effect, where it's
09:48:47 not one of these trigger effects.
09:48:49 Something goes up.
09:48:50 The neighbors start complaining.
09:48:51 It comes to council.
09:48:52 They go, oh, wow, how did that happen?
09:48:55 There has to be some interaction and some dialogue so
09:48:58 we don't have to backtrack.
09:49:00 It doesn't look good now.
09:49:01 People are complaining.
09:49:02 Maybe we can remove this.
09:49:04 If you have preliminary conversations, some of these
09:49:07 things can be decided upon, and -- and finalized
09:49:12 before we get to this point.
09:49:13 You're saying, John, sure, on Bayshore, but anyplace.
09:49:16 And, right, we have to balance again, and that's our
09:49:20 job.
09:49:20 Public safety, intrusion into the neighborhood, taking

09:49:24 away from the beautification of the Bayshore.
09:49:27 But it goes beyond that.
09:49:28 I'm not sure but I think this is related as well and
09:49:30 nobody has mentioned it.
09:49:31 What about the huge sign, Mr. Daignault, the 500 block
09:49:34 of Platt?
09:49:35 Is that another sign for the Bayshore?
09:49:38 That's another monster.
09:49:40 >> And Hyde Park Avenue.
09:49:41 >> What is that?
09:49:44 Then that's a problem, too.
09:49:45 That is huge.
09:49:48 So, yes, the Bayshore.
09:49:49 But I think it all goes back to communication with the
09:49:52 council so that when our constituents ask us about
09:49:55 something that they don't like, we already know it's
09:49:58 coming, we can voice our opinion on their behalf, and
09:50:00 we can be talking to the administration, although it
09:50:03 might very well be an administrative decision.
09:50:05 The courtesy of letting the council know before they
09:50:08 hear from the constituents is a wonderful
09:50:11 relationship.

09:50:14 >> I wanted to also chime in that Hyde Park is under
09:50:16 the review of the A.R.C.
09:50:19 And I dare say that none of the stuff has been going
09:50:23 to the A.R.C. because they have been spending a
09:50:26 fortune, the neighborhood has, putting in charming,
09:50:29 small scale historic street signs, and these huge
09:50:32 contemporary arms are completely out of scale, out of
09:50:38 context, with the whole Hyde Park historic district in
09:50:41 which they are dotted.
09:50:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: And not necessarily just that one.
09:50:46 The one closer to the bridge, you have residents on
09:50:48 the side of that, too.
09:50:50 They know they have the smaller green one now.
09:50:52 But now they have this huge thing.
09:50:53 So some of the remedies that you're suggesting, or the
09:50:57 changes, Steve, would be a lot better at inception as
09:51:01 opposed to put it up, take it down.
09:51:06 So what about that one on Platt?
09:51:08 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: That is a new one.
09:51:10 >> That's huge, too.
09:51:11 Why do we need that big thing?
09:51:16 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: This is the result of the

09:51:18 consultant going out and looking at --
09:51:20 >> The consultant decided to go on location of the
09:51:24 bunker or not?
09:51:35 The point is there are two different hierarchies of
09:51:38 desire.
09:51:38 Our desire is to protect the neighborhood.
09:51:40 The consultant's desire is to figure out how much
09:51:42 money they can make putting up how many signs.
09:51:44 It's a completely different agenda.
09:51:46 And responsible for looking out for the public and
09:51:51 protecting this historic neighborhood.
09:51:52 There needs to be, as everyone else said, some
09:51:55 communication nexus between us.
09:51:57 We cannot allow these things to go up.
09:51:59 And I see Mr. Smith here, who represents city legal.
09:52:04 Wouldn't the A.R.C. weigh in on this?
09:52:07 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:52:11 I don't know the direct answer to that question.
09:52:13 But the general question that was asked deals with the
09:52:20 roll of council with respect to administrative
09:52:22 matters.
09:52:22 Obviously, as you know, council does not have

09:52:24 administrative responsibilities.
09:52:26 But what it does do, you are looking now, for example,
09:52:31 at an overlay issue for Bayshore.
09:52:34 That's one way to address Bayshore.
09:52:35 That doesn't address the issues outside of Bayshore.
09:52:38 But I will look at the issue with respect to an
09:52:40 historic district to determine whether or not a sign
09:52:43 within an historic district has to be approved by the
09:52:46 A.R.C. or not.
09:52:47 The sign on Azeele, I'm not sure where the district
09:52:51 is.
09:52:52 I drive by there every morning.
09:52:53 I think it's on the other side of the road.
09:52:55 I'm not sure where the boundary is for the district
09:52:57 there.
09:52:58 Normally, signs in districts are supposed to comply
09:53:01 with the district requirement.
09:53:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think that Mr. Dingfelder's
09:53:08 suggestion that on the Bayshore, because it is such a
09:53:12 sensitive area, that there needs to be some sort of
09:53:15 sign-off by somebody higher up in the administration.
09:53:19 It's a good idea.

09:53:20 And council can't really fit that roll.
09:53:23 We are not the administrative branch.
09:53:25 But maybe someone like a Shannon Edge or somebody that
09:53:30 is closely connected with the neighborhoods along
09:53:32 there who understands the particular history of the
09:53:35 neighborhood, and what the issues are in those
09:53:38 neighborhoods as opposed to a consultant from out of
09:53:40 town who, like Mrs. Ms. Saul-Sena said, is really
09:53:44 thinking, day, okay, this is a good location, this
09:53:48 type of sign is probably not going to be appropriate
09:53:50 there.
09:53:55 If that has to be overseen, someone closer to the
09:53:58 ground might be an appropriate person to go along with
09:54:01 those ride-arounds, put up 20 by 20 signs in this
09:54:08 historic neighborhood is not popular, is ultimately
09:54:12 going to end up in our lapse after the fact.
09:54:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I believe the Barrio Latino has as far
09:54:26 as the signs through the gateway they have over there,
09:54:29 and as you can see with the interstate going through
09:54:45 they did a favor by beautifying the district.
09:54:48 So there is some something they have to go to the
09:54:59 various review boards.

09:55:01 I know Bayshore -- it just needs to be a little
09:55:05 pleasing to the people that are living in that area.
09:55:12 They are very protective of their Bayshore.
09:55:15 So I know you have a consultant who didn't do his job.
09:55:20 >> Not our consultant, again.
09:55:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Daignault.
09:55:26 You are going to meet with the neighborhood and let
09:55:29 them know the consultant is going to meet with you and
09:55:33 discuss what's going to happen on Bayshore?
09:55:38 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: It was a right-of-way permitting
09:55:45 effort basically when it came to us.
09:55:47 It was something that was in the rezoning.
09:55:50 And again, we did not go to the neighborhood and
09:55:54 explain we were replacing the sign.
09:55:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Now the overlay district for Bayshore.
09:56:02 Can this be a topic when you start working with that
09:56:04 and make sure that input from the neighbors -- because
09:56:08 like everyone is saying, we would like for them to
09:56:14 have an input when the time comes so it won't be a
09:56:17 surprise to them what's coming up.
09:56:21 Ms. Saul-Sena?
09:56:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Representative Sam Gibbons came to

09:56:25 speak to council about the Bayshore overlay.
09:56:27 He said when he was a very young statesman he
09:56:31 sponsored some state legislation and the Bayshore is
09:56:33 protected by an independent piece of state legislation
09:56:38 that addresses usage on the Bayshore.
09:56:41 I think it addresses signage.
09:56:43 I think that's something that maybe that legal needs
09:56:45 to take a look at.
09:56:47 Maybe call and find out what it was.
09:56:49 But Bayshore honestly has a very special existing,
09:56:53 according to his statement, protection that we need to
09:56:56 consider.
09:56:57 >> Mr. Dingfelder?
09:57:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are these considered government
09:57:07 signs?
09:57:07 They are government signs because they are hospital
09:57:09 related?
09:57:09 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:57:14 Government signs, a special exception in the sign code
09:57:17 for signs which are directional to traffic generating
09:57:23 institutions or businesses such as a hospital, in
09:57:25 order to be in the right-of-way for awhile, that kind

09:57:27 of direction, so people will be able to get there.
09:57:31 So these signs do legally comply with the sign code
09:57:34 and with the provision in the site plan.
09:57:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think when we do look in the
09:57:40 overlay or somewhere else, I think, you know, at the
09:57:43 end of the day, we say the administration, the
09:57:45 administration.
09:57:45 At the end of the day the buck stops with the mayor.
09:57:48 And now the mayor will catch some heat on this.
09:57:51 She's already getting the same e-mails that we are
09:57:54 getting.
09:57:54 I think at the end of the day on something as
09:57:56 important as the Bayshore and perhaps some of the
09:57:58 other scenic corridors, because you're right, Rose,
09:58:02 there are other areas around the city we have
09:58:04 designated as scenic areas, even right-of-way permits
09:58:08 should be signed off by the mayor.
09:58:10 And then that way, there's never any question that he
09:58:13 or she, whoever is sitting in that chair, you know,
09:58:16 that's where the buck stops.
09:58:17 And I think in this case I think it's the mayor that
09:58:21 this permit application has come across the mayor's

09:58:24 desk, especially after what we went through with the
09:58:26 bunker issue a couple months ago, I think she should
09:58:30 say, wait a minute, what exactly are we putting signs
09:58:33 on?
09:58:33 And she would be asking the same questions that we are
09:58:35 asking today.
09:58:36 And I have a feeling, Steve, a permit like this
09:58:39 probably didn't even come across your desk.
09:58:43 >>> Correct.
09:58:43 >> And I know that's the way the system works.
09:58:45 It stops at a lower level.
09:58:47 Somebody signs off on it at a lower level but not
09:58:49 thinking Bess B these issues because they are thinking
09:58:51 about right-of-ways, and technical issues and not the
09:58:56 view corridor.ding
09:59:01 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Again going back to Mr. Shelby's
09:59:03 comment and say perhaps we can try to get more
09:59:06 definition or definition from the council when these
09:59:10 types of comments are put in rezoning.
09:59:12 Because again, we believe that we were moving in the
09:59:15 direction that the council had intended with these
09:59:20 comments.

09:59:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:59:28 Number 5, Mr. Daignault.
09:59:29 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Can I also do number 4?
09:59:32 >>CHAIRMAN: Both of them, okay.
09:59:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you come back in two weeks on
09:59:36 this?
09:59:37 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We'll talk about it and come back.
09:59:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold off?
09:59:43 >>> Well, the poles are up.
09:59:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The public relations person for TGH
09:59:51 is Steve LaBour.
09:59:54 He used to work for the City of Tampa.
09:59:56 John Dunn, I'm sorry.
09:59:57 I know he would be sensitive to the concerns of the
10:00:00 neighborhood.
10:00:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I talked to him this morning.
10:00:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, council, I did not hear
10:00:07 any official action.
10:00:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move for additional report in two
10:00:11 weeks.
10:00:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:00:12 (Motion carried).

10:00:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
10:00:14 Did council want to request any information or
10:00:17 additional action be taken by the administration?
10:00:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's sort of inherent in
10:00:29 our comments.
10:00:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Specifically I would like them to
10:00:33 consider removal of the sign post that they have
10:00:37 installed on Bayshore and also looking, based on
10:00:40 feedback from legal, at the removal of all the other
10:00:43 proposed sign on he within the historic district.
10:00:47 I don't think that they have gone before the A.R.C.
10:00:50 and I don't think they are appropriate and I think
10:00:52 they completely misconstrued our intent.
10:00:56 On the rezoning.
10:00:57 We don't want those signs.
10:01:02 >> But the other ones are problematic, too.
10:01:30 >> That's what I was saying.
10:01:32 Their relationship with the historic district.
10:01:34 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:01:41 >> I think I understand the concept that council is
10:01:44 trying to get.
10:01:45 What I am trying to do is make sure we stay with the

10:01:49 purviews here.
10:01:50 Fortunately or not there's a provision in section 4
10:01:52 under the charter that specifically proscribes the
10:01:55 kind of direction I think you were contemplating
10:01:58 taking with respect to a specific sign.
10:02:01 I think we clearly need to find out whether or not
10:02:03 this is subject to A.R.C. guidelines and whether or
10:02:07 not the historic district issue.
10:02:10 And I think the best thing to do is probably proceed
10:02:12 as you have initially which is to direct the
10:02:14 administration to come back in two weeks with
10:02:16 additional information.
10:02:17 Why don't we evaluate that information, see where you
10:02:20 are at, before you try -- I just want to make sure you
10:02:25 are doing what you want to do and you get all the
10:02:27 information.
10:02:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Smith, along that line, but if
10:02:35 overall it appears that the administrative policy is
10:02:37 not as sensitive as we would like them to be, based on
10:02:40 what you are talking about in the charter, could there
10:02:42 be the possibility as you go forward to look at maybe
10:02:45 perhaps the addition or restructuring of the language

10:02:49 to make it some sort of a legislative remedy?
10:02:53 >>DAVID SMITH: Exactly what I was trying to indicate
10:02:57 earlier with council, that in order to assert the
10:03:04 direction -- you can request legal come back to you
10:03:06 with some suggestions as to how it's going to be
10:03:10 legally addressed in the ordinance.
10:03:11 For instance, the county has what's known as, I
10:03:14 believe, the process.
10:03:20 But there are some legislative approaches you can
10:03:22 take.
10:03:23 You just can't do it on an ad hoc administrative
10:03:25 basis.
10:03:26 So I think what would be helpful is if you get the
10:03:29 information this evening in two weeks, and then based
10:03:31 on that information, you can evaluate what legislative
10:03:35 alternative you may want to consider and to have legal
10:03:40 look at it for you.
10:03:41 That would be my recommendation.
10:03:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll amend my motion to reflect
10:03:48 that statement.
10:03:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know if the clerk really --
10:03:53 did you get the motion?

10:03:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That legal look into all relevant
10:03:56 issues related to this, and the staff would speak to
10:04:00 TGH, ask them to hold off.
10:04:02 And everybody would come back with a comprehensive
10:04:04 report in two weeks.
10:04:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:04:09 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:04:11 Opposed, Nay.
10:04:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to bring back item 1.
10:04:14 But I don't believe there was a record, a resolution
10:04:18 for item number 1.
10:04:21 >> So moved.
10:04:21 >> Second.
10:04:22 (Motion carried).
10:04:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 4.
10:04:28 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Item number 4.
10:04:31 This has to do with the east-west connector project.
10:04:34 And the question that council had as I look at the
10:04:42 record was we go to a fallback position if the current
10:04:45 east-west road proposal process doesn't work.
10:04:49 I want to review the bidding just a little bit with
10:04:51 you.

10:04:52 You recall that the city has been aggressive in
10:04:56 pursuing the property for the east-west road to IGAR
10:04:59 which is the connection to the interstate, the PD&E
10:05:03 which is part of the permitting process.
10:05:05 We have also got the construction plans and design
10:05:10 complete for the bridge which would be the approach
10:05:13 from Bruce B. Downs.
10:05:18 And we have the permitting for the bridge as well.
10:05:23 In the past, prior to the Crosstown authority having
10:05:28 the solicitation, the city has spoken with a single
10:05:31 private entity who looked at the cost of constructing
10:05:36 the east-west roads and we have spoken with the
10:05:38 turnpike authority as they came back and said, the
10:05:41 finances weren't quite there.
10:05:43 So those are the numbers.
10:05:44 And those are the arrangements that we were aware of
10:05:48 prior to the Crosstown doing the solicitation.
10:05:53 Beyond that, we have no other, or no additional ideas
10:05:58 at this moment of how we can produce the funds, to
10:06:03 fund the east-west road itself, again if the
10:06:06 solicitation process does not bear fruit.
10:06:09 So, again, that's sort of where we are with

10:06:13 transportation matters.
10:06:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
10:06:16 Steve, I think that Ralph Mernon is going to be here
10:06:22 next week to update us.
10:06:24 So I have -- you can come back next week and follow up
10:06:29 where Ralph is.
10:06:30 But one of the things I'm a bit concerned about is the
10:06:33 linkage of the bridge over I-75 that it's been in our
10:06:40 long-term plan forever.
10:06:41 We have got to do that project regardless of whether
10:06:44 the east-west connector happens from that point all
10:06:47 the way out to 275.
10:06:48 So if you will, I would like you to be prepared next
10:06:50 week as well to update us on where we are in that
10:06:55 project.
10:07:00 >>GWEN MILLER: If you don't mind, Mr. Smith has to
10:07:02 leave.
10:07:02 Can we go to 14 and come back to you?
10:07:05 >>> No.
10:07:06 [ Laughter ]
10:07:06 Yes, ma'am.
10:07:10 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.

10:07:15 I'm here to speak with you this morning about item
10:07:17 number 14, which is the charter review process.
10:07:20 And if I recall, we had two essential questions.
10:07:23 The first question was, at what sort of election could
10:07:27 this be considered?
10:07:29 Secondly, please help us understand generally the
10:07:32 process and how this would unfold.
10:07:33 Let me try to answer the first one first.
10:07:36 Unfortunately, as is often the case when you start
10:07:38 looking at these things, you find some problematic
10:07:42 areas.
10:07:42 But clearly we can consider charter amendments at city
10:07:47 elections which are currently set in March, as you
10:07:49 know.
10:07:50 It appears that we can also consider charter
10:07:53 amendments at national elections which are typically
10:07:57 in November.
10:07:57 I say it appears because there's a little bit of
10:08:01 quirky language in the special act.
10:08:02 I would rather not elaborate that language right now.
10:08:05 I would rather continue to review, talk to some other
10:08:09 people, that would work as well.

10:08:17 The last possibility the first and second votes.
10:08:26 I'll explain that to you.
10:08:27 But where we are going to be is that you can consider
10:08:31 charter amendments, either the city election, the
10:08:33 national election, or pursuant to a special called
10:08:36 election.
10:08:37 The next thing -- and you will see when I get to the
10:08:40 second point why that's not quite as pressing.
10:08:43 As I understand the discussion, a couple of the areas
10:08:46 for consideration were the possibility of -- when we
10:08:53 change anything it affects our voting situation.
10:08:56 We are currently under the requirement to file with
10:08:59 the Department of Justice and get a clearance.
10:09:02 So that process is not a very quick process.
10:09:06 The point of that is that the elections office which
10:09:09 we contacted, estimated October 20th, which has
10:09:14 already passed, has a deadline for is R seeing if we
10:09:17 can do something for the March election.
10:09:19 And let me explain why that's probably a very accurate
10:09:22 statement.
10:09:23 The process is an ordinance process meaning this
10:09:27 council adopt ordinances to indicate the areas of

10:09:33 charter amendment they wish to have presented to the
10:09:36 public for vote.
10:09:39 Ordinance process, as well, chief among them is the
10:09:45 fact that you are limited to a single subject for each
10:09:48 ordinance.
10:09:48 So we need to make sure that anything that we do put
10:09:51 on the ballot is going to provide any challenge if
10:09:55 someone should choose to challenge it.
10:09:58 That requires, as we go through a series of ordinances
10:10:02 to accomplish some of the things you may want to
10:10:04 accomplish once you get to the substance of it, which
10:10:08 is what I am abstracting from now.
10:10:10 A close bear legal you may have seen recently was the
10:10:15 ballot with respect to the county mayor. The mayor
10:10:17 itself was going to be one vote and then the issue of
10:10:19 whether the county mayor had veto authority if you
10:10:21 have another vote.
10:10:23 That's illustrative of the kind of process you have to
10:10:25 go through.
10:10:26 So fortunately or unfortunately, detail process and
10:10:29 not a quick process.
10:10:33 As a consequence of everything to do ordinances we

10:10:35 have to have two readings.
10:10:38 And before we can submit to the Department of Justice
10:10:42 we have to know what it is you want to do.
10:10:48 As you go through the process and identify the changes
10:10:50 you want to have made.
10:10:51 One thing we may or may not want to see in the future
10:10:55 is whether or not we still want to be subjected to
10:10:57 that process.
10:10:57 I think precipitated those requirements.
10:11:04 That's another's issue for another day.
10:11:06 So the point is, you will have to approach this as you
10:11:08 approach any ordinances given the complexity and the
10:11:12 involvement and the importance of a charter amendment,
10:11:14 I'm sure you are going to want to have a public
10:11:17 hearing process, perhaps a workshop, multiple public
10:11:20 hearing processes.
10:11:21 So upshot is, obviously not going to make it for
10:11:26 November 7th or 9, whatever the current election
10:11:29 is coming up.
10:11:30 We have already missed the deadline for the March
10:11:31 elections.
10:11:32 We have a little bit of time.

10:11:33 But if this is something we want to move on, we
10:11:36 probably need to start moving on.
10:11:37 My suggestion would be this.
10:11:38 I don't think it's something you should do with an
10:11:40 interim council.
10:11:41 It's not something you get started on right now and
10:11:43 probably not something you really want to do until you
10:11:45 have your new council in March.
10:11:48 My recommendation would be that what legal does in the
10:11:51 interim is provide you with a written summary of
10:11:54 exactly what you can and cannot do and how it must
10:11:57 unfold.
10:11:58 So if the new council chooses to make amendments we
10:12:02 have everything clearly defined for you, the process
10:12:05 clearly delineated and you can proceed with the
10:12:07 substantive issues.
10:12:10 I hope that answers your questions.
10:12:12 But if you have any further questions I would be happy
10:12:14 to try to elaborate.
10:12:18 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
10:12:20 That's fine.
10:12:21 When would you be able to provide that answer?

10:12:28 The end of the year is fine.
10:12:32 It doesn't really matter.
10:12:34 >>> Why don't we set that up as subject, seeing that
10:12:38 things slow down a little bit around the holiday
10:12:40 season it gives us a chance to catch our breath.
10:12:42 That would be a reasonable time period.
10:12:45 And certainly ask for it then but should be doable.
10:12:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm perfectly satisfied with the way
10:12:52 things are now.
10:12:52 And wait until April 1st.
10:12:59 [ Laughter ]
10:13:02 Possibly then we'll have, as you said, a new council.
10:13:06 And they'll make the decision at that time.
10:13:09 But I'm not looking for any changes that might be
10:13:15 coming up while I'm in office, won't get my support.
10:13:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
10:13:27 Mr. Daignault.
10:13:27 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator, public works utility
10:13:30 service.
10:13:32 Item 5 has to do with the cost of sidewalks.
10:13:36 Council is aware that there is an ordinance
10:13:39 requirement that when a developer or builder builds

10:13:43 their property, they are supposed to put in the
10:13:45 associated sidewalk.
10:13:48 There is an option if that builder chooses not to put
10:13:50 in the sidewalk, you pay into the city funds for the
10:13:55 city to put that sidewalk in at some future date.
10:13:59 Recently, we updated and made a number of our fees
10:14:03 more current.
10:14:04 And among those fees was the cost of a linear foot of
10:14:07 sidewalk.
10:14:08 And there was question about that.
10:14:14 And I would like to respond if I could.
10:14:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for coming and speaking to
10:14:21 us about it.
10:14:24 And I think that there is a representative from among
10:14:28 those associations who would like to come speak to
10:14:30 this briefly and answer a question.
10:14:35 But a couple of years ago, the sidewalk fee was $16 a
10:14:40 linear foot, I think, 16, $17 a linear foot.
10:14:44 And then it was increased modestly to $19 a linear
10:14:49 foot, you know, cost of materials, that sort of thing.
10:14:52 But then last July, it jumped from $19 to $43 and we
10:14:57 approved it.

10:14:59 Without a whole lot of discussion.
10:15:00 I think that was a short presentation.
10:15:03 And in July, this council approved it.
10:15:05 But immediately thereafter, I started getting a couple
10:15:09 of complaints from homeowners, people who were
10:15:13 building homes and developers who were building homes
10:15:16 saying, you know, all of a sudden, the fee in lieu
10:15:20 more than doubled and they asked me why.
10:15:22 And I really didn't have a good answer.
10:15:24 And that's why I asked for this report.
10:15:26 In the interim, I spoke with Jan Washington, and she
10:15:30 indicated that we went from $19 to $43 because instead
10:15:33 of just including the price that apparently we can go
10:15:39 out and find a subcontractor to do it and would still
10:15:41 be 19, $20 a foot, but now we are including overhead,
10:15:45 we are including unusual situations that we might
10:15:48 encounter, like if we have to go around a tree or fire
10:15:52 hydrant or what have you.
10:15:54 And we added those things and the city's overhead as
10:16:00 well as other things to the cost of the homeowner who
10:16:03 might be in a situation of the fee in lieu.
10:16:07 I asked Jan Washington how many times does fee in lieu

10:16:12 in lieu.
10:16:39 If they ask for the fee in lieu situation.
10:16:41 If they build their own sidewalk, then it costs them
10:16:44 $19 because these what their contract requires.
10:16:47 So to me it almost comes across as a really severe
10:16:51 penalty.
10:16:53 And almost like a punishment.
10:16:55 And that's why I wanted to get into this.
10:16:57 And I did want, Gary, if you can come and confirm,
10:17:02 then you can rebut.
10:17:03 If you want to confirm from the home builders
10:17:06 perspective what is the cost -- what is the cost and
10:17:09 what is the home builder's position on this?
10:17:14 >>> Thank you very much.
10:17:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
10:17:17 >>> Gary brown.
10:17:18 I live at 491 Saverna Avenue.
10:17:24 We didn't know this changed. That was one of our
10:17:30 issues.
10:17:33 So I'm a little surprised to hear about this, this
10:17:37 week, and that it happened last July.
10:18:01 Currently our actual costs to install a sidewalk is

10:18:03 about 17, $18 per linear foot.
10:18:07 It's $3.50 a square foot in round numbers.
10:18:13 If I understand the intent of the sidewalk in lieu of
10:18:16 fee, it most often comes into play when you are in an
10:18:23 existing neighborhood that don't have sidewalks or
10:18:27 might be a sidewalk on one side of the road and not on
10:18:29 the other side of the road.
10:18:30 So if you happen to be the first person to build a
10:18:32 home on the side that doesn't have a sidewalk, most of
10:18:36 your neighbors, if you walk up and down the street,
10:18:38 would probably tell you, don't put a sidewalk in.
10:18:41 We don't want it.
10:18:43 Okay.
10:18:43 Well, we are budgeting the cost of that sidewalk.
10:18:47 That's not the issue.
10:18:50 We'll pay $19 per linear foot.
10:18:52 That's okay.
10:18:54 And then the city at some point in time might come
10:18:57 back and install a sidewalk on that property.
10:19:00 Or some nearby block.
10:19:03 I personally have the experience on wallcraft between
10:19:07 MacDill and Himes.

10:19:10 I built six homes all on the same side of the street,
10:19:13 on a street that has no sidewalks on either side.
10:19:17 One of my homeowners, after being completed, went to
10:19:22 the city after talking with several of the neighbors,
10:19:24 and said, we'd like to have a sidewalk installed now.
10:19:29 We have got 40 homes.
10:19:31 Six of them have sidewalks. The rest don't.
10:19:34 Well, they actually got a petition signed and I
10:19:36 believe everybody on the street was in favor of it
10:19:38 except for two or three people.
10:19:42 Those two or three people stopped the project.
10:19:45 And I'm going, what does the in lieu fee pay for?
10:19:50 They have got the money.
10:19:51 They are collecting it.
10:19:53 Ultimately the city did put that sidewalk in but it
10:19:59 took them, I think, a year to get that project in.
10:20:03 Any questions?
10:20:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I was here when we did the in lieu
10:20:08 fee.
10:20:08 And the idea was it was going to be used on an
10:20:12 extremely rare circumstances.
10:20:15 I mean, it was virtually impossible to get around

10:20:19 putting in the sidewalk yourself.
10:20:20 And so I don't know, she said she gets 100 requests a
10:20:26 year.
10:20:29 I would be interested to learn that.
10:20:30 >> She said a good percent.
10:20:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But I do think now hearing that your
10:20:36 cost is still 18, 19, $20 a foot and we are charging
10:20:40 40-some, there's something definitely out of whack.
10:20:43 And I know when we did this we all thought it was just
10:20:46 because the cost of concrete had gone up everywhere.
10:20:51 >> Why would anybody not opt to put a sidewalk in if
10:20:54 they are going to charge 43?
10:20:57 >> Exactly.
10:20:58 The first person in that block, it's going to go in.
10:21:01 They are not going to opt not to put it in.
10:21:04 Then you are going to be dealing with a whole lot of
10:21:06 other neighbors that are very upset.
10:21:08 >> You know what?
10:21:09 We'll deal with that.
10:21:10 We passed this ordinance.
10:21:11 The idea was you were going to be creating sidewalks
10:21:13 in places where they didn't ever connect to anything,

10:21:16 but some day eventually they would.
10:21:18 And everybody complained about it.
10:21:20 But what we are doing now is we are filling in those
10:21:23 blank spaces.
10:21:24 And I think it's been a pretty successful program.
10:21:26 >> But there's no reason for the first people that go
10:21:29 in to have to subsidize the difference in the cost.
10:21:32 And yes, there is a cost difference. Everybody knows
10:21:35 that.
10:21:35 >> I think the in lieu of option should be so rarely
10:21:39 granted that it's just not really a practical
10:21:42 alternative.
10:21:43 But I think that we ought to take a look at the cost,
10:21:47 if it really is only 20 bucks a foot, we are charging
10:21:50 double that.
10:21:51 We are getting paid for some things that we probably
10:21:53 don't need to get paid for.
10:21:56 >> One other thing in the ordinance.
10:21:58 I believe the way it reads, they calculate the fee
10:22:02 based on the entire width of the property on the
10:22:05 right-of-way.
10:22:05 So if you had a 60-foot wide interior and you do put a

10:22:12 driveway in which is required, it's typically 16 feet
10:22:16 wide, but you don't put the sidewalk in, we are being
10:22:19 charged for that 16 feet, also.
10:22:21 So we are paying double.
10:22:22 I say we.
10:22:23 The person -- that should be clarified.
10:22:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Ferlita?
10:22:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Brown, you bring up some good
10:22:32 points.
10:22:33 Like Mr. Harrison, I was here as well when we looked
10:22:35 at increasing that and I did it very reluctantly but
10:22:38 it was my interpretation from the presentation that
10:22:41 that's what it was.
10:22:43 And your industry said he was putting it in,
10:22:45 et cetera.
10:22:46 Now a drastic difference between what you are saying
10:22:48 is a cost and what the city has said costs to install
10:22:52 a sidewalk is not even close.
10:22:54 So that's very unfair.
10:22:56 And I have a hard time explaining this a couple of
10:22:59 months ago.
10:22:59 I had a constituent call to tell you frankly I was

10:23:04 embarrassed because I didn't have a good answer, and I
10:23:07 don't like it when I have don't have a good answer.
10:23:09 But the conditions were such that there were trees,
10:23:11 et cetera, et cetera.
10:23:12 He couldn't put a sidewalk in if he wanted to.
10:23:14 He was okay with that.
10:23:15 He couldn't put it in.
10:23:16 So there was no choice.
10:23:21 The gentleman had to pay the in lieu fee without the
10:23:23 ability to put the sidewalk in and it was complicated
10:23:26 further because he would expect the cost was so
10:23:28 outrageous.
10:23:29 And it goes back to what your situation is.
10:23:31 So I think really we need to get somebody from city to
10:23:34 come back.
10:23:35 If it costs you 18 and costs them 40, then we are
10:23:38 dealing with the wrong vendor, I suspect.
10:23:41 >>> They are dealing with costs of tearing things out,
10:23:45 dealing with irrigation systems.
10:23:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: But that shouldn't be the hardship for
10:23:49 the property owner that you're representing.
10:23:52 So I think we need to revisit that again.

10:23:54 Fair is fair, and dollar for dollar, based on what the
10:23:57 elements are that they are looking at that raises that
10:24:01 cost.
10:24:01 So I don't know where we are.
10:24:03 Might be able to make a motion.
10:24:05 Did you want to say something?
10:24:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think maybe Mr. Daignault I would
10:24:21 like to see a cost and see if there is any profits
10:24:24 that are happening within that department.
10:24:28 If you're charging $43 and it's only costing you $19,
10:24:32 there's quite a bit of a profit margin there.
10:24:36 And --
10:24:38 >>> It's not for profit again.
10:24:39 This is actually less than our actual cost.
10:24:42 >> What's the actual cost?
10:24:44 >>> And it's primed to be normalized over times you
10:24:47 have to remove trees, over time you have to relocate
10:24:50 hydrants, when you have to, you know, incur other
10:24:53 costs.
10:24:54 Perhaps another way to approach this would be on a
10:24:56 case-by-case basis and go out there, see the
10:25:00 particular conditions of that specific site, and

10:25:02 perhaps one site would be cheaper than another.
10:25:06 We have always had the extreme examples.
10:25:08 But again we may have a site where there's no trees,
10:25:11 no bushes, no utility issues to be dealt with, it's a
10:25:14 pure, simple, here to here, put in your sidewalk and
10:25:19 have a different cost per square foot or linear foot
10:25:23 versus one that did have two or three trees in the way
10:25:25 that had to be dealt with.
10:25:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I guess that would be administratively
10:25:30 then?
10:25:30 How would we deal with that?
10:25:32 The way the ordinance is written now, everybody is
10:25:34 getting charged with that same amount and nobody is
10:25:36 getting any breaks.
10:25:37 I mean, I think that, you know, they are paying enough
10:25:40 taxes to be able to have a sidewalk if you want it.
10:25:45 But I don't think that they should be paying through
10:25:48 the nose because, like you said, somebody could be --
10:25:53 an easy sidewalk to put in or one that could be a
10:25:55 problem.
10:25:57 I like your idea.
10:25:58 And if you can come up with some solutions --

10:26:01 >> The current ordinance just requires that a fee, a
10:26:04 single fee be established.
10:26:05 I believe the county does it based on estimates for
10:26:09 each site.
10:26:10 Again, we could look to see if we could revise the
10:26:14 ordinance so that we would look at each site on a
10:26:16 case-by-case basis and determine the fee.
10:26:20 Again, the problem for the industry would be that they
10:26:22 would not know what it would be until that time.
10:26:25 But again trying to normalizing and have everything be
10:26:30 based on a common cost, try to regulate a more
10:26:36 specific cost.
10:26:37 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I like your idea.
10:26:38 If that's the way we can work on it, please do this.
10:26:41 People are hurting.
10:26:41 Especially with the way prices are going up every
10:26:44 single day.
10:26:45 So if there's a motion --
10:26:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: And this is something that Ms. Curry
10:26:53 is working on with a constituent right now, building a
10:26:57 home on Shamrock.
10:26:58 There's a ditch.

10:26:59 They cannot build a sidewalk.
10:27:02 And they are still going to be forced to pay $12 that
10:27:04 you to not have a sidewalk.
10:27:06 That's unfair!
10:27:07 That's ridiculous.
10:27:08 And I'm sorry this morning it's the Steve Daignault
10:27:13 show.
10:27:13 It looks like is going to you and I apologize.
10:27:16 But that's currently existing that we got a complaint
10:27:19 about and that's one of those times I'm telling you
10:27:21 that I don't like it because I don't have a good
10:27:23 answer.
10:27:24 >>> Again perhaps we can modify the ordinance to give
10:27:26 the staff the authority not to charge it.
10:27:28 Again what our understanding is, they either build the
10:27:30 sidewalk, or they pay an in lieu fee.
10:27:33 And we did not have the responsibility or the
10:27:35 authority not to charge someone who is building.
10:27:39 >> So while we are looking at that, what do we tell
10:27:42 people like this family?
10:27:44 Can somebody go out and look at this and reevaluate
10:27:47 it?

10:27:47 >>> To what end?
10:27:49 Again we don't have --
10:27:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: To what end?
10:27:54 He gets to pay $12,000 because he has the privilege of
10:27:57 not having a sidewalk.
10:28:00 Probably cheaper.
10:28:02 So what can I tell them is fair?
10:28:10 >>> We would have to modify the ordinance, is all I
10:28:12 can say.
10:28:13 Without knowing any more specifics about the site.
10:28:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Would it help him to modify the
10:28:21 ordinance?
10:28:23 >>> To give us the authority to say -- make some
10:28:25 determination that this particular property, a
10:28:28 sidewalk cannot be built on it.
10:28:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Can you send someone out there to
10:28:33 determine that and come back?
10:28:36 >>> We'll be glad to do that.
10:28:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I'm just concerned, because
10:28:41 I believe what Mr. Daignault is saying is that the
10:28:43 ordinance presently does not give them the discretion.
10:28:47 And, again --

10:28:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: In the meantime can we do something to
10:28:51 give them the discretion?
10:28:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, but what came
10:28:56 to mind, I don't know if whether that is the
10:28:59 appropriate subject for a request for variance.
10:29:01 I don't know whether such thing is possible.
10:29:02 I would have to consult the legal department.
10:29:07 >>> Just did away with the variance.
10:29:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On this?
10:29:10 So basically you are being confronted with the results
10:29:13 of public policy decision that --
10:29:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We made.
10:29:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That you made.
10:29:19 And ultimately you are going to have to make some
10:29:21 reevaluation ifs you choose.
10:29:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, I like the direction that
10:29:26 you are suggesting.
10:29:26 I think that we can reestablish perhaps an
10:29:29 administrative variance, or a range.
10:29:34 I think the 17, $19 should be the lower part.
10:29:38 And the range might be in the $19.
10:29:40 And under certain circumstances, maybe it could go up

10:29:44 from there.
10:29:45 But here's my problem.
10:29:46 If there's a grand tree in the middle of that sidewalk
10:29:49 area, okay, then it really doesn't matter.
10:29:55 That sidewalk is likely never going to be built right
10:29:59 there. On that section.
10:30:02 And if it is, it would just jog around it, you know.
10:30:05 And so your staff person might go out there and say,
10:30:11 let's factor in the removal of that grand tree.
10:30:15 But the reality is, this city is not really in the
10:30:18 habit of taking out grand trees to pour a sidewalk.
10:30:23 >> The cost of additional work, if there is a varied
10:30:27 path.
10:30:29 Than going straight.
10:30:30 So that's why I say.
10:30:31 Perhaps we could make this case specific.
10:30:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want us to be cautious, to
10:30:38 take the reality into consideration, too.
10:30:41 Because when we say we are going to, you know, factor
10:30:44 in the cost to remove trees, we don't tend to remove
10:30:47 any trees for sidewalks that I've seen.
10:30:49 I mean, not too many.

10:30:55 I'll give you an example on Estrella where I have been
10:31:00 after sidewalks for three and a half years and you
10:31:01 guys keep telling me no because there's trees in the
10:31:04 way.
10:31:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: I mean, I'm still in a dilemma with
10:31:11 this.
10:31:11 A tree is a tree.
10:31:12 But this is a ditch the whole length of this property.
10:31:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That might have to wait until we
10:31:18 amend the ordinance.
10:31:19 If it can wait then they might be able to get --
10:31:22 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's my next question, John.
10:31:24 Legal or Steve, can that wait?
10:31:27 I hate to be this property owner sitting there.
10:31:29 And I have seen some heads nodding in the audience
10:31:32 that got caught in the same dilemma.
10:31:35 I would hate to have this guy pay this and then we
10:31:38 modify it, he was too early.
10:31:40 I know this is a specific but it happened to be on my
10:31:42 desk while we were having this discussion.
10:31:44 >>> If you can give us the details again we'll be glad
10:31:46 to go out and look at it, see what we can work out.

10:31:48 >>ROSE FERLITA: I would love to.
10:31:51 Do you want to make that motion, or Mary?
10:31:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: One of us.
10:31:55 I think that Mr. Daignault made a good suggestion.
10:32:00 But you know what?
10:32:01 I see gene Fernandez.
10:32:05 I believe he's with the development community, too.
10:32:07 Did you want to say something before we do something?
10:32:10 Go ahead.
10:32:14 >>> Cliff Hernandez, dolphin homes, South Westshore
10:32:18 Boulevard.
10:32:18 I have not been sworn.
10:32:19 >>GWEN MILLER: You don't have to be sworn.
10:32:24 >>> The issue of the sidewalks, way want to make clear
10:32:27 is really that, number one, it's not a developer
10:32:30 issue.
10:32:31 The people that are requesting these waivers are these
10:32:34 owners.
10:32:34 And, you know, if it costs us 17.50 to put in a
10:32:42 sidewalk, we'll put it in.
10:32:44 You know, it doesn't matter one way or the other.
10:32:46 The odd thing is that the sidewalk waiver has been

10:32:50 working because they have been using the dollars to
10:32:53 put sidewalks where they belong.
10:33:06 That sidewalk probably won't go anywhere for several
10:33:08 years and when it does they'll probably have to tear
10:33:11 up the sidewalks because the grades won't be the same,
10:33:13 it's going to affect stormwater.
10:33:15 It just doesn't make sense to put that sidewalk in the
10:33:17 middle of a block and not connect it to anything.
10:33:21 So as a home builder I'm probably opposed -- I love
10:33:33 sidewalks and most people want sidewalks.
10:33:35 It's the idea of putting a sidewalk where it's not
10:33:38 connected to anything.
10:33:39 But most of all customers opposed to -- and they are
10:33:41 asking for the waiver.
10:33:42 And make that waiver so punitive that it doesn't get
10:33:47 done is going to preclude sidewalks where we can
10:33:51 connect them around schools.
10:33:52 Basically I'm proposed in principal and practicalities
10:33:58 I think it's one of the better things that's been
10:34:00 working in the city is where we put sidewalks.
10:34:02 There is another issue, though.
10:34:04 I found out about this yesterday.

10:34:07 We have monthly meetings with the administrative staff
10:34:13 for these reasons, as a home builder.
10:34:15 There are several of us as home builders who want to
10:34:17 know what's happening, like the neighborhood
10:34:19 associations would want to know, get a heads-up so
10:34:22 that we can put our input and you guys can look at
10:34:25 something that you can respond to, both sides of the
10:34:27 issue.
10:34:29 It was done, and we had no notice.
10:34:33 I think you have something later on in your agenda
10:34:35 today the same thing, that we really don't have
10:34:39 agreement on.
10:34:41 And all I'm suggesting is we have asked for this
10:34:43 almost every month when we meet with the city
10:34:47 administration that were noticed on issues that affect
10:34:52 our industry.
10:34:54 The neighborhoods are noticed.
10:34:56 You notice them.
10:34:57 We notice them as a courtesy when we are applying for
10:35:01 rezoning.
10:35:04 The city has been better about noticing.
10:35:07 But to my knowledge, home builders were not given any

10:35:10 notice of this issue coming back, you know, when it
10:35:14 came before you the first time and it was changed to
10:35:16 the $43.
10:35:18 I don't know what needs to be done.
10:35:20 But if there's any way that council, as you did with
10:35:24 homeowners associations, could require that, and when
10:35:28 these issues come before you, at least the question be
10:35:30 asked, have you noticed the home builders like you
10:35:35 asked, have you noticed the neighborhood association?
10:35:38 You know, a lot of these -- the irony is, with the.
10:35:48 >> Thank you very much.
10:35:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: finish your statement.
10:35:53 >>> We had an increase of $55 for a site review fee
10:35:58 that came out of our meetings with administration.
10:36:00 We needed -- staff had not been increased in a number
10:36:04 of years.
10:36:05 And obviously the permit activity has been increasing.
10:36:08 They were overworked.
10:36:10 We weren't in favor of that.
10:36:14 We lobbied with council members to pass that.
10:36:19 And fortunately you all saw that as a benefit.
10:36:21 And I think it benefited the community.

10:36:23 It took us a year and a half to get that enacted.
10:36:26 And everybody was on board.
10:36:28 And yet this comes through, which is punitive, and it
10:36:32 flies right through.
10:36:33 I don't understand that kind of logic.
10:36:38 Thank you.
10:36:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you have a question?
10:36:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to say, as we see
10:36:44 redevelopment occur, particularly in South Tampa,
10:36:46 oftentimes the one or two pieces of sidewalk that get
10:36:49 built, if you walk in the neighborhood enough, you see
10:36:52 that over five years, it's like the pieces really do
10:36:55 get connected.
10:36:56 There's so much redevelopment occurring that we are
10:37:00 getting some sidewalks where there haven't been any
10:37:02 previously.
10:37:03 And it's a good thing.
10:37:04 Thank you.
10:37:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Then Madam Chairman, I guess maybe you
10:37:07 can help me with the wording but I think we just need
10:37:10 to make a motion so that we leave the ordinance and
10:37:14 consider for sure some opportunity for discretion in

10:37:16 terms of staff on a case-by-case.
10:37:19 Is that comprehensive enough, in terms of looking at
10:37:24 costs that are assessed, et cetera?
10:37:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Revisit the ordinance.
10:37:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: By resolution?
10:37:47 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: There's a sidewalk ordinance.
10:37:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the fee amount was by
10:37:51 resolution.
10:37:52 >>> But we are talking about doing something other
10:37:54 than just being the fees.
10:37:59 >> We can adjust the fee first to make it a little
10:38:01 more equitable.
10:38:02 Then we can adjust the ordinance later because we can
10:38:04 do a resolution quick.
10:38:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: I like that.
10:38:07 >> The only reason I know that is I asked the question
10:38:10 yesterday.
10:38:10 And Jan Washington said, no, that was done by
10:38:13 resolution number 2006-blah-blah-blah.
10:38:16 That was not --
10:38:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How do we go back down to what?
10:38:23 >> By resolution.

10:38:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What's the equitable amount that we
10:38:27 want to charge?
10:38:28 I don't know.
10:38:29 $43.
10:38:30 You want to go to 35, 30?
10:38:33 >> Saying the actual cost.
10:38:34 >> Do I hear 20?
10:38:36 [ Laughter ]
10:38:40 >> The city's actual cost, no.
10:38:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: Why don't we get the administration
10:38:44 and the industry to look at the actual cost so we are
10:38:49 comparing apples to apples and come up with something
10:38:51 we can -- that still covers the costs based on the
10:38:58 same service, come back and make some recommendations
10:39:01 after that meeting?
10:39:01 >>CHAIRMAN: What we are saying is hold the resolution,
10:39:07 let them meet with Mr. Daignault before we change the
10:39:11 resolution.
10:39:12 Before we make a motion to change it.
10:39:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think we can make one motion to look
10:39:16 at the ordinance again.
10:39:17 Because that's the capability of staff to determine it

10:39:19 case by case and have a policy as well.
10:39:21 That's one thing.
10:39:22 I think we should get that off the table.
10:39:24 And then after that, make a motion that we look at a
10:39:28 resolution based on the feedback from the
10:39:31 administration and the industry to make a
10:39:34 conscientious decision about we need to alter that.
10:39:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Let's do one motion.
10:39:40 >> Steve, are you okay with the first one about the
10:39:41 ordinance, that gives you that flexibility?
10:39:44 Okay.
10:39:45 I stated my motion.
10:39:48 >> Second.
10:39:48 (Motion carried).
10:39:50 >>GWEN MILLER: The resolution.
10:39:51 >>ROSE FERLITA: Do you have any input before we make a
10:39:55 motion for resolution?
10:39:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you rather meet with the people
10:39:59 first before --
10:40:02 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We would be glad to do that.
10:40:03 >>ROSE FERLITA: Is that okay with you all?
10:40:07 That gives everybody the opportunity to weigh in about

10:40:09 what --
10:40:13 >>GWEN MILLER: how long will it take?
10:40:15 How many weeks?
10:40:17 First week of December?
10:40:19 >> So moved.
10:40:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: I hope it goes well because you think
10:40:22 you will be on your own.
10:40:24 Okay.
10:40:27 You can give input.
10:40:28 (Motion carried).
10:40:30 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Thank you.
10:40:31 If I could at this time, Ms. Ferlita asked about item
10:40:35 21. Ballad
10:40:45 >>BRAD BAIRD: Director of water department.
10:40:50 I understand there are questions on item 21 which is
10:40:53 approving a work order for professional services to
10:40:58 improve system performance on the South Tampa area
10:41:04 reclaim project.
10:41:05 Phase one.
10:41:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: My question, last week, Mr. Daignault,
10:41:14 justifying the 300,000 plus that we were using as
10:41:17 consulting fees.

10:41:19 But my question was, that just explain to me what we
10:41:24 are spending this $100,000 on in terms of another
10:41:28 study?
10:41:29 Another consulting situation?
10:41:31 What are we doing?
10:41:32 What are we doing different here that wasn't included
10:41:34 in that other 300,000?
10:41:38 >>> This study, this work, is to provide
10:41:41 recommendations on improving the existing system
10:41:45 performance.
10:41:46 And it's several things.
10:41:50 One, we are having problems with clogging of sprinkler
10:41:57 heads in the system, filters, and with water quality.
10:42:00 So this work order will make recommendations on how
10:42:06 those things can be corrected, eliminated, improved.
10:42:12 It's very important that we do this right, that we
10:42:18 flush the system right, for instance, from east to
10:42:20 west, in a systematic way, so that we can turn star
10:42:27 one into a success, if you will.
10:42:29 We need to provide good quality water to realize the
10:42:39 project's success that we talked about in the
10:42:40 beginning.

10:42:46 We need to eliminate these problems.
10:42:48 And they are both debris in the system, problems, and
10:42:51 biological growth, for instance, in the water.
10:42:56 That is not causing a problem for most of the
10:42:59 customers but enough to where the word gets out that,
10:43:02 hey, you know, there's a problem here, you may want to
10:43:04 reconsider hooking up.
10:43:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Maybe you can talk a little lower
10:43:14 because I am trying to hear him at the same time.
10:43:16 This is not a study, it is a repair order.
10:43:19 I think pretty soon, Brad, we are going to get into so
10:43:21 many thousands of dollars, we are going to need
10:43:23 Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco to be part of the
10:43:26 system to make our money in terms of worthwhile
10:43:28 investment.
10:43:29 I mean, tell me this is not another study, please.
10:43:32 That's the first thing, I won't sport it -- support
10:43:36 it.
10:43:37 >>> This is beyond a study.
10:43:38 It will provide concrete recommendations on how we can
10:43:40 improve our delivery of water --
10:43:43 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's a study.

10:43:44 That's not somebody going and fixing.
10:43:48 >>> We will still need to hire a contractor to perform
10:43:50 the flushing correctly to install blow-offs in the
10:43:56 system where we have low use of the reclaimed water,
10:44:01 for instance, on dead-end areas.
10:44:12 And all of those things need to be done to maximize
10:44:16 the number of customers that we can put on the system.
10:44:21 >>ROSE FERLITA: I can't remember if this is the same
10:44:23 group that did the other 300,000 on the study.
10:44:26 >>> No.
10:44:27 >> But they did not have the capability to tag this
10:44:31 onto their study, maybe give us a cut.
10:44:34 >>> Right.
10:44:35 >> They didn't.
10:44:36 >>> Well, we consider this group to be the experts in
10:44:41 this area.
10:44:42 They have done this before for other municipalities.
10:44:44 >> But the other groups have not done this?
10:44:46 >>> They could have.
10:44:51 We believer they were the best slugs selection for
10:44:54 this work.
10:44:54 The other again was associated with the expansion of

10:44:57 the --
10:44:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I already said that and I support it
10:45:00 fully because of the explanation Steve gave us, which
10:45:02 was a good one.
10:45:03 But it just seems that we are starting to add more
10:45:06 costs and more costs and more costs, by the tame we
10:45:10 finally figure out how to perfect the system we'll
10:45:14 never be able to recoup our money.
10:45:17 Maybe somebody has different thoughts.
10:45:19 But every time I think we have it moving then we come
10:45:21 up with not just a few dollars more, it's another
10:45:24 $100,000.
10:45:26 >> If I may add, we have worked very hard in-house
10:45:30 to -- I'll use the one example of flashing the system,
10:45:34 to systematically try to flush the system and remove
10:45:38 the debris off Davis Island, which is concentrated on
10:45:41 the first phase of the star.
10:45:44 That work was done.
10:45:46 A few months later, we started receiving complaints
10:45:50 that the debris was back on Davis Island.
10:45:52 So there may be some material in the belly of the
10:45:57 pipeline crossing, for instance, on the channel which

10:46:00 remember was 100 feet under the surface of the water.
10:46:04 And we may not have had enough velocity to push some
10:46:08 of that debris up.
10:46:10 We may have some water quality problems in areas where
10:46:14 the water isn't being used.
10:46:19 And all of those things we need to eliminate.
10:46:23 We need to do this right to turn this into a success.
10:46:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I don't disagree with you at all.
10:46:32 I'm not trying to be antagonistic or problematic here.
10:46:36 But the point is, the other guys, that 300,000 plus,
10:46:39 you feel these guys are a little better than the other
10:46:42 guys.
10:46:42 But probably if we had linked this to their study, we
10:46:45 could have gotten a discount, if we added it on to
10:46:48 what they are doing to the 300,000, and even if they
10:46:50 were second best.
10:46:51 I don't mind second best telling me how to flush out
10:46:55 sprinkler heads.
10:46:58 I keep -- more fees.
10:47:00 >> We don't want to keep paying on fees and we trade
10:47:03 to do this in-house.
10:47:05 This needs to occur quicker than the CDM study can

10:47:08 occur.
10:47:09 We need to have this done in a much more quick
10:47:12 fashion.
10:47:12 What we need for them to do is advise for -- device
10:47:16 for us a methodology that we can flush this system
10:47:18 once and for all.
10:47:19 We have been trying to do that.
10:47:20 We have set up hydrants.
10:47:22 We have temporary hydrants on Davis Island to try to
10:47:25 flush the system.
10:47:26 It has not worked to this point.
10:47:28 These folks are experts in pipeline distribution,
10:47:34 water pipe, pipe flow, and that's what we need.
10:47:37 We need -- if you put this philosophy through these
10:47:41 pipes at these times that you will clean out, scour
10:47:45 out all debris in these systems.
10:47:47 Again we are trying to have a reliable system.
10:47:52 And we don't want to spend any more money than wave to
10:47:55 on this system.
10:47:55 It is not a big money maker for us.
10:47:57 At the same time we think we need to have a reliable
10:47:59 service for our customers when we do provide that

10:48:02 service.
10:48:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's fine.
10:48:03 I don't think this conversation -- I don't think my
10:48:07 colleagues will support it.
10:48:08 I'm saying if you will tongue in cheek I am one of
10:48:10 those victims on that project.
10:48:11 And if it means-this will be done quicker, it's going
10:48:15 to save us 100 that you, I can justify the 300.
10:48:18 I can't justify the 100.
10:48:20 Thanks for your clarification.
10:48:21 I'm sure it will go forward but I still have some
10:48:24 concerns about the way we are getting this handled.
10:48:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, real quickly.
10:48:30 Just to clarify.
10:48:33 I think your point is well taken.
10:48:34 And we always would like to consolidate projects.
10:48:36 But I think the projects are apples and oranges.
10:48:41 Last week's consulting project -- nobody likes
10:48:44 consultant.
10:48:44 But last week's consultant project wag how do we
10:48:48 expand the star system, you know, and the appropriate
10:48:51 places, and that sort of thing.

10:48:53 That's sort of a design, engineering/design issue.
10:48:57 But this issue is like you have an existing house and
10:49:00 your plumbing is not working right.
10:49:01 So we are -- we need an engineer.
10:49:05 Unfortunately we can't call a plumber.
10:49:07 You have to call the engineer to figure out where the
10:49:09 problems are in your plumbing.
10:49:10 Then next we are going to have to call the plumber to
10:49:12 help us figure it out.
10:49:13 So the only other question that I asked Brad two weeks
10:49:16 ago as chairman of the public works is I said, why
10:49:19 can't we do this in-house?
10:49:21 Brad is an engineer.
10:49:22 You have engineers working for you.
10:49:24 That's my question.
10:49:25 Why can't we do this in-house?
10:49:27 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We have tried to do this in-house.
10:49:29 We have used our in-house forces.
10:49:31 We have set up and tested, tried then a number of
10:49:36 times.
10:49:37 It is very time consuming.
10:49:38 It is very -- very people-intensive for us and we are

10:49:44 chasing the problem.
10:49:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So it's your opinion we don't have
10:49:48 the man power to do it in a timely fashion, we have to
10:49:51 get it done, that's why we have to go outside.
10:49:54 >>> That's correct.
10:49:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How long is your study for?
10:49:57 >> I believe the study is for four months maximum.
10:50:05 We should have a recommendation in early spring that
10:50:08 we can move ahead with immediately.
10:50:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Takes four months?
10:50:15 >>> I believe so.
10:50:16 I can verify that.
10:50:20 >> That's a long time.
10:50:20 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10:50:21 Item number 6.
10:50:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, we have lost part of
10:50:29 our presenters on something.
10:50:31 Roy, if you don't mind me making a quick alteration or
10:50:34 making an alteration to our agenda.
10:50:36 Awhile back I had asked that somebody I thought was
10:50:40 from the administration, but didn't reflect that, to
10:50:43 come talk about the homeless coalition.

10:50:45 I know that one of the gentlemen that was going to
10:50:47 present Christine Burdick and Rayme Nuckles are still
10:50:53 here.
10:50:54 This is an important issue.
10:50:55 I would like to do two things.
10:50:56 Ask if it's possible that the two people here that
10:50:58 were going to say something about it, if they can come
10:51:01 back next week, come back next week, along with Fran
10:51:04 Davin.
10:51:04 Fran has led the charge on this.
10:51:06 Had some problems with people not understanding our
10:51:08 definition of what we allow or don't allow, in terms
10:51:11 of homeless treatment.
10:51:12 So that's number 13.
10:51:14 I just wonder if I can make a motion to continue this
10:51:16 till next week, and also, in addition to the people
10:51:19 that were the presenters today, have Fran Davin come
10:51:24 from administration so --
10:51:27 >> You want to continue 13?
10:51:30 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
10:51:30 Next week, only because I'm leaving and I want to hear
10:51:34 --

10:51:35 >> second.
10:51:36 >> Motion and second to continue item number 13.
10:51:38 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:51:39 Opposed, Nay.
10:51:41 (Motion Carried)
10:51:41 Okay, Mr. LaMotte.
10:51:42 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
10:51:47 >>ROY LAMOTTE: I'm here to address an issue that you
10:51:51 was questioned regarding speeding, and Isabella
10:51:57 street.
10:51:59 It's number 6.
10:52:01 I am going to place an aerial on the Elmo.
10:52:10 Basically, we are looking at Martin Luther King
10:52:14 Boulevard to the left is north Avenue, and you can see
10:52:17 highlighted and shaded red is actually San Isabel.
10:52:24 North-south roadway and south 18 to 20 feet long,
10:52:29 excuse me, in width.
10:52:31 And it's about six blocks.
10:52:35 Again referring to the Elmo, you can see the type of
10:52:38 roadway we are dealing with here.
10:52:41 There are two staff conditions currently in place.
10:52:52 North Howard Avenue.

10:52:53 And also Albany Avenue that are in place today.
10:52:58 We have studied this particular location since 2003.
10:53:04 There's been seven studies conducted along it.
10:53:09 In 2004 we actually found -- 40 miles per hour.
10:53:18 Since that time it dropped off of the list because the
10:53:21 several studies that were done after that brought the
10:53:24 speed down to 33 to 34 miles an hour. But something
10:53:26 happened during that period of time.
10:53:32 September 2nd, 2005, we actually posted the street
10:53:35 at 25 miles an hour as requested. This street carried
10:53:39 approximately 500 cars a day. This is local in nature.
10:53:46 Not a major arterial.
10:53:47 But it does connect two major arterials. Again, the
10:53:54 peak hour volumes on this street about 45 to 72
10:53:55 vehicles, to put it into perspective.
10:53:58 We looked at three years of crash data out here.
10:54:01 It's negligible.
10:54:04 There was really only three. Approximately one per
10:54:05 year. City of Tampa Transportation Division has an
10:54:05 approved policy on how to handle matters like this.
10:54:15 We compare it against other documented properties.
10:54:18 We currently have 77 local residential neighborhoods

10:54:21 collector streets that have a similar type of problem.
10:54:22 We are not recommending speed tables at this time for
10:54:29 the area in question.
10:54:30 We'll continue to monitor the traffic conditions.
10:54:33 We are looking at a possibility -- and I want to
10:54:37 stress the possibility is looking at the intersection
10:54:39 of Saint Marco street with San Isabel, considering
10:54:45 that as the multi-way stop, which would provide some
10:54:50 basically staggered stop sign approach to streets.
10:54:54 We understand it's residential in nature.
10:54:56 Again -- and make gee oh metric changes out there
10:55:05 based on existing conditions, but will consider a
10:55:08 four-way stop at that location in the meantime.
10:55:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Mr. LaMotte.
10:55:14 I guess you saw the e-mails that I have been getting
10:55:17 on this from the same person.
10:55:19 Because she's got small children.
10:55:23 And there's no sidewalks in that area, as you well
10:55:25 know.
10:55:26 And there's a definite speeding problem according to
10:55:31 her.
10:55:31 I go through there quite a bit myself.

10:55:33 I don't see -- I don't see the problem that she sees
10:55:36 it but she lives there.
10:55:38 I don't.
10:55:39 And so she did ask for a multi-stop sign.
10:55:43 So if you are planning to do that, that's a good
10:55:45 thing.
10:55:46 I think probably what needs to be done is that maybe
10:55:50 we can get a police officer to go in to sit around
10:55:54 there, and ticket people if they can.
10:55:59 I know you have done all you can but she keeps
10:56:03 bringing this up and I have to bring it up so we can
10:56:07 put a resolution to this one way or the other.
10:56:09 And that's why I asked you to come today.
10:56:12 >> It's a pleasure to be here.
10:56:13 We'll continue to try to work towards ways of making
10:56:16 the neighborhood more livable.
10:56:18 >> Thank you.
10:56:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 8.
10:56:39 >>> Appearing here again on item number 7.
10:56:42 Again, Cathy Ginster, legal department.
10:56:47 This was the ordinance scheduled for first reading on
10:56:50 October 19th.

10:56:51 And it was asked to be continued until today.
10:56:56 And it is now -- there has been a meeting with some
10:57:00 individuals that have appeared before council and made
10:57:04 public comment.
10:57:04 And, as a result, you have been presented with a
10:57:09 written ordinance, referring to pages 8, 11 and 12.
10:57:16 The changes are highlighted on the copy that was
10:57:19 provided to you yesterday.
10:57:21 And I brought some copies, if any members in the
10:57:25 public care to have a copy.
10:57:27 And the request is for City Council to make a motion
10:57:32 with the changes I have highlighted.
10:57:33 On pages 8, 11 and 12.
10:57:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini, you wanted to speak on
10:57:55 that?
10:57:55 >> I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
10:57:57 Do you wish to have anybody who wishes to speak to the
10:58:03 grease ordinance speak at this time?
10:58:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:58:07 >> Do we need to waive the rules?
10:58:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would recommend that.
10:58:10 >> So moved.

10:58:11 >> Second.
10:58:11 (Motion carried).
10:58:11 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have several copies of this in my
10:58:17 response to you all.
10:58:22 I have a copy and original for the clerk here.
10:58:31 Quite honestly, council, I'm a little dismayed.
10:58:35 Two weeks ago you made a motion to get with the
10:58:38 affected people that were involved in this issue.
10:58:40 And I brought it to you as some concerns regarding a
10:58:44 restaurant that I represented in the restaurant
10:58:46 association.
10:58:47 I received an e-mail on Friday morning telling me that
10:58:50 they had scheduled a meeting the following Thursday at
10:58:53 10 a.m.
10:58:54 I sent an e-mail back to them advising it was well
10:58:57 known that I had a variety of different issues before
10:59:01 City Council, and I thought that Thursday morning was
10:59:04 inappropriate.
10:59:04 I provided several different alternative times and
10:59:08 locations for possible meetings including that
10:59:10 Thursday arch, that Friday, anytime that day, the
10:59:14 following Monday, whichever day, and I got no response

10:59:18 whatsoever.
10:59:18 I got called back saying, oh, yeah, they were looking
10:59:21 into it, and basically the answer was, no, they didn't
10:59:25 want to meet with me, they met with some other folks.
10:59:27 So, anyway, that being said, I think that was an
10:59:30 egregious affront to me and the folks that I
10:59:33 represent.
10:59:35 The second thing is, I'll bring to your attention
10:59:37 there on page 2 -- on page 1, the letter from the
10:59:41 restaurant association indicating that they have some
10:59:43 concerns regarding this ordinance as written.
10:59:46 Item 1 on my letter, they still have included
10:59:49 churches, schools and concession stands as food
10:59:52 service facilities, which potentially could mean that
10:59:57 they would be required to install a grease trap, or
11:00:02 grease trap interceptor system that would be extremely
11:00:06 expensive for them to operate. The water and sewer
11:00:09 fees right now, water fees alone are expensive.
11:00:11 The sewer fees that you are paying are triple that
11:00:15 fee.
11:00:15 If you add onto that, the cost of installing another
11:00:19 grease trap, or grease trap intercepter system you are

11:00:24 talking about 5 to 10,000.
11:00:26 With the basic monitoring and maintenance of that
11:00:28 system, you are going to double the cost to every
11:00:31 restaurant.
11:00:32 It's about 6 to $700 a month.
11:00:34 It may go up to 12, 1500 a month under this proposal.
11:00:42 In this proposed amendment which I received last
11:00:44 night, they have excluded gray water, which is a step
11:00:48 in the right direction.
11:00:48 But what they haven't done is they have not eliminated
11:00:51 the provision that remodeling a restaurant kicks off
11:00:56 an automatic review and potentially installation of a
11:00:59 new grease trap.
11:01:01 The second thing they haven't done is they have kept
11:01:03 in there, if you change the ownership of a restaurant,
11:01:06 it's an automatic consideration for a grease trap.
11:01:11 And essentially that system is going to pass on to
11:01:16 small businesses an extraordinary amount of money.
11:01:19 I'm asking that you delete those provisions from the
11:01:21 code, from this code provision, and that you allow the
11:01:25 restaurant, if they have an operating system that's
11:01:29 sufficient and meets the current code, is maintained

11:01:32 in a safe manner in accordance with the manufacturer
11:01:37 specifics, that they not be required -- not that it's
11:01:40 up to the discretion of the department -- that it not
11:01:42 be required for them to replace those intercepter
11:01:47 systems.
11:01:48 Right now the way the code is written, it says "may"
11:01:51 which gives the discretion to the department.
11:01:52 I think that discretion is not placed in a safe place.
11:01:56 I think that it should be allowed, if you have an
11:01:58 operating system, that you should not be required to
11:02:02 replace that and make it obligatory, make it an option
11:02:07 of the department.
11:02:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So what you are saying, if a
11:02:14 property is renovated or is sold, that it should be up
11:02:18 to the discretion of the property owner, who I would
11:02:21 submit to you isn't necessarily very objective, rather
11:02:24 than a city staff person to say whether the existing
11:02:29 equipment is functioning properly.
11:02:32 >>STEVE MICHELINI: What I'm saying is, if it does
11:02:35 operate correctly --
11:02:37 >> According to who?
11:02:39 >>> Well, I mean, there are standards.

11:02:42 >> But who would do the evaluation?
11:02:45 I mean, I agree with you that just because the
11:02:47 ownership changes or the building is renovated, they
11:02:51 shouldn't have to replace the system that's relatively
11:02:54 new and is operating properly.
11:02:55 I just am saying that perhaps the evaluation should be
11:02:58 done by someone more objective than the property
11:03:01 owner.
11:03:03 >>> Well, a change in ownership doesn't necessarily
11:03:05 mean the system is failing.
11:03:07 >> No, I agree with you, Mr. Michelini.
11:03:09 I just say we need an objective person to look at it
11:03:12 and say, how is it functioning?
11:03:14 >>> That's fine.
11:03:14 I don't care about the inspection.
11:03:16 Way care about is it makes it discretionary about
11:03:19 whether or not you put in a grease trap -- there is no
11:03:23 evaluation criteria here, it's completely
11:03:26 discretionary upon the staff.
11:03:28 They may require to you install a new one.
11:03:30 They may not.
11:03:31 But there is no evaluation criteria that says that if

11:03:34 you meet these standards northbound here -- and they
11:03:36 have them enumerated -- 400 -- that that should be in
11:03:48 the discharge pipe, not in the grease trap itself.
11:03:57 There's good bacteria and there's bad bacteria.
11:04:00 The good bacteria actually helps the wastewater
11:04:03 treatment plant and is a pretreatment.
11:04:06 It actually starts to break down.
11:04:10 But you're putting the department in charge of making
11:04:14 discretionary decision when it ought to be completely
11:04:16 objective.
11:04:19 If this T system meets the criteria, leave it alone.
11:04:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White?
11:04:23 >>KEVIN WHITE: Mr. Michelini, I see you have on here
11:04:27 two of the other concerns, number 2 and number 5.
11:04:29 I would like to get your explanation on this.
11:04:32 And then Mr. Daignault.
11:04:34 Because I thought it was a little difference of
11:04:37 opinion on last Thursday.
11:04:39 Number 2, the exclusion of gray water should be
11:04:42 revised to be included instead of excluded.
11:04:46 Explain that one.
11:04:48 >>> They have addressed that issue.

11:04:50 It's in the revised ordinance.
11:04:52 But I didn't have the benefit of their revised
11:04:54 ordinance until late yesterday.
11:04:56 So when I wrote the letter yesterday afternoon --
11:04:59 >> So is your number 5 taken care of, too, the gray
11:05:02 water, the sanitary sewer system?
11:05:05 >>> 2 and 5 are dealt with.
11:05:07 As long as they are measuring the output of the
11:05:10 discharge pipe, not in the tank.
11:05:22 >>KEVIN WHITE: I guess I don't need to ask Mr.
11:05:23 Daignault.
11:05:27 >>> Steve pretty much hit on my question.
11:05:29 The exception for the gray water is listed.
11:05:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Put your name on the record.
11:05:36 >>> Dennis Grove, Publix.
11:05:42 I appreciate the opportunity council to give us the
11:05:43 opportunity to meet.
11:05:44 It's unfortunate Steve wasn't able to be there.
11:05:49 It was very open and -- the one question I have is,
11:05:54 what Steve just mentioned, is -- I'm sure Mr. Metcalf
11:06:00 can answer that -- where it says as long as the
11:06:02 wastewater, fluent grease concentrations do not

11:06:05 exceed 400 milligrams per liter.
11:06:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Can't hear you.
11:06:16 >>> Well, we were discussing how the water is inside
11:06:18 those traps, like a septic tank.
11:06:21 If you measure the water inside the septic tank it's
11:06:25 going to be way over 400 milligrams per liter.
11:06:28 The concern is what's going into the city sewer
11:06:31 system.
11:06:31 If it's tested as it's going into the city sewer
11:06:33 system, that's where we need to be complying.
11:06:37 And it's just written as wastewater effluent.
11:06:44 I just want to make sure we are not testing the
11:06:46 effluent side of the trap the effluent pipe as it
11:06:48 enters the sewer system.
11:06:49 And Mr. Metcalf acknowledges that is the case.
11:06:54 That's pretty much what we had.
11:06:56 Thanks very much.
11:06:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Metcalf, would you come up?
11:07:02 >>RALPH METCALF: Wastewater department.
11:07:14 Second first reading, I guess, is what we are doing
11:07:16 here.
11:07:18 A brief, very brief -- the reason we are here, why do

11:07:24 we care?
11:07:25 One, we have a consent order.
11:07:27 Consent order has to do with overflow.
11:07:30 Overflow is bad.
11:07:32 50% of our overflow is 45% comes from grease.
11:07:35 It's the single biggest thing.
11:07:37 This is a requirement in our consent order.
11:07:41 You people probably saw, except for, I think, Mr.
11:07:46 Dingfelder probably saw more grease pictures than you
11:07:50 would care to see last time.
11:07:51 When we left here, the main bone of contention, what
11:07:57 you think, the first one was with certain people who
11:08:00 showed up with a different kind of a pumping symptom.
11:08:04 It speaks to how do you pump grease traps?
11:08:07 How do you know what's coming out of there?
11:08:10 That's one thing.
11:08:10 The other thing was -- I'm going to have to tell you
11:08:14 that the restaurant people have been noticed on all
11:08:16 these meetings, and I think we have addressed
11:08:20 everything here.
11:08:21 We have talked about the -- the church that serves
11:08:26 food is no different than any other restaurant.

11:08:28 The real thing, if you look at the overriding concept
11:08:33 here, it's that it's 400 MGL means parts per million.
11:08:45 We have motor oil.
11:08:47 Now that doesn't continue when we have animal fats.
11:08:51 Lard, talo and other attractive words.
11:08:54 That does and that's the problem.
11:08:56 The 400 milligrams per liter came originally from
11:09:01 St. Pete who did a fairly exhaustive study looking at
11:09:04 grease traps, looking at patterns of what comes out of
11:09:07 grease traps.
11:09:08 This whole thing about effluent means what enters the
11:09:11 sewer system, the city sewer system.
11:09:14 As far as we are concerned, a grease trap is sort of a
11:09:17 black box, no pun intended, in terms of what's going
11:09:21 on in there.
11:09:22 Needs to be cleaned.
11:09:23 What we are concerned with is 400 milligrams per liter
11:09:29 of this animal fan does not get into our system. That
11:09:32 number was not made up.
11:09:33 What happened was St. Pete did a lot of work on this.
11:09:35 And what they found is that well maintained grease
11:09:39 traps, one, do not discharge more than that.

11:09:42 Obviously we are not talking about 399 bad, 401 bad.
11:09:49 That's where there was a definite break point.
11:09:51 And they didn't see any downstream overflows
11:09:53 blockages.
11:09:54 Remember, only about one out of six of our blockages
11:09:59 turned into overflow.
11:10:01 So if we have 100 a year historically, 45 or 50% are
11:10:06 caused by grease, overflows, sewage on the street,
11:10:10 there are probably six times that many that were
11:10:13 blockages that we got to quickly before they become
11:10:17 overflows.
11:10:17 So the 400 very much a break point.
11:10:23 So that's the number that we are looking at.
11:10:27 Now that does not mean that everybody in the world can
11:10:29 put out 400 parts per million of grease forever.
11:10:33 If they did the city would have approximately 24,000
11:10:36 gallons a day of grease, just doing the math on that.
11:10:40 But what we are saying is for grease traps, if they
11:10:43 stay under that, that's what the empirical things have
11:10:47 shown.
11:10:49 The real question here has been, what do you do about
11:10:52 grease traps, and a grease trap remember is under the

11:10:56 sink, they call intercepter, if it's in the ground.
11:10:59 The new one that is meat code -- Mr. Michelini said if
11:11:04 it meets code -- if it meets code there's nothing to
11:11:09 be said about that.
11:11:10 The real question has been if somebody has a somewhat
11:11:14 undersized by today's standards, grease trap or
11:11:17 intercepter, what do we do?
11:11:20 We have said, if you can clean it, no problem, as long
11:11:23 as we are not getting the 400, in the system, that's
11:11:31 okay.
11:11:31 Now it's a different thing than is the owner getting
11:11:34 what he paid for gets his grease trap cleaned?
11:11:40 That was the big discussion we had during the off
11:11:43 week.
11:11:43 As I told you, people like I believe Largo had looked
11:11:47 at full pumpout.
11:11:48 They are requiring that.
11:11:49 They said, that's the only way that you can literally
11:11:52 look in there and see, yes, it's clean.
11:11:55 We spent some passionate debate on this.
11:11:59 And what we are saying is we are going to give the
11:12:01 two-tank folks -- and this is some of them.

11:12:05 And there's a lot of grease guys.
11:12:07 Everybody has their own theory.
11:12:09 Some of you may have had some dealings with them.
11:12:11 That we are going to give this two-tank approach,
11:12:14 which in theory if done correctly would be acceptable.
11:12:18 We are going to put that in there and say you can
11:12:20 return that gray water.
11:12:22 We are going to be looking at that.
11:12:24 A lot of this stuff that we do like any other thing
11:12:28 is, do we enforce it?
11:12:29 Do we inspect it?
11:12:31 Like a 55 mile-an-hour speed limit in the middle of
11:12:34 nowhere.
11:12:35 No policemen, they are going to go faster than that.
11:12:38 So the change we have made is to allow this gray water
11:12:41 return in this ordinance.
11:12:44 We are not requiring anybody -- we are going to be
11:12:48 looking at what comes out.
11:12:50 We don't get paid when people put in new grease traps.
11:12:53 That's not something we care about.
11:12:55 We simply don't.
11:12:56 However, this is going to be a little bit of the Harry

11:12:59 Truman approach, we are going to try this, and if it
11:13:01 doesn't work we are going to try to come back for
11:13:03 something else.
11:13:04 If we find the two-tank system is not working we are
11:13:07 going to come back.
11:13:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Metcalf, forgive me, I don't know
11:13:14 too much about this stuff.
11:13:15 I want to ask you a question.
11:13:18 If you have a two-compartment truck that you are going
11:13:25 to be punching out this agrees trap, and you have got
11:13:29 sediment in the bottom, gray water in the middle, and
11:13:34 grease on top --
11:13:36 >>> Grease on top.
11:13:39 >> How does the department know where that gray water
11:13:42 is going to go?
11:13:43 >>> Sort of the old cooler joke, how will it know?
11:13:45 >> And when you are pumping it out --
11:13:49 >>> It's operator judgment.
11:13:51 None of this is any better than the folks yielding the
11:13:54 giant wand.
11:13:55 That's the problem.
11:13:56 On all of this stuff.

11:13:57 There is no way other than full pumpout.
11:14:00 You can't make any of this stuff criminal.
11:14:02 Okay?
11:14:02 I'm not saying anybody is a criminal.
11:14:06 What I'm saying, if somebody wanted to do it wrong
11:14:08 they can do it wrong with any equipment.
11:14:11 Yes, there is some judgment involved in that, when
11:14:14 they are sucking this grease, the sludge out of the
11:14:18 bottom and where it changes color.
11:14:21 Not real pleasant, is it?
11:14:22 That's when they switch over to the department so
11:14:25 there is judgment in error.
11:14:26 Can it be done wrong?
11:14:27 Yes.
11:14:27 Is there some leeway in this?
11:14:32 Certainly.
11:14:32 So we are going to see how these guys do it, what
11:14:36 comes out of it.
11:14:37 What are the patterns?
11:14:38 It looks like it's not working right, then we are
11:14:40 coming back.
11:14:41 >> Don't they normally pump out these grease traps at

11:14:44 night?
11:14:46 >>RALPH METCALF: Some do, some don't.
11:14:48 There are some people -- some of the folks are
11:14:51 requiring it during the day, because they want to look
11:14:54 down that tank.
11:14:56 Many of the restaurants at night, they don't want
11:14:58 anybody there during the day at lunch hour doing this.
11:15:01 It's a mixed bag.
11:15:02 >> but let's go back to where gyrating in there and
11:15:07 all the stuff is going in there.
11:15:08 Doesn't it take time for the sediment to come back?
11:15:11 >>> Absolutely.
11:15:12 >> And then for the water and so on?
11:15:14 >>> absolutely.
11:15:14 >> How long does it take?
11:15:16 It has to be hours.
11:15:19 >>> Well, in almost 20 minutes.
11:15:21 30 is better.
11:15:22 It's just a question, this is like watching a solution
11:15:28 separate.
11:15:28 That's where the two-tank idea in theory, if you are
11:15:31 really good, you will get most of the solids and leave

11:15:35 the gray water.
11:15:37 If you are not that good, it's only as good as the
11:15:41 operator, then you make them up.
11:15:43 That was one tank, in theory, would have to pump
11:15:46 everything in there, getting sucked out in the
11:15:50 swirling vortex and you would wait there for an hour
11:15:53 for that thing to separate a little bit.
11:15:54 Now the question is, who is on the clock and all that?
11:15:57 That's why we are saying the one-tank are going to be
11:16:01 full pump out, they can't return.
11:16:04 The difference that we make, the concession we made,
11:16:07 we are saying for now, as it's written right now,
11:16:13 return that gray water, if that approves -- proves not
11:16:15 to be working we'll be back in six months.
11:16:17 >> So you are giving them six months to work this out?
11:16:20 >> Until we can find a pattern.
11:16:23 Is it working or not working?
11:16:24 >> Are we still under orders?
11:16:33 And what is it, January 1st?
11:16:36 >>> December 31st we need a grease ordinance.
11:16:40 >> Okay.
11:16:40 >>> You can modify it after that.

11:16:42 >> Okay.
11:16:42 Suppose you have, after January 1st, and we are in
11:16:46 this six-month period and so on, suppose you have a
11:16:52 spill, and do we get fined for that?
11:16:56 >>> I got a bill this week.
11:16:59 >> So let's go beyond January.
11:17:02 And --
11:17:04 >>> Wave to not have inexcusable overflow.
11:17:08 Whether they are from grease or anything.
11:17:10 We are going to get find for that.
11:17:12 >> Suppose it's not the city's fault.
11:17:15 We already have this ordinance in place.
11:17:18 And are the grease haulers supposed to be following
11:17:22 this ordinance here?
11:17:24 Why can't we fine them for not taking care of that?
11:17:28 >>> We are going to give it a real good try.
11:17:30 Absolutely.
11:17:31 >> Do you think this ordinance is what would work for
11:17:36 the city?
11:17:37 >>> I think it's a good first step.
11:17:38 I'm an engineer, not a mathematician.
11:17:41 >> You are not a magician is what you are saying.

11:17:43 >>> Or a mathematician.
11:17:45 So I don't do perfect answers.
11:17:46 I think this is an 80% answer and we'll see from
11:17:50 there.
11:17:52 Which for most of us --
11:17:53 >> I want to feel comfortable in this, Ralph.
11:17:55 I really do.
11:17:58 So if you are telling me I am going to be 50%
11:18:00 comfortable with it, it's not going to work.
11:18:04 >>> Well, 70% would be better than zero, which is
11:18:06 where we are right now.
11:18:08 Don't forget.
11:18:08 95% of this is already in our codings.
11:18:12 We are just pushing it into one place.
11:18:14 We are going to go check people more.
11:18:17 >> Could we put a little thing in there that if we get
11:18:21 fined that the grease haulers will get fined, too?
11:18:25 >>> We already have those -- those legal remedies are
11:18:29 already there.
11:18:29 >> Now I feel better.
11:18:31 Thank you.
11:18:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me ask a question.

11:18:33 The gray water, you say don't put it back in there.
11:18:36 If it's not clean --
11:18:39 >>> There's not much in the sewer that's clean, to be
11:18:41 honest with you.
11:18:42 >> But we do want to put the gray water back in there.
11:18:45 >>> And the whole -- Mr. Michelini's thing about the
11:18:49 bacteria was a nice try, but bacteria has nothing to
11:18:52 do with it.
11:18:53 What we want this stuff to do is resemble normal
11:18:55 wastewater without having so much grease that it clogs
11:18:59 our system.
11:18:59 That's all it's talking about.
11:19:01 And that's what the gray water would be.
11:19:03 Some people say, you know, anything from a washing
11:19:05 machine is gray water.
11:19:07 That gets bandied about.
11:19:10 >> How do we know they put it back?
11:19:12 >>> Well, that's part of it.
11:19:14 If we find out it goes in those grease traps and they
11:19:17 are already overflowing the next day after somebody
11:19:20 allegedly cleaned it or downstream of there, then we
11:19:24 have a problem.

11:19:25 So that's part us checking the system for the 2021
11:19:32 restaurants.
11:19:33 Yeah, that's a lot.
11:19:34 And say, where are we seeing our problems?
11:19:37 If we go back and do an inspection, whether it's under
11:19:40 the sink or whatever, they are not maintained, they
11:19:44 are overflowing, they are going to get a violation.
11:19:46 You need to clean those.
11:19:47 And of course we are going to -- if the second one
11:19:50 comes up, by the third one at some point, is this
11:19:54 person trying to circumvent?
11:19:56 Are they trying to help?
11:19:57 Is there a problem?
11:19:59 Do we need to change something?
11:20:04 >> How many inspectors do you have?
11:20:05 >>> Three.
11:20:06 That's three more than we had.
11:20:08 We had one.
11:20:10 >>GWEN MILLER: If they were cleaning the tank
11:20:12 completely, wouldn't you have overflow?
11:20:18 >>> Well, the only thing we are really trying to do is
11:20:20 get the bottom sludge, and more importantly the top

11:20:23 floating grease.
11:20:24 Because that's the stuff that gets into our system
11:20:26 that congeals and causes a sewer backup of everybody
11:20:30 else's sewage, which then backs up and overflows
11:20:33 sometimes.
11:20:34 One time out of six or so, when we had the stoppages,
11:20:37 we don't get there in time.
11:20:40 To break that stoppage out.
11:20:41 >> But what I am saying is they completely enter the
11:20:44 tank.
11:20:46 >> Well, the tank is -- this is not a tank that just
11:20:49 fills up and then it gets empty like nothing ever
11:20:51 comes.
11:20:52 It's like a septic tank.
11:20:54 You have treated water coming out of there to your
11:20:56 system.
11:20:57 >> So how much do they leave?
11:21:03 >>> Well, if they return the stuff, the water that
11:21:07 doesn't have grease or solids, or doesn't have much of
11:21:10 it, which is what the two-tank system would do, if
11:21:13 that were a 1,000-gallon tank they may put that 700
11:21:17 gallons.

11:21:18 But those tanks are designed whereby 25% of their
11:21:22 storage is for the stuff that you want to get out.
11:21:24 And it separates.
11:21:25 And the trick is in separating that.
11:21:27 >> So something has to be wrong if they are
11:21:30 overflowing --
11:21:31 >>> No, the overflow is downstream in our system.
11:21:33 >> How is it --
11:21:37 >>> Because if you don't maintain it, if you don't
11:21:39 pump them, that grease bypasses that system, because
11:21:42 it's not clean, the grease gets out thereof into our
11:21:46 pipes, that's when it causes us overflows.
11:21:49 >> So we should have some stipulation that they should
11:21:53 be cleaned so many times and not once a year.
11:21:55 >>> Oh, no.
11:21:57 >> How many times?
11:21:58 >>> See, we are talking a normal thing would be about
11:22:01 90 days.
11:22:01 But part of that is when the guy goes in there and
11:22:04 pumps, he has to say, gee, when we got there it was
11:22:07 just before overflowing.
11:22:08 You may have to go to 60 days.

11:22:10 That's one thing grease inspectors start looking at
11:22:13 this and seeing that this particular trap needs to be
11:22:16 pumped more orphan.
11:22:18 They'll go talk to the owner.
11:22:19 Because either you can put in a bigger one and pump it
11:22:22 less, take your little one and pump it more often.
11:22:25 As long as you don't put that grease to us, that's
11:22:27 your decision.
11:22:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have to do something.
11:22:32 And I think that we have brought everybody to the
11:22:35 table as best as we can.
11:22:37 And I think at some point we all just have to say we
11:22:39 have gotten to this point, we are all going to have to
11:22:42 trust each other.
11:22:43 And I'm confident with Steve and Ralph that we have
11:22:45 addressed the major considerations that were raised a
11:22:49 couple of weeks ago.
11:22:50 I for one heard enough about grease.
11:22:52 I would like to pass the ordinance and --
11:22:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Hear from Mr. Dingfelder.
11:23:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only question I had.
11:23:03 Two questions.

11:23:03 One, Mr. Michelini, on behalf of the restaurant
11:23:06 association spoke to this usual you about the
11:23:12 triggering, remodeling, expansion, if the restaurant
11:23:15 gets sold, requires some triggering.
11:23:18 True?
11:23:18 False?
11:23:19 Joint application?
11:23:20 What?
11:23:21 >>> It says may.
11:23:22 If somebody is going to take a -- a 14-seat restaurant
11:23:26 and try to turn it into a 200 seat restaurant, it's
11:23:30 good to talk to them before they get too far and say
11:23:32 that isn't going to work.
11:23:33 You are going to have a problem.
11:23:35 If somebody sells the identical restaurant, which has
11:23:39 been working fine and the trap has been cleaned
11:23:40 whenever it needs to be cleaned and they keep that up,
11:23:43 no problem.
11:23:43 >> So that's the discretion you want.
11:23:45 And you feel that you can use it reasonably.
11:23:49 >>> Yeah.
11:23:50 I'm not into grease vigilante.

11:23:54 >> And then the other issue -- and I don't want to
11:24:00 think that we can do something we might not be able to
11:24:03 do.
11:24:03 I see in the ordinance we do have the ability or we
11:24:05 are giving ours it is ability to do some grease hauler
11:24:08 enforcement.
11:24:09 The problem that I see, I don't want to us get too
11:24:12 excited about that, is that theoretically if you are
11:24:15 going to hit them with a notice violation, you want to
11:24:17 take -- where do you take them?
11:24:18 You are going to take them to code enforcement.
11:24:20 Well, typically, if you get them to code enforcement,
11:24:23 or you get anybody to code enforcement, you slap a
11:24:27 lien on their house or whatever that's in violation.
11:24:32 In this case you have a grease hauler, you know,
11:24:36 you don't -- his or her property involved, so then
11:24:40 you went -- run into an enforcement problem or frankly
11:24:44 a penalty.
11:24:47 Can you take his license?
11:24:49 >>> I don't think we are allowed to shoot them.
11:24:53 [ Laughter ]
11:24:53 We had some -- there are some penalties.

11:24:55 For one thing we can do, if you have a pattern of
11:24:59 doing the wrong thing you are going to say --
11:25:02 >> I haven't read that.
11:25:04 >>> I haven't read that.
11:25:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I read where it says you can take
11:25:07 them to code enforcement but then if you take them to
11:25:09 code than enforce; we can't clamp a lien on that
11:25:16 house.
11:25:26 If it's not there, then maybe we'll address it down
11:25:29 the road.
11:25:30 >>> Currently in the city's code, there's a
11:25:34 smorgasbord of remedies available.
11:25:38 There's currently in the city's code a smorgasbord of
11:25:42 remedies available that have been incorporated into
11:25:44 this ordinance.
11:25:45 But this ordinance is dictated by the consumer as
11:25:49 civil penalties.
11:25:50 So the intent was we used all the existing codes that
11:25:54 are currently on the books.
11:25:55 And so when you are referring to code enforcement,
11:26:00 that is a procedure that can be perceived, as well as
11:26:05 going to the criminal process.

11:26:07 But there are significant fines on chapter 9 that
11:26:12 exist on the books now.
11:26:13 And are available to other departments.
11:26:21 5,000.
11:26:21 And 15,000.
11:26:24 And whether or not we can get the truck, or -- we are
11:26:33 also allowed under the existing code for reimbursement
11:26:39 of any damages that are caused to the city.
11:26:44 >> That's fine, I think you answered that.
11:26:48 So you are saying theoretically you could lien their
11:26:50 business if they didn't pay the fine, lien their truck
11:26:53 or what have you.
11:26:54 >>> There are enforcement remedies that are available
11:26:56 under existing law.
11:26:57 We have civil court to sue them, we have the option to
11:27:00 go to criminal court, the option to go to code
11:27:02 enforcement.
11:27:03 But the consent order specifically asks these civil
11:27:08 penalties be imposed and we didn't want -- seen on the
11:27:14 books now.
11:27:15 And just so you know.
11:27:17 Many of these requests that are being asked by Mr.

11:27:21 Michelini, they currently sit on the books.
11:27:25 If a commercial building --
11:27:36 The state code defines what types of businesses, and
11:27:40 that pretty much incorporates the type of businesses
11:27:44 in the ordinance.
11:27:45 So when you go to page 2 of the ordinance you will see
11:27:48 the applicability, and then the grease ordinance and
11:27:54 then the technical manual.
11:28:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: On page 13, recovery of damages, it
11:28:03 says the discharge from food service facility.
11:28:06 But if the food service facility has a grease trap,
11:28:10 and it's full, and the grease hauler comes over and
11:28:16 just takes half of it because he's got to go to the
11:28:19 dump or whatever, leaves it in there, and doesn't come
11:28:22 back for a week or so, and then the grease trap fills
11:28:25 up again and throws an overflow at that point,
11:28:27 shouldn't the grease hauler be the one that should be
11:28:30 getting the penalty and not the food service?
11:28:33 Because he's already paying the fee to the grease
11:28:37 hauler to empty out that tank.
11:28:41 And he's under -- he would be under the -- what is it?
11:28:48 He's already telling the guy, clean out my grease

11:28:51 tank.
11:28:51 And ER he's telling him, you're not doing it, then --
11:28:57 so you're saying here the food service is going to get
11:29:02 charged for the violation.
11:29:06 >>> We had a trap that the owner said, I have the
11:29:08 receipt.
11:29:08 The guy was here last week before he did it all.
11:29:11 There's in a way it couldn't build up again.
11:29:14 That's why he needs discretion.
11:29:16 I need to be able to go after that guy.
11:29:19 Absolutely.
11:29:20 >> But the food service facility --
11:29:22 >>> That's why we had some discretion.
11:29:24 If we don't have the discretion, it's like saying,
11:29:28 50.3 everybody gets a ticket.
11:29:31 >> So where is in the there that you have the
11:29:32 discretion?
11:29:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you look, Mary, at the top of
11:29:35 13, it says violation of any provision, either the
11:29:40 owner or the grease hauler.
11:29:48 >>> Ginster: In the actual grease ordinance before
11:29:50 you, both the food service facility, and the hauler

11:29:58 are required to keep records so that when something
11:30:01 occurs, city enforcement can go in and take a look at
11:30:05 the records to determine who is actually responsible.
11:30:12 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Anybody can fudge records.
11:30:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: I just was concerned again, Ralph, you
11:30:18 know, to agree with one of the concerns that Mr.
11:30:23 Michelini brought up.
11:30:24 And I think you have addressed it, Ralph, in terms of
11:30:26 the property owner, the restaurant owner.
11:30:32 We're taking it on faith that the people are going to
11:30:34 do what you are going to do, correct?
11:30:35 We are saying if it doesn't come through and your
11:30:38 inspectors are not doing what they are being paid for,
11:30:41 that we are going to revise it.
11:30:43 So I think you're basically putting them on notice
11:30:46 that what they are saying they are going to do and
11:30:48 they don't do.
11:30:49 I guess I am not being very trustful of anything going
11:30:52 on here.
11:30:52 I'm assuming that both of them are reputable.
11:30:54 But I'm sorry that you're at a disadvantage with three
11:30:58 inspectors versus how many restaurants we have.

11:31:00 So I hope that we can take very harsh, strong, quick
11:31:04 remedy when we found that a hauler is not doing what
11:31:07 they are supposed to do.
11:31:08 That sends a strong message to the whole industry.
11:31:11 >> We are going to look for patterns.
11:31:13 And generally you inspect the people you think are
11:31:15 doing wrong with the people you think are doing right.
11:31:20 >> Ralph, as an example, a vendor, if he doesn't do
11:31:24 this and we find that he's violated it several times,
11:31:28 I guess this is a legal question, is there a
11:31:31 capability to ban him from any kind of services in the
11:31:33 City of Tampa?
11:31:35 >>> For grease hauling, yes.
11:31:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is that stated in there?
11:31:47 >>> Yes.
11:31:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Requires three different items for
11:31:51 first reading.
11:32:02 >>> Mike Riggs.
11:32:03 I own east star industries, a wastewater engineering
11:32:06 firm and pumping company.
11:32:09 I keep hearing how the St. Pete -- how much studies
11:32:15 the St. Pete has done and how much time that they

11:32:21 spent on their grease studies and sanitary sewer
11:32:24 overflows, and also the JEA, which is the Jacksonville
11:32:28 system, which is the largest system in the State of
11:32:31 Florida and the southeast, which is full of engineers
11:32:37 and inspectors.
11:32:39 St. Pete allows gray water return.
11:32:40 They had very good success rate.
11:32:42 I talked to the -- talked to a lot of people with
11:32:45 St. Pete.
11:32:48 They have had an 80% reduction in sanitary sewer
11:32:51 overflows, and that's total sanitary sewer overflows.
11:32:55 What utilities are interested in is the effluent
11:32:59 discharge from the pretreatment system which is the --
11:33:03 when we reintroduce gray water, not only -- this
11:33:07 didn't just pop out of the grease trap at that time.
11:33:10 It is treated again in the trap to meet the
11:33:13 400-milligram requirement.
11:33:19 When you pump out the gray water and two-tank system,
11:33:25 the gray water stays in one tank sealed compartment.
11:33:28 That's the reason for a two-tank system. The gray
11:33:32 water and grease trap by engineer specs is designed so
11:33:35 that the time is 7 to 10 minutes, and that same gray

11:33:40 water at peak flow that we encapsulate, straight up,
11:33:47 the city sewer system, so all we are doing is not
11:33:53 trucking 700 gallons of water around.
11:33:55 And who that benefits is the dump sites.
11:33:58 And there's two here.
11:34:00 I've watched areas do this where I've turned down a
11:34:05 thousand dollars to go pump them.
11:34:06 A poor restaurant grease trap, because I can't afford
11:34:11 to drive two hours to a dump site one way and two
11:34:14 hours back to pump one store.
11:34:17 So what they are doing is they are not pumping and
11:34:19 they are having all over where these ordinances are
11:34:23 because you have two dump sites here currently.
11:34:27 None of them are in Hillsborough County.
11:34:30 So what we do is a more economic way of doing it.
11:34:35 It's passed onto the customers.
11:34:36 It's passed onto the small restaurants, too.
11:34:39 And there's a three times cost difference for just not
11:34:44 trucking the water that goes out every seven to ten
11:34:47 minutes or six hours to the city.
11:34:52 So the city needs to only be interested in the
11:34:56 400-milligram requirement on the discharge of the

11:34:59 effluent going into the city flushing system.
11:35:02 And again, I go back to this gray water, it goes
11:35:06 through the whole pretreatment system again before it
11:35:10 goes out and is discharged into the sewer.
11:35:15 And if it works for St. Pete, if it works for JEA, we
11:35:19 have for 15 years -- JEA's engineers, if you tell
11:35:28 anything about them, basically they are a big
11:35:30 engineering company, you know.
11:35:32 But they are the sewer system collection system for
11:35:35 Jacksonville.
11:35:36 Publix supermarkets, which has over 50 stores, just
11:35:40 was awarded a 100% pretreatment award: Works there.
11:35:50 Why doesn't it work other places?
11:35:52 And save the customer money.
11:35:56 I own a restaurant and make $30,000 a year, work 7
11:36:00 days a week.
11:36:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you.
11:36:02 I think your time is up.
11:36:03 The point is this, to comply with the mandate, we want
11:36:07 to do that.
11:36:08 In a real world if what you are saying is done and
11:36:11 done correctly to correct the system in terms, it

11:36:15 would be -- of the grease, fine.
11:36:17 If someone is not doing what you say happens, and
11:36:20 there's some possibilities some vendor will do it sub
11:36:23 standard, fine.
11:36:24 All we want to do is be realistic about small
11:36:27 businesses, et cetera, at the same time give Mr.
11:36:29 Metcalf enough muscle if somebody doesn't do what they
11:36:32 are supposed to do, we need to take harsh remedies
11:36:35 against that.
11:36:36 So I think that's the end of that discussion.
11:36:42 We have the ordinance, is that right?
11:36:44 >> We have one more speaker.
11:36:49 >> I'm regional manager for grease intercepter
11:36:52 manufacturer.
11:36:52 I go around the country.
11:36:54 And I heard a lot of these.
11:36:57 A lot of municipalities are now looking into new
11:37:00 technologies, to prevent this, take the human error
11:37:04 out of it.
11:37:05 There's a lot of issues with concrete, and metallic,
11:37:10 rusting out, very easily, concrete failures, concrete
11:37:14 bacteria, things like that.

11:37:16 I think if you are putting the demand on inspectors in
11:37:21 the restaurants to go ahead and force this or an honor
11:37:26 system, I don't think it's going to happen.
11:37:28 There's got to be somebody that's looking into these
11:37:32 and make sure a tank is not at the bottom, a baffle
11:37:36 has fallen and everything is running straight through
11:37:38 the system.
11:37:39 It can be months before these guys get back to take a
11:37:42 look to inspect this.
11:37:43 I don't know how well the pump return is going to work
11:37:45 especially when you have old concrete tanks in the
11:37:48 ground that need to be replaced.
11:37:49 Like I said, there's areas in the concrete that are
11:37:53 now starting to look at concrete as just a modified
11:37:57 septic tank, plastic coatings to protect the
11:38:02 environment.
11:38:02 If they collapse, you have contaminated soil.
11:38:05 If they are on the waterway, you have contaminated
11:38:08 canals and things like that.
11:38:10 I think there's a lot of technology that has to be
11:38:12 looked into.
11:38:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

11:38:18 Next.
11:38:24 >>> My name is Belinda hall.
11:38:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We are talking about the grease trap
11:38:37 now.
11:38:38 We are talking about the grease traps.
11:38:40 We'll talk about that later.
11:38:45 >>> Ellicott street before you get to --
11:38:48 >> You hold on.
11:38:49 We'll come back to you later.
11:38:52 >>> My rent --
11:38:53 >> We'll talk to you later in audience participation.
11:38:56 Come back later.
11:38:57 Come back later to speak.
11:39:06 Anyone else want to speak on the grease?
11:39:09 All right, Mr. Harrison.
11:39:12 >> Move an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida
11:39:14 creating Article 7 of chapter 26 of the city code
11:39:15 relating to grease management, defining terms
11:39:18 authorizing uniform maintenance of food service
11:39:22 facilities for controlling discharge grease,
11:39:24 authorizing registration, regulation of grease haulers
11:39:27 for controlling the discharge of grease, providing for

11:39:29 an appeal for denial or revocation of grease hauler
11:39:31 registration, authorizing establishment of rates,
11:39:34 fees, and charges for grease management, providing for
11:39:36 enforcement procedures and legal remedies, providing
11:39:39 an effective date.
11:39:40 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:39:42 All in favor?
11:39:46 >>THE CLERK: Madam Chair, I think we need a motion to
11:39:48 approve the substitute ordinance.
11:39:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
11:39:52 >> Second.
11:39:52 (Motion carried).
11:39:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:39:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one thing.
11:39:58 Mr. Metcalf only has three inspectors.
11:40:02 And how many restaurants did you say you had on this?
11:40:05 2,000?
11:40:07 >>> Yes.
11:40:08 I have eaten at most of them.
11:40:10 [ Laughter ]
11:40:13 We have about 2100 restaurants in our service area.
11:40:20 It's Tampa.

11:40:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to make a motion to ask
11:40:24 administration to ask for at least two more --
11:40:28 >>> Well, what we are going to do is with those folks,
11:40:31 we are trying to establish how often we have to look
11:40:33 at how many.
11:40:36 >> Don't you know yet?
11:40:37 >>> Well, no.
11:40:41 The question right now is how many reinspections are
11:40:44 you going to have?
11:40:47 We are hoping to go every three months to each
11:40:52 restaurant.
11:40:53 >> Well, maybe one.
11:40:54 You have 21.
11:40:55 That's about 400 apiece.
11:40:58 You have four, five hundred apiece.
11:41:04 Ask the administration to look into giving you --
11:41:06 >> We'll come up with the numbers for one more and see
11:41:08 from there.
11:41:10 >> All right.
11:41:10 That's fair.
11:41:11 Come back.
11:41:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 8.

11:41:15 We have an ordinance.
11:41:19 Any question on the ordinance?
11:41:20 >> Just read it.
11:41:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance of the city of
11:41:24 Tampa, Florida pertaining to the grease management
11:41:26 program adding chapter 26 utilities, article I,
11:41:30 administrative provisions section 26-31-K, utility
11:41:33 rates, fees and charges, to add the categories of
11:41:35 wastewater's grease management program service for
11:41:38 which rates and fees can be charged, providing for
11:41:40 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
11:41:42 effective date.
11:41:42 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:41:44 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:41:45 (Motion carried).
11:41:46 Item 9 is another ordinance.
11:41:48 Do you want to read that?
11:41:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance of the city of
11:41:53 Tampa, Florida pertaining to amendments of chap 26
11:41:55 utilities article 1 administrative provisions section
11:41:57 26-5-3 administrative authority, providing for repeal
11:42:01 of all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective

11:42:04 date.
11:42:04 >> I have a motion and second.
11:42:05 (Motion carried)
11:42:08 Item number 10.
11:42:15 >> Gregory Hart, manager, minority business
11:42:18 development office.
11:42:20 Item 10 is a bimonthly report.
11:42:24 I'm pleased to report that the supplemental agreement
11:42:27 between the city and Mason Tillman as authorized by
11:42:31 City Council on October 19th has been received by
11:42:33 Mason Tillman and has been executed.
11:42:36 The agreement proposed a work plan consists of anyone
11:42:40 tasks.
11:42:41 And the work plan has been abrogated to two distinct
11:42:47 phases.
11:42:47 The first phase consists of approximately five tasks
11:42:50 and it will be analytical work study.
11:42:54 The target completion date by Mason Tillman remains at
11:42:58 November 30th.
11:43:00 Phase 2 consists of four tasks.
11:43:03 And it will involve integrating any significant
11:43:06 findings into the study methodology and rewriting any

11:43:09 relative chapters in the current study.
11:43:12 The city control task force did conduct a
11:43:16 teleconference with Mason Tillman's team on October
11:43:19 26th to discuss implementation of this work plan.
11:43:23 And the process is for completion.
11:43:25 Mason Tillman at that time informed us that they have
11:43:29 immediately begun to develop and implement a
11:43:31 validation survey of the additional funds.
11:43:38 Mason Tillman did indicate that completion date
11:43:40 remains at December 31st.
11:43:46 A teleconference was scheduled for the week of
11:43:48 November 26th.
11:43:49 At that time hopefully we'll have some preliminary
11:43:52 assessment from Mason Tillman as to where we are.
11:43:56 This concludes the update.
11:43:57 We are moving forward.
11:44:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 11.
11:44:23 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
11:44:24 I'm here to provide the update on the report regarding
11:44:28 sex offenders.
11:44:33 Anything we do will require an amendment to the code
11:44:35 in ordinance form.

11:44:37 As you are probably aware local government activity in
11:44:40 this area is fairly recent.
11:44:42 And the case law that's coming out is still kind of
11:44:45 going through the process.
11:44:47 However, preliminary research has indicated that we do
11:44:50 believe bringing something back to you that will be
11:44:53 legally defensible.
11:44:55 Studying those issues internally in the legal
11:44:57 department.
11:44:57 We would also like an opportunity to meet with code
11:44:59 enforcement and land development and talk about some
11:45:02 of the enforcement issues and some of the
11:45:04 technicalities.
11:45:05 Way passed out to you is the state statute regarding
11:45:08 the separation as well as ordinance.
11:45:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Rebecca, what have you found out
11:45:20 on -- first, it was broken into two items we were
11:45:24 supposed to look at.
11:45:25 One was multiple offenders under one group.
11:45:27 Then the other one was what do we do on restrictions
11:45:31 on where they can live?
11:45:32 How about the multiple offenders under one roof?

11:45:38 >>REBECCA KERT: We haven't come to a final
11:45:39 determination on that.
11:45:40 I will tell you at least in one other jurisdiction,
11:45:44 that they have passed a regulation prohibiting more
11:45:46 than one sexual offender meeting within a group home
11:45:49 and I believe within a residence.
11:45:55 With the state law that may be different here than in
11:45:57 the other jurisdictions and they haven't done case law
11:45:59 actually -- that is in the plans that we are lag back
11:46:04 for an opportunity to bring a more full report.
11:46:07 >> As far as on their second section, it doesn't look
11:46:14 like we have authority to go beyond what the state law
11:46:16 is, and increase the distances, where offenders and
11:46:20 predators can live.
11:46:21 And I do note, colleagues, that Gainesville is hardly
11:46:25 the Bastian of conservative politics and they have
11:46:31 adopted an ordinance that really is much, much more
11:46:34 stringent than the state law.
11:46:36 So I would like to see us proceed with an ordinance
11:46:39 following the example of Gainesville.
11:46:43 They have done it already.
11:46:43 They must have done the research to determine that it

11:46:45 would pass Constitutional muster.
11:46:48 And I think it's a great place to start.
11:46:51 So when everybody has had a chance to speak to that if
11:46:53 they want to, I'll make that in the form of a motion.
11:46:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:47:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What did Gainesville do, extend to
11:47:04 the 2500 feet instead of a thousand?
11:47:07 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes.
11:47:08 That's correct.
11:47:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think we should explore that as
11:47:12 an option.
11:47:16 We need to keep sexual predators away from our
11:47:18 children, a way from our schools and away from our
11:47:20 parks.
11:47:21 There's in a doubt about that.
11:47:22 What we also need to do is we need to have a
11:47:25 discussion, staff and legal.
11:47:28 You have to have a discussion with the department of
11:47:30 probation.
11:47:30 Having served in the criminal justice system, they are
11:47:35 deeply involved with, you know, monitoring sexual
11:47:39 predators who are on probation and who are in that

11:47:41 status.
11:47:42 And that's their job.
11:47:43 And that's what they do on a daily basis.
11:47:46 And make they can give us some advice on how to
11:47:48 address this, what's realistic.
11:47:51 I'm sure that their lawyers can probably help us on
11:47:54 what's Constitutional as well.
11:47:55 But I don't think we should do this in isolation.
11:47:58 I think we should work with the department of
11:48:00 corrections and the division of probation and parole,
11:48:04 and make sure that we have -- we have their
11:48:07 professional wisdom as well.
11:48:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The Gainesville ordinance does have
11:48:15 a couple of additional things I think are very
11:48:18 Jermaine and are going to be important to make this
11:48:20 ordinance successful.
11:48:21 One is that it puts the burden on the property owner
11:48:24 to not rent their property to somebody that's a
11:48:28 registered sexual offender or predator.
11:48:30 And then there are ramifications for doing that.
11:48:33 So that's great, it imposes liability and
11:48:38 responsibility on the people that are renting these

11:48:39 places, and we find a lot of these places are being
11:48:42 rented.
11:48:43 And then the other is there is an acknowledgement
11:48:46 requirement where a sexual offender will have to
11:48:50 acknowledge that he has been told what the
11:48:51 restrictions are, and that he will comply with those.
11:48:54 It's like when you get a speeding ticket, you have to
11:48:56 sign for it.
11:48:57 And I'm not guilty of anything but I acknowledge you
11:48:59 gave me it.
11:49:00 And that's the same thing.
11:49:02 So no one can claim ignorance.
11:49:04 Not the property owner.
11:49:05 And not the offender.
11:49:07 And I think that's a great place to start.
11:49:11 And I hear Mr. Dingfelder and I do think that there
11:49:13 are probably other agencies that we could benefit from
11:49:15 hearing from.
11:49:17 But let's move this forward.
11:49:18 Let's get an ordinance in place.
11:49:20 We'll have a public hearing on that ordinance.
11:49:21 And hopefully at that point we can have the benefit of

11:49:24 a couple jurisdictions or other organizations that
11:49:27 might be able to weigh in.
11:49:31 That's a motion, Madam Chair.
11:49:34 >> Second.
11:49:34 >> My motion would be specifically that we follow the
11:49:36 Gainesville outline for the ordinance, and when you
11:49:40 are ready for the ordinance you bring it back hear for
11:49:42 first reading.
11:49:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:49:44 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:49:45 (Motion carried).
11:49:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 15.
11:49:59 >> Donna Wysong, legal department, here to speak on
11:50:02 item number 15.
11:50:03 First I would like to tell you that the apartment of
11:50:05 item number 15 that deals with the appellate process,
11:50:08 I believe Mr. Shelby would like to make a statement
11:50:11 regarding that.
11:50:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Now?
11:50:15 Okay.
11:50:16 I have been working with Julia Cole on this and we
11:50:19 have some options to bring to council.

11:50:20 We haven't had an opportunity because Cathy Coyle has
11:50:22 been on vacation to discuss it with her.
11:50:24 But I would ask for within two weeks time to bring the
11:50:28 full presentation in regard to the appellate process.
11:50:33 >> Second.
11:50:35 >> Motion and second.
11:50:35 (Motion carried).
11:50:36 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that would
11:50:38 like -- get the motion?
11:50:46 Go ahead.
11:50:47 >>> I just passed a round a memo for you to look at.
11:50:50 These are the revisions that came about as a result of
11:50:53 the discussion we had last week, in a very productive
11:50:56 workshop meeting last Wednesday.
11:50:58 We had some former VRB members.
11:51:01 We had current VRB members.
11:51:03 Members of our neighborhood association.
11:51:04 They all attended and gave us very good feedback on
11:51:08 possible changes to the VRB hardship criteria.
11:51:11 And these are what they came up with.
11:51:16 Under section 17.5-74, subsection A, we basically have
11:51:22 two versions for you to choose from,ate of those two

11:51:26 versions.
11:51:27 One of them uses language over whelming intent of the
11:51:31 following criteria, and the other one kind of steps
11:51:34 away from the codification and just says you will
11:51:37 consider the following criteria.
11:51:40 It's basically saying the same thing.
11:51:43 A slightly different way.
11:51:44 It's whatever you would like.
11:51:45 And the reason for that change right there is because
11:51:48 it was felt that the current language requires them to
11:51:52 make a finding under all five criteria and it was felt
11:51:57 that was just a little bit too much for most people to
11:52:00 be able to make under all five criteria.
11:52:03 So this steps back away from requiring a finding of
11:52:06 all the criteria.
11:52:07 And allows them to consider the criteria on a somewhat
11:52:11 less harsh standard.
11:52:13 The additional recommendation deals with the
11:52:20 subsection.
11:52:20 Subsection 1.
11:52:22 It was recommended that we make the change to add the
11:52:25 language with respect to a structure or building

11:52:29 thereon.
11:52:29 Currently the VRB criteria only applies to the land
11:52:32 itself.
11:52:32 And so it was felt that by adding the ability for them
11:52:36 to actually look at the structure itself would be
11:52:39 beneficial, because sometimes houses are built, you
11:52:42 know, they are oddly shaped.
11:52:44 And so -- so it was felt that that would be a good
11:52:50 addition to subsection 1.
11:52:52 And number 2, they also wanted to add reasonable legal
11:52:55 use, which is consistent with the surrounding
11:52:58 property.
11:52:59 Again, it's giving them a little bit more that they
11:53:02 are able to look at.
11:53:03 Because right now, under the criteria as it's
11:53:05 currently written, you just look at the land and you
11:53:08 don't look at anything else.
11:53:09 And so this gives them a little bit more leeway to
11:53:12 look at some other things in considering whether the
11:53:15 variance should be granted.
11:53:17 Then in subsection 3, that was just a minimal change.
11:53:20 It was things like we want to the say the health,

11:53:24 safety and welfare that just clarifies that a little
11:53:27 bit more.
11:53:28 So if you have any questions.
11:53:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know if there's anybody in
11:53:33 the audience who wants to speak on this.
11:53:38 Just related to this particular item.
11:53:40 Madam Chair, we have put a lot of work into this.
11:53:43 We have some great input from various members of the
11:53:46 VRB.
11:53:48 Basically what we are looking at is version 1 versus
11:53:51 version 2, little paren A versus alternative little
11:53:59 paren A.
11:54:01 I am leaning towards version 2.
11:54:04 Version 2 basically says we have the standard hardship
11:54:06 criteria, item 1 through 5, and that's on that page
11:54:10 and the next page, and we tweak it a little bit.
11:54:12 We haven't changed it tremendously.
11:54:14 But the big difference is instead of asking the VRB,
11:54:17 did this variance petition meet all of the criteria of
11:54:22 the hardship 1 through 5, which is where they have
11:54:25 been in the past, and that's why they turned down a
11:54:26 lot of things that end up getting a peeled to us, now

11:54:30 basically they are going to have a little bit more
11:54:32 latitude under either one of these.
11:54:35 But I like version 2 better.
11:54:36 Version 2 says, you know, using the following criteria
11:54:41 1 through 5, and based upon the competent, substantial
11:54:45 evidence, you know, are you willing to give those
11:54:47 variances?
11:54:48 And, you know, it just places a little bit more in the
11:54:53 subjective realm, which, frankly, and also
11:54:59 contextually in terms of the building or the
11:55:03 neighborhood.
11:55:04 And, frankly, I think that just reflects the reality.
11:55:08 If you watch those meetings, that's what they do.
11:55:10 They use their subjective criteria.
11:55:12 And frankly the ordinance should reflect that.
11:55:16 >> Do you want to make a motion?
11:55:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If there's in a other comment I'll
11:55:19 make a motion --
11:55:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby.
11:55:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The only thing that I would just
11:55:25 raise as an issue, I don't know whether council has an
11:55:31 issue but the word confidence, because actually it's a

11:55:39 legal basis.
11:55:43 >> The new version has competent, substantial
11:55:44 evidence.
11:55:46 You have the older version.
11:55:48 Actually, Mr. Brandcamp suggested that.
11:55:54 I move that we collect legal to initiate an ordinance
11:55:58 amendment going with version 2, and then the remainder
11:56:01 of the strike-through additions.
11:56:04 >> Motion and second.
11:56:05 All in favor say Aye.
11:56:06 (Motion carried).
11:56:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:56:09 Is there anyone in the public that would like to ask
11:56:12 for reconsideration?
11:56:15 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
11:56:17 to any item not set for public hearing?
11:56:20 We'll stand adjourned until 1:30.
11:56:22 (City Council recessed.)
11:56:23


Tampa City Council
Thursday, November 2, 2006
1:30 p.m. session

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


13:45:49 [Sounding gavel]
13:45:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
13:45:51 order.
13:45:51 Roll call.
13:45:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
13:45:54 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
13:45:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: (No response.)

13:45:57 >>KEVIN WHITE: Here.
13:45:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:46:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to our agenda item 16, ordinance
13:46:05 for first reading.
13:46:06 Mr. White?
13:46:07 >> Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
13:46:17 amending the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter
13:46:20 25, the City of Tampa transportation ordinance article
13:46:25 1, administrative provisions division 3, section 25-48
13:46:28 fee authority and types, permits inspections,
13:46:31 establishing authority and conditions for issuance of
13:46:33 a permit to install the administrator crowd management
13:46:37 queueing lines of public right-of-way in the Ybor City
13:46:40 historic district, authorizing the establishment of
13:46:42 fees, forms and procedures for the petition of a
13:46:45 queueing line permit and renewal in the manner set
13:46:48 forth in the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter
13:46:52 25, providing conditions that protect and preserve
13:46:56 pedestrian friendly design principles and compliance
13:46:58 with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ADA
13:47:03 as amended published in volume 42 of the United States
13:47:07 code beginning at section 12101 providing for repeal

13:47:11 of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
13:47:13 severability, providing an effective date.
13:47:15 (Motion carried).
13:47:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just so the record is clear, did you
13:47:18 ask for agendaed public comments before?
13:47:19 >>CHAIRMAN: We did.
13:47:23 We go to our committee reports.
13:47:24 Public safety, Mr. John Dingfelder, vice chair.
13:47:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move items 17 through 19.
13:47:33 >> Second.
13:47:34 Motion and second.
13:47:35 (Motion carried)
13:47:41 Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
13:47:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move 20 through 25.
13:47:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there was a request to item
13:47:50 23 unless that was addressed.
13:47:55 I believe there's a request on item number 23.
13:47:57 >>GWEN MILLER: To do what?
13:47:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To continue until November 16th.
13:48:03 In other words, it will travel to appear with the
13:48:05 second reading on the grease ordinance.
13:48:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move items 20 through 24 -- 25

13:48:15 through 26.
13:48:20 And I believe number 23 to continue to November
13:48:23 16th.
13:48:23 >> Second.
13:48:25 (Motion carried).
13:48:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. Kevin White.
13:48:33 >> I would like to move 27 through 29.
13:48:35 >> Second.
13:48:35 (Motion carried).
13:48:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning.
13:48:37 Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
13:48:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 30
13:48:41 through 37.
13:48:42 >> Second.
13:48:44 >> Motion and second.
13:48:44 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
13:48:45 (Motion carried)
13:48:48 Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
13:48:49 >> Move items 38 through 42.
13:48:52 >> Second.
13:48:52 (Motion carried).
13:48:56 >> Move to set new business items 43 through 46.

13:49:03 >> I want to bring to the chair's attention that item
13:49:05 45 is an appeal hearing to be scheduled no earlier
13:49:08 than December 21st, 2006.
13:49:10 An appeal hearing sometimes is a lengthy process,
13:49:13 council.
13:49:14 I understand that there are certain issues involved in
13:49:15 this.
13:49:16 Whether you want to have it earlier or later.
13:49:18 But the 21st is the day, I believe, the chair is
13:49:21 scheduling a holiday luncheon for City Council.
13:49:27 Just to bring it to your attention.
13:49:29 If you want to do it earlier or later.
13:49:32 >>GWEN MILLER: January.
13:49:35 The 11th?
13:49:36 When we come back?
13:49:39 The 11th?
13:49:40 Want to do it on the 11th or the next week? is
13:49:43 that a motion?
13:49:44 >> Whatever.
13:49:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Could I have that date announced
13:49:47 please so it's clear?
13:49:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me, Madam Chair.

13:49:52 The 11th we also have an evening meeting and it's
13:49:55 our first meeting after two weeks of being off.
13:49:57 And I dare say that will be a very long meeting.
13:50:00 Mr. Shelby just indicated that he thinks this might be
13:50:02 a pretty long appeal hearing.
13:50:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Oh, I don't know. My concern is
13:50:07 sometimes appeal hearings do go lengthy.
13:50:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the 21st where we don't
13:50:12 have an evening meeting and we will be having a lunch
13:50:17 before or after.
13:50:18 I think rather than the 11th, I think December
13:50:20 21st might be a better meeting tithe date.
13:50:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to be out of here by 12:30.
13:50:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's also the opportunity to have
13:50:31 it even earlier than December 11th, I believe, the
13:50:34 14th was another option.
13:50:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says no earlier than the
13:50:38 21st.
13:50:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, the 14th.
13:50:45 January.
13:50:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't wee we say January
13:50:49 18th then?

13:50:50 Bea don't have an evening meeting that night.
13:50:52 It will be the first week after two weeks of holiday.
13:50:54 >> Make a motion?
13:50:56 >> So moved.
13:50:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The only concern that I have, I'm
13:51:01 only telling you this on the basis of hearsay, take it
13:51:05 for what it's worth.
13:51:06 My understanding, it may be something that's
13:51:10 potentially, I guess, the basis of the appeal may be
13:51:12 causing property damage.
13:51:13 I'm not sure.
13:51:14 I'm not familiar with this case at all.
13:51:16 But that's why the question was, I believe, when Ms.
13:51:19 Marshall scheduled it, as long as you have the 30 day
13:51:22 notice, you can do it earlier than December 21st.
13:51:25 But she didn't want to front load before that.
13:51:30 >> It's probably related to grand trees, probably very
13:51:35 slow.
13:51:37 >> Well, however council wishes to proceed is fine.
13:51:42 >>CHAIRMAN: January 18th.
13:51:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: At 10 a.m.
13:51:46 That's in the motion, madam clerk?

13:51:51 >> Whatever.
13:51:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was there a vote on that?
13:51:56 >>CHAIRMAN: We are waiting to see if you got it
13:51:58 straight.
13:51:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to make sure the record
13:52:00 is clear.
13:52:01 Thank you.
13:52:01 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
13:52:03 Opposed, Nay.
13:52:05 (Motion carried)
13:52:05 We go into our public hearings.
13:52:12 Item number 47.
13:52:20 >> Move to open 47.
13:52:23 (Motion carried).
13:52:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
13:52:25 on item 47?
13:52:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
13:52:31 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I submit towed for your
13:52:32 consideration an amendment to this which included --
13:52:35 and I have more copies here.
13:52:39 And I sent that by e-mail on the 24th of October.
13:53:08 >> Apparently didn't get that one either.

13:53:14 >> I sent this to you for your consideration.
13:53:17 >> I believe it was Cathy Coyle.
13:53:19 >> I sent to the Cathy Coyle, sent to the all of
13:53:24 council, Gloria Moreda, and this was the requirement
13:53:31 to have elevations submitted at a time of project for
13:53:34 all PD plans.
13:53:37 And what I requested in there would be some reasonable
13:53:41 limits be placed on that.
13:53:42 And I enumerated some conditions that I thought were
13:53:47 at least fair and reasonable and also protected
13:53:49 council's ability to require four side elevations.
13:53:58 You can do it by a motion.
13:54:09 The conditions that I asked for was sites of less than
13:54:11 one acre be excluded except in the central business
13:54:13 district, and the Channel District.
13:54:15 And that elevations are to be schematic only,
13:54:19 architectural changes are allowed as long as you meet
13:54:21 the intent of the design scheme.
13:54:24 That the changes in elevation should not be used as a
13:54:27 sole grounds for substantial deviation.
13:54:33 And sites of one acre on two or more rights-of-way
13:54:36 shall be required to submit elevations.

13:54:40 And sites greater than one acre which are considered
13:54:43 to be mixed residential use -- and these are
13:54:45 large-scale projects -- shall provide one streetscape
13:54:48 to determine design compatibility elevations for all
13:54:55 sides regardless shall be required, when the proposed
13:54:58 development exceeds 35 feet in height.
13:55:01 So that when you have residential scale development
13:55:03 that is are single family in nature, and single family
13:55:06 residential scale, and then the fourth item would be
13:55:12 that the council upon its own motion could require
13:55:16 elevations be provided at your discretion.
13:55:24 I met with the builders association again over my
13:55:28 understanding that there was no consensus of approval
13:55:30 on their part, and they reviewed my recommendation,
13:55:34 and I think they provided a note.
13:55:36 They were supposed to leave a note agreeing that they
13:55:38 were recommending as well and they did not agree with
13:55:42 the requirement that was being presented to you before
13:55:46 regarding PDs having to provide four-side elevation
13:55:50 for all projects.
13:55:51 Anyway, we are respectfully requesting you amend this,
13:55:54 and I think that it protects the public.

13:56:00 If there's property owners or neighbors that come in
13:56:02 and object it still gives you the power when it's not
13:56:04 discretionary on the part of the petitioner.
13:56:07 You can force them to provide it and that could be one
13:56:12 of the grounds for denial if they refuse to do that.
13:56:17 I sent all of this stuff over to legal and Cathy
13:56:21 Coyle, and Gloria Moreda provided copies to them this
13:56:24 morning.
13:56:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
13:56:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Cole, a couple of things.
13:56:32 I don't think you agreed with that legal position that
13:56:36 Mr. Michelini just stated in regard to we can
13:56:38 arbitrarily ask for it and deny it on that basis.
13:56:43 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
13:56:44 He's provided some language which says that City
13:56:47 Council may by motion require finding of cause, and I
13:56:50 do have a problem with that language, require by
13:56:53 motion require that petitioner provide elevations for
13:56:56 additional sides of the project or structure.
13:56:59 I think you can have language that says that you are
13:57:01 going to require that.
13:57:02 I reasons to deny it and I think those are two

13:57:08 different questions.
13:57:08 The language that he's proposing, I'm fine with, but
13:57:11 understand that isn't a reason for denial.
13:57:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My other question, Ms. Coyle.
13:57:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I was on vacation.
13:57:28 >> My question starts off with the basic premises of
13:57:36 why staff thinks it's a good idea to require four
13:57:39 sides of elevations from a planning perspective, from
13:57:42 council perspective, and if so, why?
13:57:44 >> At a minimum would you want elevations from the
13:57:46 public rights-of-way, to see what everyone is going to
13:57:49 see.
13:57:49 We have had instances, especially when we had a lot of
13:57:53 in-fill, redevelopment.
13:57:56 Buildings are requesting smaller and smaller size
13:57:58 setbacks.
13:57:58 And we wanted to -- council wanted to see what those
13:58:02 side elevations look like when you start with mixed
13:58:05 uses and introduce new uses next to older uses, what
13:58:10 the side elevation is going to look like to the older
13:58:13 single-family home or older commercial building that's
13:58:16 there.

13:58:16 And you have to think it's not just the building
13:58:19 itself is on the side, it could be a dumpster, it
13:58:22 could be some other structure related to the project.
13:58:28 As a matter of course we had elevations before you on
13:58:31 virtually all positions to review for compatibility.
13:58:34 This is just codifying that requirement.
13:58:38 >> The only thing I was thinking that might be
13:58:40 overkill on this, that maybe he would could either
13:58:42 address now or address at our next tweaking, at
13:58:46 chapter 27, January, might be a true single-family
13:58:51 home detached that comes in for a PD.
13:58:56 >>> That's already in the code.
13:58:57 This is for all other uses.
13:59:00 You passed the one for single-family residences.
13:59:02 >> Do we require elevation?
13:59:04 >> It can be a photograph as well.
13:59:06 That's already in the code.
13:59:07 >> Require four sides of elevations?
13:59:08 >> Just a front.
13:59:10 You can just do the front.
13:59:18 This is multifamily or commercial?
13:59:21 >> Correct.

13:59:21 >> Is the ordinance before us inclusive of the four
13:59:25 elevations?
13:59:25 >> Yes.
13:59:30 Specifically for all other uses, building elevations
13:59:32 shall be provided for all sides of the proposed
13:59:35 structure or structures.
13:59:42 >> I understand the need for that in places that are
13:59:44 quickly redeveloping, like all of South Tampa,
13:59:47 particularly Hyde Park, historic districts that are
13:59:50 down there.
13:59:51 Where there are real compatibility issues with
13:59:53 existing structures.
13:59:54 But in parts of town where we are struggling to get
13:59:56 redevelopment and you have people risking their
14:00:01 capital to come in and redevelop adding additional
14:00:07 regulations this makes it a little tougher.
14:00:09 >> I think the compromise might be what Mr. Michelini
14:00:15 proposed and listening to what you are saying since
14:00:18 it's city-wide that you require the elevation frontage
14:00:21 on the street because that's what everybody is going
14:00:23 to see.
14:00:27 And original language at the end by motion council

14:00:29 could require the other side based on the intensity
14:00:32 that you are --
14:00:33 >> Say something like in the historic district?
14:00:42 In overlay district, central business biscuit, they
14:00:45 are all required now.
14:00:46 This is addressing all the gaps in the city that are
14:00:49 not covered by design.
14:00:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The problem I have with that motion
14:00:55 is that petitioner comes in, and they spend all the
14:00:58 time to get to us for first reading, and then finance
14:01:06 we say bring back four sides that's going to cause a
14:01:09 continuance, where they have to draw --
14:01:12 >> I tend to agree with you from a staff perspective
14:01:14 because what you are going to have in the staff report
14:01:18 our recommendations may potentially have holes in it
14:01:20 because we have only seen a portion of it or none of
14:01:22 it or we are really talking about the compatibility of
14:01:26 use, not what it would look like.
14:01:27 And some of the criteria speak to design and scale for
14:01:33 preservation, natural resources.
14:01:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Cathy, does this ordinance address the
14:01:50 fact that Mr. Michelini is talking about the

14:01:53 additional notes not having to wait till first reading
14:01:55 to put the notes on it?
14:01:58 The additional note on the site plan that we talked
14:02:01 about?
14:02:02 >> That's a different code section.
14:02:03 This is specifically whether or not we should have an
14:02:05 elevation, four-side elevation as part of the
14:02:11 submittal.
14:02:11 >> Have we passed that one?
14:02:13 >> That is done, yes.
14:02:15 >> Now we don't have to wait until two weeks to do it
14:02:25 again?
14:02:25 >> No, no.
14:02:26 The code provision for the two week requirement is in
14:02:27 the code today.
14:02:31 Julia and I are actually working together on kind of
14:02:33 retooling the process itself.
14:02:35 And we are -- that's January's cycle for to us come
14:02:39 back and discuss that with you.
14:02:40 >> Well, this has nothing to do with that?
14:02:43 >>> Nothing to do with it at all.
14:02:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

14:02:48 >>> I did have some questions also.
14:02:53 I had circled a couple and noted some things and other
14:02:56 concerns and questions on the side.
14:02:58 Just for your consideration.
14:03:01 You can certainly approve this today or continue it.
14:03:05 >> Have another tweaking in January?
14:03:06 >>> Every six months.
14:03:10 >> And what do we pass, and then come back with
14:03:12 whatever changes you and Mr. Michelini and others want
14:03:15 to work on?
14:03:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems to be a lot of markups.
14:03:21 >>GWEN MILLER: going to move this today?
14:03:25 And then come back and tweak it?
14:03:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can move this and then move it
14:03:36 with any tweaking.
14:03:38 Otherwise, we keep spinning our wheels on first and
14:03:42 second reading.
14:03:42 >> So we are going to pass this the way it was.
14:03:45 >>I would like to.
14:03:46 I think we have asked repeatedly for people to do this
14:03:48 and we are just codifying.
14:03:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But if you look at Cathy's markups

14:03:55 other than this page 2 which she says she needs to
14:03:59 think about, it pretty much goes along, from what I
14:04:02 can tell anyway, fairly well goes along with what he
14:04:04 was recommending.
14:04:05 And I don't think --
14:04:07 >> That would require --
14:04:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I haven't had the privilege of
14:04:13 having a conversation about this with him.
14:04:16 And why he has separations.
14:04:24 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If we pass on second reading what we
14:04:26 had before us, then we are creating restrictions that
14:04:29 we are now saying in January we are going to come back
14:04:31 and relax, as opposed to taking another week and
14:04:36 saying we mate not have to relax anything if you guys
14:04:39 can come to some agreement on these markups.
14:04:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you think you need to wait till you
14:04:45 get together with Mr. Michelini and go through --
14:04:49 >>> The question I would have for legal is depending
14:04:51 on how much we tweak, because this is a very basic
14:04:53 regulation, how much we tweak it, we may have to go
14:04:56 back to the Planning Commission.
14:04:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, Planning Commission?

14:05:04 >>> At a minimum we would have to take it back to
14:05:05 first reading, whether or not the type of changes -- I
14:05:09 would have to take a look at it and see where we end
14:05:11 up.
14:05:19 >> We have had several rezonings lately where it
14:05:21 really mattered what was going on on the sides,
14:05:24 because you had single family on the side.
14:05:26 You had a proposed, you know, multi-story apartment
14:05:28 and multifamily unit.
14:05:30 And the people who had the houses next door really
14:05:35 feared what was going on.
14:05:37 My understanding is we have been asking people, it's
14:05:39 not codified. If we vote on this today, for second
14:05:43 reading, that doesn't preclude Mr. Michelini working
14:05:48 with Cathy so that if January we can come back if we
14:05:52 want to -- if we don't do this, and we don't have
14:05:59 anywhere where it says we need to go on the sides, and
14:06:03 I think that's important.
14:06:04 I think you did this at the encouragement of council,
14:06:07 who were having these issues during rezoning.
14:06:16 My inclination would be to move this on second
14:06:19 reading.

14:06:20 >> Is there anyone else that would like to speak on
14:06:22 item number 47?
14:06:27 >>:
14:06:27 >> move to close.
14:06:28 >> Second.
14:06:28 (Motion Carried).
14:06:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the following
14:06:33 ordinance upon second reading.
14:06:34 An ordinance, move for adoption upon second reading,
14:06:39 an ordinance in the city of Tampa, Florida making
14:06:41 revision to chapter 27, zoning code, to the Tampa code
14:06:45 of ordinances amending section 27-323 review
14:06:49 procedure, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
14:06:52 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
14:06:54 effective date.
14:06:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:07:00 All in favor of the motion?
14:07:01 Opposed?
14:07:03 (Motion carried) is there anyone in the public going
14:07:05 to speak on items 48 through 54?
14:07:08 If you are, would you please stand and raise your
14:07:11 right hand?

14:07:11 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:07:24 >> Move to open 48 through 54.
14:07:26 >> Second.
14:07:27 (Motion carried).
14:07:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I ask that all written communications
14:07:31 relative to today's hearings that have been available
14:07:33 for inspection in council's office be received and
14:07:35 filed into the record at this time.
14:07:38 Is there anything to file today?
14:07:45 Just a reminder, any ex parte communications, please
14:07:49 disclose them prior to the vote.
14:07:51 Finally, ladies and gentlemen, if you do testify, when
14:07:53 you state your name please reaffirm for the record
14:07:56 that you have been sworn.
14:08:00 I am putting a little sign here to remined you.
14:08:02 Thank you for your cooperation.
14:08:03 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
14:08:05 on item 48?
14:08:06 >> Move to close.
14:08:06 >> Second.
14:08:07 (Motion carried).
14:08:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance vacating, closing,

14:08:17 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
14:08:21 all that alleyway lying in meadow brook subdivision
14:08:23 said alleyway situated south of Osborne Avenue West,
14:08:28 north of Curtis Street West, west of Florida Avenue,
14:08:31 east of Highland Avenue north, in meadow brook
14:08:34 subdivision a subdivision located in the City of
14:08:36 Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the same being more
14:08:39 fully described in section 2 hereof providing an
14:08:41 effective date.
14:08:42 And I do so on second reading.
14:08:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Question?
14:08:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Without reopening does anybody
14:08:55 recall what the justification was?
14:08:56 I wasn't here on this one.
14:08:58 Is this one that was never an actual alley?
14:09:02 >> Don't remember.
14:09:19 >> We have a motion and second.
14:09:21 Voice roll call.
14:09:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Take a leap of faith with you guys.
14:09:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:09:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:09:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

14:09:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:09:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
14:09:37 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
14:09:38 Clerk
14:09:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:09:43 wants to speak on item 49?
14:09:44 >> Move to close.
14:09:45 >> Second.
14:09:45 (Motion carried).
14:09:46 >> Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second
14:09:51 reading, an ordinance vacating, closing,
14:09:52 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
14:09:56 all that alleyway south of east Columbus drive north
14:10:00 of east sparkman Avenue, east of north Central Avenue
14:10:03 and west of north grove street in Campbell
14:10:06 subdivision, a subdivision located in the City of
14:10:08 Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida, the same being
14:10:10 more fully described in section 2 hereof, providing an
14:10:12 effective date.
14:10:13 >> A motion and second.
14:10:14 Voice roll call.
14:10:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

14:10:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:10:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:10:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:10:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:10:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
14:10:24 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
14:10:26 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public wants to
14:10:29 speak on item 50?
14:10:32 >> Move to close.
14:10:32 >> Second.
14:10:33 (Motion carried).
14:10:33 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I move to adopt the following
14:10:37 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance amending
14:10:40 City of Tampa ordinance 6710-A section 13 providing
14:10:44 authority for a certain portion of Tacon street
14:10:46 generally between Ferdinand street and Concordia
14:10:49 street to be temporarily closed on school days,
14:10:51 generally Monday through Friday, excluding holidays
14:10:53 when children are not -- children are not in session.
14:10:57 I think that's an interesting phrase -- between the
14:11:00 hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6 p.m., the same being more
14:11:04 particularly described herein.

14:11:05 >> We have a motion and second.
14:11:07 Voice roll call.
14:11:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was there a presentation on this?
14:11:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Staff.
14:11:20 Nobody came.
14:11:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:11:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:11:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:11:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:11:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
14:11:35 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
14:11:36 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:11:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:11:41 wants to speak on item 51?
14:11:43 >> Move to close.
14:11:44 >> Second.
14:11:44 (Motion carried).
14:11:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance upon
14:11:53 second reading, an ordinance making lawful the sale of
14:11:56 beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by Waite
14:11:59 weight and not more than 14% by weight and --
14:12:04 regardless of alcoholic content --

14:12:12 >>GWEN MILLER: 51.
14:12:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm sorry, I was getting ahead of
14:12:15 myself.
14:12:18 Move the following ordinance upon second reading, an
14:12:20 ordinance authorizing the installation and maintenance
14:12:22 of an encroachment proposed steps and planter by
14:12:25 17th Avenue Ybor City LLC over a portion of the
14:12:28 public right-of-way near the intersection of north
14:12:30 17th street and east 4th Avenue as more
14:12:33 particularly described herein, subject to certain
14:12:35 terms, covenants, conditions and agreements, as more
14:12:38 particularly described herein, providing an effective
14:12:39 date.
14:12:41 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
14:12:42 Voice roll call.
14:12:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
14:12:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:12:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:12:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:12:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:12:50 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
14:12:52 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.

14:12:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:13:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:13:01 wants to speak on item 52?
14:13:04 >> Move to close.
14:13:04 >> Second.
14:13:04 (Motion carried).
14:13:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
14:13:07 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance making
14:13:09 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
14:13:11 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
14:13:15 and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and
14:13:17 wine, 2(COP-R) for consumption on premises only in
14:13:20 connection with a restaurant business establishment at
14:13:22 or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land
14:13:25 located at 2202 west Waters Avenue, suite 7, Tampa,
14:13:28 Florida, as more particularly described in section 2
14:13:31 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as to distance,
14:13:34 based upon certain findings, providing for repeal of
14:13:37 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
14:13:38 date.
14:13:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
14:13:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.

14:13:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:13:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:13:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:13:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:13:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
14:13:48 >>KEVIN WHITE: Yes.
14:13:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:13:53 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
14:13:55 on item 53?
14:13:57 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move to close.
14:13:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question, question.
14:14:01 This is a Kash N' Karry on Swann.
14:14:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:14:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is it they want to do?
14:14:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: I have the backup, Mr.
14:14:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ding I have the backup, too. It's
14:14:12 been a busy week.
14:14:16 I appreciate your consideration.
14:14:20 Scott, do you want to give me a quick ten-second
14:14:24 version of what you guys are doing?
14:14:28 >>> I have been sworn.
14:14:29 All we are doing is simply moving the liquor store --

14:14:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Time is up.
14:14:35 >>> Into the store.
14:14:36 Remodeled a Sweetbay.
14:14:38 >> Did you have 3 PS before?
14:14:40 >>> Yes, we did.
14:14:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No problem.
14:14:44 Thank you.
14:14:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
14:14:46 (Motion carried).
14:14:46 >>KEVIN WHITE: Move the following ordinance upon
14:14:51 second reading.
14:14:53 Move an ordinance making lawful the sale of alcohol of
14:14:59 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
14:15:02 and wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and
14:15:04 wine 2(COP) for consumption on premises only in
14:15:07 connection with a restaurant business establishment
14:15:09 locate at 2202 west Waters Avenue, suite 7 --
14:15:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 53.
14:15:16 >>KEVIN WHITE: Sorry.
14:15:19 Move the following ordinance upon second reading, an
14:15:22 ordinance repealing ordinance 96 -117 making lawful
14:15:25 the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content,

14:15:28 beer, wine and liquor, 3 PS, in sealed containers for
14:15:31 consumption off premises only at or from that certain
14:15:34 lot, plot or tract of land located at 2100 West Swann
14:15:38 Avenue, suite B, Tampa, Florida as more particularly
14:15:41 described in section 3 hereof waiving certain
14:15:43 restrictions as to distance based upon certain
14:15:45 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances,
14:15:48 providing an effective date.
14:15:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
14:15:53 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:15:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
14:15:59 wants top speak on item 54?
14:16:01 >> Move to close.
14:16:01 >> Second.
14:16:02 (Motion carried).
14:16:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance on second reading,
14:16:15 an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
14:16:17 of 301 South Moody Avenue, 2406 and 240 West Platt
14:16:22 street, and 2403, 2405 and 2415 west Azeele street in
14:16:27 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
14:16:29 described in section 1 from zoning district
14:16:31 classifications RM-24 residential multifamily and PD

14:16:35 planned development retail office, to PD planned
14:16:38 development, retail sales, shoppers goods, providing
14:16:41 an effective date.
14:16:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
14:16:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
14:16:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public going to
14:16:53 speak on item 55 through 61?
14:16:55 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
14:16:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open 55.
14:17:10 >> So moved.
14:17:11 >> Second.
14:17:11 (Motion carried).
14:17:12 >> Ron wheeler with preservation.
14:17:16 I would like to submit this.
14:17:24 And I have been sworn.
14:17:27 This petition is for an ad valorem tax exemption for
14:17:30 property on 1401 Nance Avenue.
14:17:33 And it is a contributing structure in the local Hyde
14:17:35 Park district.
14:17:36 The building was constructed in 1923 and presently
14:17:40 owned by Eric and Kelly lamb I son.
14:17:44 This property qualified on the national registry of

14:17:47 historic places.
14:17:49 Just briefly going through some photos.
14:17:52 This is the exterior, elevation provider to
14:17:55 renovation.
14:18:03 A couple of interior shots.
14:18:08 Showing the living area.
14:18:12 The plate rail.
14:18:18 After renovation.
14:18:22 The doors were replaced.
14:18:23 The columns.
14:18:26 The face board.
14:18:27 The crown molding.
14:18:28 The wood floors.
14:18:31 Moving to the kitchen.
14:18:34 Prior to renovation.
14:18:40 And after renovation.
14:18:50 This application is consistent with the secretary of
14:18:53 standards for rehabilitation of historic structures.
14:18:56 And reviewing this project.
14:19:00 This project is consistent with the Tampa historic
14:19:02 property tax exemption ordinance submitted and the
14:19:05 present end of presentation.

14:19:08 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that to
14:19:10 speak on item 55?
14:19:11 >> Move to close.
14:19:12 >> Second.
14:19:20 >> We don't --
14:19:22 >> When the A.R.C. or --
14:19:25 >> They are applying for a tax credit?
14:19:27 >> That's the only time they review the interior.
14:19:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
14:19:31 >> Second.
14:19:32 (Motion carried)
14:19:32 >> Move an ordinance making -- no, this is the
14:20:19 alcohol.
14:20:19 Sorry.
14:20:20 Wrong one.
14:20:47 >> Move to send to legal for preparation.
14:20:50 >> I believe what was just handed to the clerk ...
14:21:14 >> If you guys want to go to the next public hearing
14:21:16 I'll make sure we get another copy down here.
14:21:18 >> Do we have a motion to send to legal?
14:21:20 >> Move to hold till the end of the meeting.
14:21:22 >> Okay.

14:21:22 We have a motion and second.
14:21:23 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
14:21:25 (Motion carried).
14:21:29 Need to open 56.
14:21:30 >> So moved.
14:21:31 >> Second.
14:21:31 (Motion carried).
14:21:32 >> Is there anyone for 56?
14:21:35 >> Move to close.
14:21:40 >> Mr. Santiago is here.
14:21:43 An attorney for petitioner.
14:21:46 >>ROLANDO SANTIAGO: This is the second public hearing
14:21:48 under Florida statute 153 development agreement for
14:21:52 Port Tampa area.
14:21:55 I filed with the city clerk yesterday the resolutions.
14:21:58 You have the agreement.
14:22:00 It's now before you on a second required public
14:22:02 hearing.
14:22:03 The presentation was made last week.
14:22:07 Just a statutory requirement that you hold a public
14:22:12 hearing.
14:22:13 If they want to have any comment or any questions you

14:22:15 might have.
14:22:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, any comments?
14:22:18 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
14:22:19 item 56?
14:22:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
14:22:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
14:22:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My office received at least one or
14:22:31 two e-mails from some of the neighbors who lived out
14:22:34 that way.
14:22:34 They were concerned that the city was giving the
14:22:41 develop ter right to take their property and tear down
14:22:43 their homes as part of this development agreement.
14:22:46 Obviously, I knew that was not true.
14:22:49 And I think you confirmed that in writing as well, is
14:22:52 that correct?
14:22:52 >> Yes, sir, that's correct.
14:22:53 There was some confusion this was relate sod how to an
14:22:56 eminent domain.
14:22:57 That's not at all related to anything like that
14:23:00 remotely.
14:23:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:23:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close the public

14:23:09 hearing.
14:23:09 (Motion carried).
14:23:10 >> We have to move the resolution.
14:23:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A situation where under 163 the T
14:23:18 development agreement, the process is to move the
14:23:20 resolution, formally --
14:23:23 >> So moved.
14:23:24 >> Second.
14:23:24 (Motion carried).
14:23:25 >> Time 57.
14:23:30 A continued public hearing.
14:23:35 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
14:23:37 I would request that you take um number 58.
14:23:39 57 and 58 are on the same parcel of property.
14:23:42 And after you take action on 58, petitioner will be
14:23:51 withdrawing number 57.
14:24:08 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: This item came before you
14:24:10 three weeks ago, it is a proposal to go from
14:24:12 commercial intensive and planned development that
14:24:15 allows single-family attached retail office to a
14:24:20 planned development that includes single family
14:24:24 attached.

14:24:24 To refresh your memory, I believe everyone was here
14:24:27 but Mrs. Saul-Sena.
14:24:37 This is Rome.
14:24:39 Three weeks ago, I apologize.
14:24:40 It originally went October 12th.
14:24:49 This is Packwood.
14:24:51 Commercial intensive.
14:24:59 Town home development and planned development.
14:25:07 This is looking west.
14:25:09 Towards the subject site.
14:25:10 This is Kennedy.
14:25:11 This is Rome.
14:25:18 This is towards the rear of the property.
14:25:22 This is east of the property and adjacent to.
14:25:27 This is property across the street from the subject.
14:25:32 And here is the planned development town homes.
14:25:44 >> Did we have maybe two months prior and then it came
14:25:46 back for redesign?
14:25:48 >> Let now the history behind it.
14:25:50 >> Thank you because I thought it was familiar.
14:25:52 Were the people renoticed who live across the street
14:25:55 from either side?

14:25:58 >>> Yes.
14:26:01 This is a business directly across the street.
14:26:03 Originally, it came before you, as you stated, and
14:26:07 this is what they brought forward.
14:26:13 It is a commercial building, office building, parking
14:26:16 structure.
14:26:16 And I believe they had neighborhood opposition because
14:26:22 the neighborhood did not want to be looking at a
14:26:23 parking structure.
14:26:24 They wanted residential.
14:26:36 They have come back.
14:26:36 They have reduced the size of the office building.
14:26:38 It was originally 97,000 square feet.
14:26:44 It is now 71,000 square feet.
14:26:46 They have added retail.
14:26:47 They have added 150-seat restaurant.
14:26:49 And they have added residential units.
14:26:56 When they came back October 12th on the
14:26:57 residential units, they had dry going along Rome and
14:27:00 Packwood.
14:27:05 And create the parking for those interior.
14:27:09 And they have done that.

14:27:13 There are no objections from the staff.
14:27:19 It is consistent with Tampa comprehensive plan.
14:27:21 6.3 when it talks about parking lot, garages for
14:27:24 nonresidential multifamily.
14:27:30 They did that by placing the parking structure
14:27:33 interior surrounding it by the residential.
14:27:46 The predominant character is eight stories.
14:27:51 Consistent with existing commercial development along
14:27:53 Kennedy.
14:27:56 The streetscape along Kennedy Boulevard will include
14:27:58 8-foot wide sidewalks and two-foot spans of brick
14:28:01 pavers, crossing the sidewalk, at approximately
14:28:03 12-foot intervals.
14:28:04 The developers are installing a streetscape along the
14:28:07 south side of Kennedy Boulevard from Packwood to Rome
14:28:09 at the developers sole expense.
14:28:11 Shade trees, street lamps will be provided along the
14:28:13 Kennedy Boulevard adjacent to the public right-of-way.
14:28:17 I would like to show you, this is what the developer
14:28:27 has come back with.
14:28:28 This is a side view.
14:28:29 You can see the garages.

14:28:36 And driveways from that.
14:28:38 This may be a little hard.
14:28:39 They have now taken the garages away, parking,
14:28:42 interior.
14:28:45 This is what the streetscape looks like with the
14:28:49 garages and now included more of a pedestrian walk-up
14:28:52 situation.
14:28:58 This is the building from Kennedy.
14:28:59 This is the rear of the building.
14:29:01 This is the parking structure.
14:29:04 A view of the Kennedy office building.
14:29:06 And this is a view of the restaurant and outdoor
14:29:09 seating.
14:29:14 Planning Commission had no objection and found it
14:29:17 consistent.
14:29:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This has to be the most improved
14:29:20 project we have seen and that's pretty competitive.
14:29:22 This one is a thousand times better.
14:29:24 I want to compliment petitioner.
14:29:26 This is terrific.
14:29:28 >>CHAIRMAN: Petitioner?
14:29:33 >> Steve Reynolds.

14:29:34 I have been sworn.
14:29:36 My address is 201 North Franklin Street, Tampa,
14:29:40 Florida 20th floor.
14:29:41 I represent petitioner.
14:29:46 Over the months that we have been working on this
14:29:48 project, it has changed dramatically.
14:29:51 Much to the better, in I believe not only your eyes,
14:29:56 Mrs. Saul-Sena, but including our neighbors.
14:30:08 Certainly the neighborhood association supports this.
14:30:10 Your staff is in support.
14:30:19 We have presented elevations of all four sides, even
14:30:22 though prior to the ordinance.
14:30:26 We are in compliance with not only the Kennedy overlay
14:30:29 district, but also I would like to think the project
14:30:39 will be a benchmark for future developments.
14:30:48 I'll be happy to go into as much detail.
14:30:51 Moving through -- and you have heard about it several
14:30:53 times -- it might be more productive to answer
14:30:58 questions 69 questions by council members?
14:31:01 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
14:31:02 item 58?
14:31:03 >> Move to close.

14:31:04 >> Second.
14:31:04 (Motion carried).
14:31:05 >> do you have an ordinance?
14:31:12 >> Actually, this is just the end of our public
14:31:15 hearing.
14:31:19 9 so we just --
14:31:24 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: It's actually a continuance of
14:31:27 first reading.
14:31:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Everything dated correctly, all set
14:31:37 to go?
14:31:51 >> While we are checking that, I would like to thank
14:31:55 Mr. Dingfelder for his comments last time.
14:32:00 Staff has been able to provide more parking overall
14:32:04 for this project as well as streetscaping.
14:32:08 >> So we got rid of the double garages?
14:32:10 >> Yes.
14:32:15 >> Traffic problems.
14:32:15 It's really better.
14:32:20 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
14:32:22 vicinity of 1702 West Kennedy Boulevard in the city of
14:32:25 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
14:32:27 section 1 from zoning district classifications PD

14:32:30 planned development single family attached, retail
14:32:33 office, CI commercial intensive, to PD planned
14:32:35 development single family, retail office, providing an
14:32:38 effective date.
14:32:39 >> Motion and second.
14:32:40 (Motion carried).
14:32:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, I would like to put on
14:32:44 the record that I think at Mr. Reynold's petition it
14:32:51 has been improved but a couple problems.
14:32:53 I think based on section 27-321, it is not promoting
14:32:57 encouraging development where appropriate and local
14:33:00 character and compatibility with the surrounding
14:33:02 impact neighborhood, and existing geography.
14:33:04 So there's still a little bit of a compatibility issue
14:33:08 for me.
14:33:08 I know we have a second reading coming up at this
14:33:10 point.
14:33:11 I'm not comfortable enough to support it.
14:33:13 I hope you understand.
14:33:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That is regard to item number 58?
14:33:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 57.
14:33:23 >> Is there action to be taken on 57?

14:33:25 69 it's asked to be withdrawn.
14:33:27 >> I would --
14:33:32 >>> Yes, we would like to withdraw item 57.
14:33:34 >> So moved.
14:33:35 >> Second.
14:33:35 (Motion carried)
14:33:41 >> Item 59.
14:33:42 Continued public hearing.
14:33:46 >> I believe items 59 and 60 are joined.
14:33:48 Is that correct?
14:33:49 Thank you.
14:33:55 >> Continued?
14:33:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:34:03 I'll be addressing item number 60.
14:34:04 You have received, I believe, at least two
14:34:06 presentations on the vacating.
14:34:09 Barbara is present to show you and answer any
14:34:13 questions.
14:34:14 The reason we are back is the rezoning and alterations
14:34:17 and questions that you have regarding the previous
14:34:19 submittal with some of the testimony given by the
14:34:24 opponents.

14:34:25 I would like to say that the revised site plan you
14:34:27 have before you dated October 20th, it did meet
14:34:30 the requirements of the regulations as far as the
14:34:33 timing of the submittal.
14:34:39 And also the information submitted within the PD site
14:34:41 plan criteria.
14:34:43 Staff has removed their objection.
14:34:48 Originally they had a waiver of parking of 22%, with
14:34:52 27 spaces, 217.
14:34:55 That has been reduced to an 18% reduction waiver.
14:34:59 And they are still requesting access to a local street
14:35:02 on Manhattan.
14:35:03 And the previous submittal they were requesting 2.0
14:35:06 F.A.R. which was 296,000 square feet in building.
14:35:10 They have reduced that as well to 1.5 floor area
14:35:13 ratio, which is 223,000 square feet.
14:35:18 As stated before transportation has removed its
14:35:21 objections related to the parking waiver.
14:35:26 The additional objection that land development had was
14:35:29 asking for an additional change in the language on the
14:35:31 plan related to accessory commercial uses.
14:35:35 That verbiage changed as well.

14:35:37 Dy go through the site plan with petitioner yesterday.
14:35:43 They have a detailed report highlighting all the
14:35:45 changes in the site plan. With that staff has no
14:35:47 objection.
14:35:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As part of this we received some
14:35:54 elevation.
14:35:55 Pretty generic.
14:35:59 If petitioner wants to improve it in the future they
14:36:01 can do that with no problems with staff, correct?
14:36:04 >> Improve the elevation?
14:36:05 >> Yes.
14:36:06 >> Yes.
14:36:08 They do have some 3-D models to show you as well,
14:36:12 renderings to show you as well.
14:36:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Coyle, I understand this is a con
14:36:19 sen actual site plan.
14:36:22 I think it's very busy to put so many restaurants,
14:36:28 banks, and everything else in there.
14:36:36 This is not what was planning to go there.
14:36:38 Is that right?
14:36:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I'm not really understanding how
14:36:42 you are phrasing that.

14:36:44 The uses are very limited on this plan.
14:36:50 Bank, restaurant, hotel, office.
14:36:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think it's very busy for that
14:36:57 section, that area there is just not a big area.
14:37:01 And I think just too busy to have so many things in
14:37:07 there.
14:37:08 And I understand that this is just conceptual.
14:37:10 And I believe I will listen to the petitioner.
14:37:13 I'll ask her about that.
14:37:15 >>> PD site plan controlled rezonings, they are
14:37:20 conceptual site plans, that's correct.
14:37:22 Anything that's approved by you on a site plan, within
14:37:25 a site plan control district, is subject to
14:37:27 substantial change criteria, which I addressed in the
14:37:30 previous hearing.
14:37:31 There is always an ability for petitioners to make
14:37:34 slight changes to PD.
14:37:35 Any PD no matter where they are an there's very
14:37:40 specific criteria that spells out what they can
14:37:42 change.
14:37:42 Petitioner as well would have the same options to make
14:37:44 those changes.

14:37:45 Eventually a change to floor area, what it's actually
14:37:56 going to be before we view the drainage plan.
14:37:59 But every PD essentially is conceptual.
14:38:03 You're identifying entitlements that you are giving
14:38:05 them.
14:38:06 You're identifying the general placement of the
14:38:11 product.
14:38:11 We cannot offer if you give them a perimeter set back
14:38:23 I can't change.
14:38:24 >>:
14:38:24 >> I think you said to Ms. Saul-Sena that whatever
14:38:26 they come back with, it would not come back to City
14:38:29 Council.
14:38:32 >> If they improved their elevation, once they do
14:38:35 their architectural plans, I wouldn't consider that as
14:38:39 substantial change.
14:38:46 >> I think I'll listen to the petitioner.
14:38:48 >> Petitioner?
14:38:59 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: If I could ask one of the technical
14:39:01 guys to come and show me how to work this.
14:39:04 501 East Kennedy.
14:39:20 Thank you.

14:39:20 I apologize.
14:39:49 Good afternoon.
14:39:50 Andrea Zelman, 501 East Kennedy Boulevard.
14:39:57 Mrs. Saul-Sena, we hope by the time we are done we can
14:40:01 win the praise for best site plan.
14:40:04 Ms. Alvarez, I will try to make everything clear for
14:40:06 you.
14:40:06 I think some people -- it's really not as confusing as
14:40:12 some would suggest.
14:40:13 I want to go through quickly.
14:40:15 We have made a number of significant changes to the
14:40:16 site plan.
14:40:24 Mrs. Saul-Sena, you asked us to clarify the internal
14:40:28 circulation.
14:40:28 You asked us to show the sidewalk at the perimeter.
14:40:31 You asked us to clarify the paving at the entrances.
14:40:34 And you asked us to use monument signs rather than
14:40:40 pylon signs.
14:40:41 And the site that I am showing you now points out
14:40:44 where all those changes have in fact been made on the
14:40:46 site plan.
14:40:49 I don't know if you will recall, but back in 2004 when

14:40:52 we rezoned the property, councilwoman Saul-Sena, again
14:40:55 you asked us to plant 3-inch caliper trees rather than
14:40:59 the tree required by code.
14:41:04 We actually increased this to 4-inch caliper, in the
14:41:08 Westshore district, which we are not, but you had
14:41:10 asked about that so we voluntarily agreed to upgrade
14:41:13 all the tree to 4-inch caliper trees.
14:41:17 Cathy mentioned we also reduced the F.A.R. of the site
14:41:25 to 1.5.
14:41:26 We reduced the parking variance, we also made some
14:41:40 additional clarifications.
14:41:41 Some of these were in response to comments made at the
14:41:43 meeting by other council members and by some of the
14:41:53 people who spoke at the hearing.
14:41:54 Let me just note for a minute, at all of our hearings
14:41:59 we had the full unequivocal support of the Culver city
14:42:03 Lincoln Gardens homeowners associations which
14:42:06 represents hundred ifs not thousands of properties in
14:42:08 the area.
14:42:09 We had others in the area come and speak in support of
14:42:12 this.
14:42:12 Some who wanted to be here today like Jim Mikkas who

14:42:17 had to leave.
14:42:20 Unfortunately what we have to do today is address some
14:42:22 of the things that they raise.
14:42:23 But I do want to point out again that we have the
14:42:25 support of many and opposition of one.
14:42:28 But one of the things that that property owner to our
14:42:32 south said we are putting too much on this property,
14:42:35 it's too dense, and the site we are showing you now
14:42:39 points out the underlying zoning which is OP 1 would
14:42:43 allow an F.A.R. up to 3.5.
14:42:46 We are proposing 1.5.
14:42:48 The property owner who is objecting.
14:42:58 The underliner lying zoning, we are voluntarily
14:43:03 putting a 40-foot setback on ourselves.
14:43:05 Again the property owner that's opposing has zero
14:43:08 setbacks.
14:43:13 Underlining zoning, we are doing 20.
14:43:17 Required 10.
14:43:18 You are allowed a building height up to 200 feet.
14:43:20 Our maximum building height -- and this is very clear
14:43:23 on the site plan -- is 135 feet and only one building
14:43:28 at that height.

14:43:29 We can have more than one building.
14:43:31 Only one can go up to 135 feet.
14:43:33 Again the property owner to our south has 75 feet.
14:43:36 Another misconception that I think they gave this
14:43:40 council is they gave the impression that all buildings
14:43:44 would immediately abut theirs.
14:43:46 What this next slide is illustrating is we can see on
14:43:49 the right side, that's their building.
14:43:52 That's proposed on this construction plan.
14:43:55 50 feet of right-of-way along Spruce Street.
14:43:58 Then again the setback that would be required under
14:44:00 the underlining zoning is 20 feet but we imposed a
14:44:04 40-foot setback.
14:44:06 That finally number plus or minus 105 is how it
14:44:09 measures out if you look at what's on their
14:44:11 construction plans and what's on our site plan that's
14:44:13 before you today.
14:44:14 So again, 105 feet between our nearest building and
14:44:19 their nearest building is a pretty great distance.
14:44:25 Let me walk you through some of the changes that we
14:44:27 made to the site plan itself, to try to bring some
14:44:30 clarity, and some of those concerns that you, Ms.

14:44:34 Alvarez, had.
14:44:35 What you have in front of you right now is taken right
14:44:39 off the site plan.
14:44:40 We trade to put some more clear language in there
14:44:43 explaining what the variance tables are.
14:44:47 This just explains we actually have four tables on the
14:44:49 site plan.
14:44:51 I'll go through those one by one.
14:44:59 This has the allowable uses, the maximum floor areas
14:45:01 and the height limits of each development within the
14:45:05 site.
14:45:08 The most important thing is again, there are only four
14:45:12 possible uses that can go on there.
14:45:14 And that's identified in this table.
14:45:17 No matter what goes on, the entire project cannot
14:45:19 exceed 223,000 square feet, exclusive of the garage,
14:45:24 and the garage itself will not exceed 140,000 square
14:45:28 feet, and will be no higher than 65 feet in height.
14:45:31 And as I will tell you later on the type of garage we
14:45:34 are proposing is not a stand-alone garage.
14:45:37 It's a garage that will be integrated into the
14:45:39 building, and will be architecturally compatible with

14:45:43 the building, and to prevent any unnecessary negative
14:45:49 intrusion for our neighbor.
14:45:51 Again, this table 1 makes clear that only one building
14:45:54 can go up to 130 feet in height, 135 feet, I
14:45:59 apologize.
14:46:00 The second building can go as high as 95 feet.
14:46:02 And then of those no higher than 65 feet.
14:46:08 The next table was just to show how the parking would
14:46:13 work, what number of parking spaces would be provided
14:46:17 if the site were to develop with a garage.
14:46:22 Table 3, the next table, shows again what number of
14:46:26 parking spaces we would be required to have and what
14:46:28 we would have if the site developed just shows the
14:46:32 parking only.
14:46:33 And then the final table is our equivalency trade-off
14:46:38 value.
14:46:38 And what this does is allow you to increase by
14:46:44 reducing the size of another use.
14:46:45 For instance, the example that we highlighted for you,
14:46:50 if you can trade a thousand, the 3.6 for hotel rooms,
14:46:54 but again, all of this is governed by the fact that
14:46:58 the overall square footage of the site has to -- can

14:47:03 eat that maximum 223,000, the height again cannot
14:47:09 exceed the caps that we have imposed on ourselves.
14:47:12 Also, to use this trade-off table we have to submit to
14:47:15 the zoning administrator for their approval.
14:47:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question before you proceed on
14:47:21 that.
14:47:21 I actually taught math at one point in my life and I
14:47:24 was reading the footnote at the bottom of there.
14:47:30 It's just mind boggling to me. Can you explain how
14:47:32 that works?
14:47:33 The calculations -- column B and column A, proceed
14:47:38 horizontally, then vertically.
14:47:41 >>> I was hoping you wouldn't ask that because I have
14:47:43 problems with trade-off tables, too.
14:47:46 >>> Come up with those and Cathy, do you sign off on
14:47:48 this thing?
14:47:51 >>> Trade-off tables specifically are based on traffic
14:47:54 trips.
14:47:55 So you always want your equivalency to equal the
14:47:59 number of trips that you are putting on the road.
14:48:03 Cate, do you want to explain?
14:48:04 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Based on a transportation study,

14:48:09 essentially, Calvin thorn Thornton and Melanie
14:48:15 Calloway can explain.
14:48:17 >> Eventually perhaps ten years from now, when
14:48:20 everybody is long gone and what have you, some
14:48:23 reviewer can actually understand this?
14:48:25 >>> Yes.
14:48:26 I understand it.
14:48:28 >> I know you do.
14:48:29 But you helped draft it or review it.
14:48:32 >>> I didn't actually help draft it.
14:48:34 >> I mean this is typical planner jargon?
14:48:37 >>> Yes.
14:48:38 Transportation, definitely.
14:48:40 And obviously you wouldn't let someone agree to do
14:48:46 something, have studies for what they are proposing
14:48:48 and then suddenly trade it off and do something that's
14:48:51 going to have a much more significant impact without
14:48:55 increasing impacting.
14:48:56 What this does is basically make the traffic impact
14:48:59 stay the same.
14:49:00 The trade-offs, you know, to make sure that there's no
14:49:04 increase in trips by increasing -- again anytime you

14:49:10 increase the size you are reducing the size of
14:49:13 another.
14:49:15 >>> Where you typically see these, councilman
14:49:18 Dingfelder, is the DRIs but I have seen them on
14:49:20 smaller projects than this before.
14:49:24 We want top show you sort of a colorized site plan to
14:49:27 give you an idea what the site looks like.
14:49:29 You can see there's a lot of green.
14:49:31 Again, more than the code requires.
14:49:34 We have got the pedestrian connections.
14:49:40 What I would like to do now is very quickly go through
14:49:43 some of the elevations.
14:49:44 This is obviously the north elevation of the
14:49:46 steakhouse.
14:49:48 What the office building is supposed to look like.
14:49:52 The west elevation of the hotel is built.
14:49:56 The south elevation of the hotel.
14:49:58 And this shows you what people who are looking at the
14:50:00 garage will be looking at.
14:50:02 We are showing Washingtonian palms because they are
14:50:05 higher, screening, to screen the garages.
14:50:10 At the office building, across the street.

14:50:16 But that's the intent to use those palms for that
14:50:19 visual buffer for the garage.
14:50:22 And what we are showing you here, these are projects
14:50:25 that you can recognize.
14:50:26 This is Bayshore.
14:50:27 Again, we want to make sure everyone understands we
14:50:29 are not talking about a stand-alone parking garage.
14:50:31 We are talking about a parking garage that will be
14:50:34 integrated into the building and will be
14:50:36 architecturally compatible with the building.
14:50:39 Another is required by a note on the site plan,
14:50:43 there's also the note that the code requires about
14:50:46 80% opacity.
14:50:48 And again there's some other garages.
14:50:51 Again integrated into the project.
14:50:53 We think very aesthetically pleasing.
14:50:56 I think at the last meeting we had one or two of
14:50:58 these.
14:51:00 This is 3-D modeling.
14:51:01 What we have done here is take the construction plans
14:51:04 for the projects to the south of us, and shows them to
14:51:08 scale and shows what we are proposing to scale.

14:51:11 Again we are pretty much showing you the worst case
14:51:15 scenario by showing you what would happen if the hotel
14:51:18 were built.
14:51:19 I this I this illustrates this map thing and this
14:51:21 placement is very compatible with what's proposed
14:51:24 behind us.
14:51:25 We didn't include pictures of what's nearby but there
14:51:28 were several projects along Boy Scout Boulevard that
14:51:32 are also tall buildings, density, we have the
14:51:35 cornerstone project, we have the crescent run. This
14:51:39 is what you are looking at from Manhattan.
14:51:43 This is what the property owner to the south will see
14:51:45 looking north.
14:51:48 Another view from Manhattan.
14:51:50 And what we are trying to show you here is the
14:51:53 separation between the project to the south of us and
14:51:55 our project.
14:51:56 And again I think we can see that there's a
14:51:58 significant amount --
14:52:02 >> Which one is which?
14:52:07 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: The smaller building without any
14:52:09 trees around it is the apartment complex to the south.

14:52:11 What you are looking at was the trees in front of the
14:52:16 garage.
14:52:19 Just in conclusion, I would like to again, as staff
14:52:22 told you, the staff has removed all of their
14:52:25 objections.
14:52:26 The Planning Commission staff has advised you that
14:52:28 this project is consistent with the comprehensive
14:52:30 plan.
14:52:32 Now, at the last hearing again, submitted a couple of
14:52:37 reports, Englehart, Hammer and associates and also
14:52:40 Florida Engineering.
14:52:41 I didn't think that you would want me to go point by
14:52:44 point through their report.
14:52:46 So what we have done, although we are glad to answer
14:52:48 any questions about it.
14:52:49 But let me just say at the outset the report they
14:52:52 submitted back in September, some of it was already
14:52:54 moot at the time.
14:52:56 We already revised the site plan to address a lot of
14:52:59 things they mentioned.
14:53:01 We have obviously revised the site plan.
14:53:03 But we did have Rose Abernathy, she used to work at

14:53:07 the city and now is a planner at Wilson Miller.
14:53:11 We have gone through point by point and basically
14:53:13 respond to all the allegations made.
14:53:15 And I would like to submit those into the record now.
14:53:29 Again the Culver city Lincoln Gardens association,
14:53:32 which as you all know takes a lot of interest in the
14:53:34 way this area developed, is very much in support of
14:53:39 the plan as are again many of the property owners who
14:53:42 commented but frankly couldn't be here today.
14:53:46 I don't know, if you want us to go into much detail
14:53:48 about the vacating.
14:53:50 But approval of the zoning will allow the vacating and
14:53:53 approval of the vacating will allow us to move forward
14:53:56 with the closure of the street which I you this you
14:54:00 heard was something that the neighborhood association
14:54:02 was very much interested in, as was your stormwater
14:54:06 staff, because it would put in underground vaults, if
14:54:10 we can close the ditch.
14:54:13 Some of you at the last hearing, I believe it was
14:54:15 councilwoman Ferlita, said you do have to work with
14:54:18 the neighbor to the south.
14:54:19 I just want to point out we have made a number of

14:54:22 concessions at their request.
14:54:25 Originally we were showing a higher garage.
14:54:27 We have lowered it.
14:54:28 Originally we were showing a stand-alone garage.
14:54:30 Again we integrated it into the building.
14:54:33 Again, we voluntarily lowered the F.A.R. and the total
14:54:36 square footage.
14:54:38 We voluntarily increased the landscaping.
14:54:43 We have tried to work with our neighbor.
14:54:45 Frankly we are at the point where we don't think we
14:54:47 can ever make them happy.
14:54:48 But again I do want to point out that they are one and
14:54:53 there are many in support of this project and we
14:54:55 thereafter request your approval and are happy to
14:54:57 answer any questions.
14:54:58 And if I may, do have hard copies of the PowerPoint
14:55:01 presentation I just gave to hand out and put into the
14:55:04 record.
14:55:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:55:09 This is much clearer.
14:55:10 Do you have an elevation of the eastern part of the
14:55:12 property showing the hotel and the parking garage, if

14:55:15 you are looking from Manhattan?
14:55:18 >>> Yes.
14:55:26 >> You gave us north, south and west.
14:55:28 >>> Yes, I think the 3-D ones are probably the most
14:55:31 clear.
14:55:43 >>> Page 15 of the hand drawn elevation -- and then
14:55:46 again the 3-D one.
14:55:47 >> That says west.
14:55:49 And I was asking about --
14:55:53 >> I think it's looking --
14:55:55 >> Okay, looking west.
14:55:57 >> And again, page 24 of the 3-D, the 3-D version if
14:56:03 you are looking for Manhattan.
14:56:05 25 is a closer-up view of what you see from Manhattan.
14:56:18 Do you have any other questions of me?
14:56:19 >> Yes.
14:56:20 Is there a way, if somebody were walking down
14:56:22 Manhattan, that they could get into the building?
14:56:25 Is there any door or any point of access on the
14:56:27 western side?
14:56:28 Or is it --
14:56:31 >> I don't know.

14:56:33 I don't know if they designed it with that kind of
14:56:35 specificity yet.
14:56:36 Obviously they haven't had an architect -- that is
14:56:43 something we could do.
14:56:48 The main entrance would be on Boy Scout.
14:56:51 >> I get that.
14:56:53 It's pretty far.
14:56:54 It looks like may be 400 feet from the southern part
14:56:57 of the property up to the corner.
14:56:58 And then they have to go on the corner.
14:57:01 I just wonder if you all were going to create a way
14:57:03 that a person who would walk up Manhattan or down
14:57:08 Manhattan --
14:57:09 >> Then again, that's something they could do.
14:57:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Much improved.
14:57:20 Pedestrian connections are much clearer.
14:57:22 >> Right.
14:57:23 And I don't know if you all remember, but there is
14:57:26 required as well an enhanced sidewalk, and kind of a
14:57:31 raised intersection there at spruce and Manhattan.
14:57:35 So there will be a continuous sidewalk installed along
14:57:38 Manhattan intersection to make it safer for

14:57:42 pedestrians.
14:57:43 Is there anyone in the public that wants to be speak
14:57:45 on item number 60?
14:58:00 >>> Graham Carruthers, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard,
14:58:04 Tampa.
14:58:05 For the record I have been sworn.
14:58:06 I am here this afternoon on behalf of the
14:58:13 aforementioned much vilified neighbor to the south.
14:58:16 I would like to start by talking about something
14:58:17 that's not really been mentioned yet.
14:58:20 That's the right-of-way vacation.
14:58:21 You will recall, though, this has been presented to
14:58:23 you as a staff initiated petition.
14:58:26 It was requested initially by the developer. The
14:58:30 developer met with the city staff members, submitted
14:58:32 the legal descriptions.
14:58:33 They want it vacated.
14:58:36 Those were amended at least on one occasion, again by
14:58:38 the developer.
14:58:43 Essentially based on everything I have been able to
14:58:45 see in the record and public records request, did all
14:58:49 of the work necessary to effectuate the right-of-way

14:58:52 petition.
14:58:53 The only public purpose stated for the request is to
14:58:59 make the existing open ditch more attractive and
14:59:02 aesthetically pleasing and safer by filling in the
14:59:07 existing open stormwater drainage facilities.
14:59:15 The developer has represented to you or more than one
14:59:17 indication and staff that they will pay for those
14:59:19 improvements.
14:59:19 There are two very important facts about this
14:59:21 right-of-way vacation petition that the council needs
14:59:23 to be very clear about.
14:59:25 First of all, there's absolutely no factual evidence
14:59:30 which has been submitted into the record in these
14:59:31 proceedings either by the city staff or by the
14:59:34 developer to indicate that the existing open ditch is
14:59:39 unsafe in any way, or is inadequate in terms of
14:59:42 capacity or water management, or that it doesn't work
14:59:47 well.
14:59:48 I dare say that but for the urging of the developer in
14:59:52 this case, city staff would have absolutely no reason,
14:59:55 no purpose, no need to vacate this right-of-way.
15:00:01 The second point is that nowhere, not in the

15:00:05 right-of-way vacation materials, not in the
15:00:07 accompanying rezoning petition, and not in the
15:00:10 contract for purchase and sale, which has not yet come
15:00:13 before council in connection with an adjacent piece of
15:00:16 property that the city currently owns, nowhere is
15:00:19 there an obligation on the part of this developer to
15:00:25 fill that ditch.
15:00:27 It's not there.
15:00:28 Again, I dare say that if the public purpose for
15:00:35 vacating this right-of-way is to address anesthetic
15:00:38 and safety issue, then shouldn't there, in one of
15:00:43 these matters, be an affirmative unconditional
15:00:46 obligation, not conditioned on approval with the
15:00:48 rezoning or approval of the contract.
15:00:51 Shouldn't there be some obligation in these documents
15:00:55 for this developer or someone to do that?
15:00:59 In a timetable in which it must be done?
15:01:01 As we stand here today, we don't have any of that.
15:01:06 Again, the reality here is that the right-of-way
15:01:09 vacation is necessary because the developer is trying
15:01:12 to put way too much on way too little.
15:01:15 They need every little bit of space they can get.

15:01:18 And this is one way for them to gain some additional
15:01:20 acreage.
15:01:24 Moving onto the second issue that I wanted to discuss
15:01:27 which is the rezoning petition.
15:01:29 We strongly believe that that petition is out of order
15:01:31 to be heard today.
15:01:36 I think I should have six minutes.
15:01:38 >>GWEN MILLER: You are speaking on 60.
15:01:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to waive the rules.
15:01:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait till we get to that one first, Ms.
15:01:54 Cole?
15:01:55 >>JULIA COLE: You can consider these combined and the
15:02:04 opportunity to speak for a few more minutes.
15:02:07 Because he's really, from what I'm hearing, he's
15:02:10 dealing with both.
15:02:11 So if would you open them separately, he would have an
15:02:14 opportunity to speak for three minutes each.
15:02:17 Probably best for him to allow him to speak.
15:02:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead, Mr. Carruthers.
15:02:28 >>> Thank you.
15:02:34 Rezoning petition including 1.4 acres that don't even
15:02:37 belong to the applicant in this case as we have seen

15:02:39 here today.
15:02:39 That property belongs to the City of Tampa.
15:02:42 Their does exist a contract for purchase and sale in
15:02:44 draft form which has no, ma'am could have B before
15:02:47 this council yet.
15:02:48 The contract calls for a purchase price equal to $1.60
15:02:53 per square foot and the terms and conditions of that
15:02:55 contract will be before you at a later date.
15:02:57 But as we stand here today, you're being asked to
15:03:00 approve a rezoning petition which includes property
15:03:02 that the applicant does not own.
15:03:10 A detail of the insufficiencies with the current site
15:03:13 plan will be dealt with by Ethel Hammer who is joining
15:03:16 me today.
15:03:18 I just distributed a revised exhibit to the September
15:03:23 20th letter which was previously provided in the
15:03:25 September hearing.
15:03:26 But again Ms. Hammer will handle those.
15:03:28 In terms of big issues, again, a couple of points that
15:03:31 I think council needs to understand.
15:03:33 What you have really got here is a PDA, not a single
15:03:39 PD.

15:03:40 Back in August this council made it very clear to the
15:03:42 applicant that you wanted to see a single site plan
15:03:44 that showed exactly what the applicant wanted to do.
15:03:48 The new site plan, although it is on one sheet of
15:03:51 paper, still allows for the development of this
15:03:54 property in numerous different configurations and for
15:03:57 a very wide variety of different uses.
15:04:01 If you look at the site plan, I'll show you what I'm
15:04:03 going to do.
15:04:06 For example, type 1 and type 2 can be combined into
15:04:11 one building, and one building pad, based on the site
15:04:15 plans and materials before you.
15:04:16 It's impossible to determine the footprint within
15:04:20 which that would happen.
15:04:21 It's impossible to determine what the impact on the
15:04:26 parking scheme would be.
15:04:27 It's impossible to tell what impact that might have on
15:04:29 the pedestrian and vehicular circulation that you have
15:04:33 asked to see.
15:04:35 Similarly, pads 2 and 3 can be combined in much the
15:04:39 same way.
15:04:40 To make it even worse, pad 1 can be used for a bank

15:04:46 and or restaurant and or office.
15:04:48 Pad 2 can be used for a bank, and or office, with
15:04:51 accessory commercial uses on divine.
15:04:55 Or a hotel and accessories commercial uses.
15:04:58 Or a restaurant.
15:05:00 Pad 3 can be used for a bank or an office with
15:05:03 accessory commercial uses.
15:05:05 Or hotel or a restaurant.
15:05:07 When you take all of this into account and boil it
15:05:09 down, folks, there are at least 48 different
15:05:13 combinations of uses that could wind up on this
15:05:17 property.
15:05:18 48.
15:05:21 The purpose of a PD site plan is to establish some
15:05:25 definitiveness of the development, both for this
15:05:28 council and for surrounding property owners.
15:05:31 Secondly, the alternative uses noted on the site plan
15:05:34 allow the building pads to be combined and
15:05:36 reconfigured without this council's review.
15:05:39 Frankly, I think that constitutes an improper and we
15:05:43 believe illegal delegation of the City Council's
15:05:45 legislative authority, in addition to totally

15:05:48 vitiating the purpose of site plan based rezoning.
15:05:54 Lastly, I would like to -- one more point and then I'm
15:05:57 done.
15:05:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Wrap it up.
15:05:58 >>> I would like to address one issue that Ms. Zelman
15:06:01 raised at the last hearing which involves a case which
15:06:04 she would like for you all to rely upon in addressing
15:06:07 the site plans, details and inconsistencies that we
15:06:12 are having a problem with.
15:06:13 I'm talking about the recent Davis Island civic
15:06:16 association case involving Tampa General Hospital.
15:06:20 Based on the presentation made to you, the inferences
15:06:24 of that case, besides all these questions, it's okay
15:06:27 to have numerous different options.
15:06:30 It's okay to have a site plan that can be changed and
15:06:33 so forth.
15:06:35 That case couldn't be any different than what we are
15:06:37 dealing with here.
15:06:39 There was never any question about what the use of
15:06:40 that building was going to be or where it would be
15:06:43 located.
15:06:48 That should not represent any precedent in this case

15:06:51 whatsoever.
15:06:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
15:06:53 >>> With that our folks have come forward and
15:06:55 certainly be happy to answer any questions.
15:06:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Now you are representing who, Ms.
15:07:01 Zelman?
15:07:02 Are you all from the same team?
15:07:05 >>> I'm representing same client.
15:07:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the question?
15:07:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I guess a question to whether or not
15:07:23 each member of somebody --
15:07:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, Mrs. Hammer.
15:07:35 >>> Ethel Hammer, 3001 north Rocky Point drive, suite
15:07:39 300, Tampa.
15:07:41 I am going to talk about what I believe are
15:07:44 compensations to planning issues associated with this
15:07:47 application.
15:07:47 And I have given you, in case I run out of time, all
15:07:50 my objections on the first sheet.
15:07:52 And I developed two graphics that I am going to cover
15:07:55 with you that follow.
15:07:57 The first objection is the setbacks from Boy Scout

15:08:01 Boulevard.
15:08:02 Petitioner is asking for a 5-foot setback for office
15:08:06 structures from Boy Scout Boulevard.
15:08:10 We've done a study of the existing setbacks along Boy
15:08:13 Scout Boulevard.
15:08:16 The setback at the low end of the range are 30 feet.
15:08:19 Many of the setbacks exceed 100 feet.
15:08:22 This 5-foot setback request is way out of character
15:08:26 with everything else that's along this segment of Boy
15:08:29 Scout.
15:08:31 Furthermore, the fact is that it does not list the
15:08:36 request for the five foot waiver in the waiver table
15:08:38 which is a requirement of your code.
15:08:41 The second issue that I wanted to cover is the hate of
15:08:43 the structure.
15:08:44 Just the pure height of 135 feet.
15:08:47 This will be the tallest structure along Boy Scout
15:08:50 Boulevard.
15:08:51 And if you can look on my graphic, the next tallest
15:08:56 structure is 11 stories which would be around 110
15:09:00 feet.
15:09:01 There are several buildings that are 100 feet.

15:09:04 But they are on large parcels of land.
15:09:07 So the setback and the height end up with a different
15:09:11 scale and bulk of the structure.
15:09:13 And that's one of the other things that really my
15:09:16 second graphic speaks to.
15:09:19 I did this graphic.
15:09:21 This is a scale vertically and horizontally.
15:09:25 This was done based on the site plan that you have.
15:09:28 Now the graphic that Ms. Zelman showed you shows the
15:09:32 5-story parking garage on the south side of their site
15:09:38 plan.
15:09:39 There is nowhere on the site plan that says that that
15:09:43 portion of their structure is limited to five stories.
15:09:47 It's silent on that issue so this is what is
15:09:50 permissible based on the site plan that is before you
15:09:52 today.
15:09:55 135 feet tall, over 250 feet long.
15:10:02 The petitioner is showing one foot of landscaping at
15:10:08 the south end of their project.
15:10:10 This is absolutely inappropriate for such an intensive
15:10:14 use next to a residential project.
15:10:17 Furthermore, they are saying on their site plan that

15:10:21 they are wanting to grant our client a 2-foot easement
15:10:24 so we can build a wall or fence on their property.
15:10:27 Well, normal zoning dictates that the more intensive
15:10:31 use provides a buffer to the less intensive use.
15:10:35 So, therefore, they should be the ones that are
15:10:38 providing adequate buffering and screening, not
15:10:42 putting the burden back on us.
15:10:46 Parking, from the adjacent property owner we are very
15:10:49 concerned and very opposed to even an 18% reduction in
15:10:52 parking.
15:10:52 That's over 50 parking spaces.
15:10:55 People will be parking perhaps on our property.
15:10:58 This is not an urban environment.
15:11:00 This is not a situation where people can park on the
15:11:03 street but where people can park on a paved parking
15:11:06 lot a block away.
15:11:07 This is the situation where they are asking for a
15:11:10 waiver from the absolute minimum number of parking
15:11:14 spaces by 18%, and we object to that.
15:11:18 Ms. Zelman's portrayal of the fact that in OP-1 she
15:11:21 could have a 200-foot tall building.
15:11:24 That is perhaps true with something that she didn't

15:11:26 mention.
15:11:27 The code requires extraordinary setbacks when you go
15:11:30 up that high.
15:11:31 So this project in its current form could never have
15:11:34 been built in OP-1.
15:11:36 I calculated if she wanted a 200-fought tall building
15:11:39 it would have required 105-setback from the front
15:11:42 yard, from the side yard and the rear yard.
15:11:45 It left a very small envelope in the center of the
15:11:47 site for any development at all.
15:11:49 Likewise for their 135-foot tall building it would
15:11:52 have required 73 feet from all three sides.
15:11:55 So it's not true that it's only a 20-foot setback.
15:11:58 The height will dictate a much larger setback.
15:12:04 The square footage was confusing.
15:12:07 They limited square footage to 223,000 square feet.
15:12:10 But when you add up the allowances, it comes out to
15:12:13 297,000 square feet.
15:12:15 I guess they are still allowing themselves from the
15:12:20 maximum but it's very confusing on the site plan.
15:12:24 Again I didn't go get a chance top go through all my
15:12:27 points but you have them on my memo.

15:12:28 Thank you.
15:12:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a question for you.
15:12:32 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Could you go ahead and tell us about
15:12:34 the other point that you were talking about?
15:12:39 The other point you were talking about?
15:12:43 >>> Okay, thank you.
15:12:44 The restaurant parking only has 34 spaces near the
15:12:48 restaurant.
15:12:49 Yet on their own table they show it needs 108 parking
15:12:53 spaces.
15:12:54 So when the restaurant is in operation at the same
15:12:56 time as the bank and the hotel or the office or
15:12:58 whatever it's going to be, I find it pretty hard to
15:13:02 imagine how they are going to even with valet parking
15:13:06 be able to accommodate all 108 parking spaces that are
15:13:09 required as minimum by your code when there's only 34
15:13:13 spaces that are immediately near the restaurant.
15:13:16 They propose staffing.
15:13:18 Your code doesn't permit that.
15:13:25 I looked at the site plan.
15:13:26 My professional opinion is even without the parking
15:13:29 garage it's going to be very difficult to get 226

15:13:31 surface parking spaces, unless they go with uses that
15:13:34 are very small footprints.
15:13:41 And I believe I have covered in general the rest of
15:13:43 those.
15:13:43 So thank you, commissioner Alvarez, for letting me
15:13:45 finish.
15:13:46 Oh, one more thing.
15:13:47 One more thing.
15:13:48 Point number 6.
15:13:51 There is an inconsistency on the site plan which I
15:13:53 think is important.
15:13:54 Note number 7 says that all parking for the restaurant
15:13:56 must be valet for all hours of operation when you look
15:14:01 at what they are asking for as a waiver it says it's
15:14:03 only for daytime hours.
15:14:05 So there's an inherent inconsistency there on the
15:14:08 information on the site plan.
15:14:09 Thank you.
15:14:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:14:11 Would anyone else like to speak on item 60 or 61?
15:14:20 >> Good evening, council.
15:14:21 I'm Lorraine Wyley.

15:14:25 4201 Nassau street and I have been sworn in.
15:14:35 I hope this is my last time here because this has gone
15:14:37 round and round and it's like this is not going to
15:14:40 pass, and then it's going to pass.
15:14:43 I hope you do that before we leave today.
15:14:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We feel your pain.
15:14:49 >> I have reviewed the zoning site plan and have no
15:14:52 objection to it or to what the developer is proposing
15:14:57 to build on this property.
15:15:00 At the last City Council hearing, councilman Alvarez
15:15:03 asked if the people to the immediate south of this
15:15:07 proposed rezoning who are objecting to this project
15:15:10 had come to our neighborhood association to talk about
15:15:15 our objection.
15:15:15 As I said at that hearing, no, they did not, and they
15:15:18 haven't as of today.
15:15:21 I would have loved to have talked with the developer
15:15:24 and discussed the disagreements and hopefully come to
15:15:27 some agreement concerning our community if that had
15:15:32 happened.
15:15:32 But it did not.
15:15:34 But I am available for that discussion.

15:15:42 We approved projects in the past.
15:15:44 I'm sure we would have worked something out between
15:15:47 the two developers to make this a successful outcome
15:15:52 today.
15:15:55 Neighborhood associations represent the entire Carver
15:15:57 City, Lincoln Gardens area, and we have worked for a
15:16:01 long time with Mr. Roder and we would like what he is
15:16:07 proposing to build and we very much want this ditch
15:16:09 closed.
15:16:10 I heard earlier that the ditch has been proven to be
15:16:14 unsafe and I'm certain for persons that live in Carver
15:16:19 City so will make a statement as such.
15:16:23 The ditch is very deep, it's very dangerous, and it's
15:16:26 an ugly site, if you know what I'm talking about.
15:16:33 The people that are objecting have not taken into
15:16:36 account what we the neighborhood want.
15:16:37 They are only looking out for their own interest.
15:16:46 There is one of them and many of us.
15:16:48 We are also supporting the vacating.
15:16:51 Our neighbors would like us to be vacated.
15:16:55 We do not want cars to be able to travel between
15:16:58 Manhattan and Hesperides.

15:17:02 We appreciate the effort put into this project and we
15:17:08 ask you to vote in favor of this project.
15:17:14 I just want to mention earlier, I heard Ms. Hammer
15:17:19 speak and we a approved the summer walk.
15:17:27 You know, sometimes, sometimes they do and sometimes
15:17:37 they don't.
15:17:38 So, you know, for someone to point out so many
15:17:45 oppositions to this project, there is something when
15:17:46 we looked, such a huge monster, and not only huge, but
15:17:52 then you ask for it to be one thing, and within a year
15:17:56 or two it sold and is something else.
15:18:00 You know, the Carver City has been up against a lot of
15:18:02 things.
15:18:03 And we were wondering -- yes, this project may be
15:18:08 huge.
15:18:09 But we do not think it's more than anything else that
15:18:19 has come to Carver City the way it has because every
15:18:22 day developers are coming, and when don't have much
15:18:25 more space for anything else.
15:18:27 So if this site can be approved we would appreciate
15:18:30 it.
15:18:31 We have already been blocked with everything.

15:18:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you for coming up today.
15:18:39 We appreciate you coming up and giving us your input
15:18:42 for Carver City.
15:18:45 Have you talked to her about the objections?
15:18:51 Have you seen this?
15:18:52 There's ten objections on there.
15:18:54 And to me, it makes pretty much sense especially when
15:19:00 she's going down the list here.
15:19:02 I would like you to take a look at this and see what
15:19:04 you think about this.
15:19:07 >> One of the things that would be nice is when they
15:19:09 do have objections, and because we are in the
15:19:11 community, it would be nice for them to come to us.
15:19:17 It's so disappointing when I get here and everybody is
15:19:21 against.
15:19:21 And nobody cares to be a good neighbor and call.
15:19:28 But you are a good neighbor to the other person when
15:19:30 they get here.
15:19:31 I don't understand.
15:19:32 >> I don't either.
15:19:33 Would you mind taking a look at the objections here
15:19:35 and just telling us what you think about it?

15:19:37 Ms. Hammer, do you have a copy of this?
15:19:39 Take a look at it and see what you think.
15:19:42 Because there's a lot of things in there.
15:19:44 I like the project.
15:19:45 I think something should go into this area.
15:19:48 But I think it's too busy.
15:19:49 I think there's just too many buildings in there.
15:19:52 I think that the ditch should be closed because it is
15:19:55 a detriment to the public health and welfare of the
15:19:58 neighbors in there, to anybody else.
15:20:00 I've seen that ditch.
15:20:02 It's horrible.
15:20:04 Mr. Carruthers, I think, if it wasn't your property
15:20:09 you would want it closed, too.
15:20:10 Be that as it may, I think you need to take a look at
15:20:13 these objections and kind of study them and then come
15:20:17 back and let us know.
15:20:18 I am not going to be able to support this today.
15:20:23 >>> Some of these objections are terminologies that I
15:20:25 don't know it should be 24, it should be 33, now.
15:20:29 But as said earlier it would have been good had even
15:20:32 both of these developers come to us and sit down and

15:20:35 try to come because this is about my third time here.
15:20:41 Can you do it or can you not?
15:20:43 Because I think they both are tired and I know I am.
15:20:48 I had to get up early this morning.
15:20:54 >> I understand.
15:20:55 And that was their fault for not getting in touch with
15:20:57 you.
15:20:58 Because, you know, this project is right next to
15:21:03 theirs.
15:21:03 So of course you are going to have objections.
15:21:05 And I can understand that.
15:21:07 But there's a lot of things in there that I am not
15:21:09 happy with.
15:21:10 So if you wouldn't mind taking a look and maybe Ms.
15:21:16 Hammer or someone on the opposing team could sit down
15:21:19 with you and see what you think.
15:21:20 I really would appreciate that.
15:21:24 >>> I appreciate your talking with me and objections.
15:21:26 I think if it doesn't pass today, you know, there's a
15:21:31 developer who wants to come here, you know, everybody
15:21:35 needs -- because I may see the objection.
15:21:42 But they need to make the agreement, to make the

15:21:45 changes that are necessary.
15:21:48 >> Well, I want for this project to be a good project.
15:21:53 But this is in my district.
15:21:54 I go by this place all the time.
15:21:57 And I want to be it to be a really nice project.
15:22:00 I don't want to the be a busy project.
15:22:05 >>ROSE FERLITA: Did you have something to say?
15:22:06 Okay.
15:22:07 I just want to tell you, ma'am, that you're right.
15:22:09 You have been here several times.
15:22:11 So have we.
15:22:11 I think the petitioner has gone through some of these
15:22:13 issues with you.
15:22:15 It would be a new precedent now that if we had some
15:22:18 objection to a petition that that particular objection
15:22:23 group, be it an individual or another company, get
15:22:26 together with them, with the neighborhood association,
15:22:29 you would end up with some sort of world war.
15:22:34 They are supposed to come to us and determine whether
15:22:36 or not the waivers warrant what we have that they are
15:22:39 presenting, if it's not compatible, if there's too
15:22:41 many waivers, if the parking requests are much less

15:22:47 than what the restaurant can accommodate, those are
15:22:49 things for us to decide for us to look at.
15:22:53 Although you want everybody to act in harmony, that
15:22:57 would be very difficult in this case.
15:23:00 I understand what you are saying in terms of the
15:23:02 ditch.
15:23:02 You're right.
15:23:03 But that's the balance for we, as your representative,
15:23:07 to look at.
15:23:07 We want top remove the ditch but not at the expense,
15:23:10 for instance, from my opinion, for a project that's
15:23:14 too intense, too confusing, has 48 different
15:23:18 variations of what they want, not enough, you know,
15:23:21 landscape.
15:23:23 It goes on and on and on.
15:23:25 The tallness of the building, I think it's too tall in
15:23:28 terms of the compatibilities of design.
15:23:30 There are a lot of issues.
15:23:31 And with all due respect to you and your
15:23:33 neighborhood -- and I commend the fact you all are
15:23:35 interested because you're the ones that have to live
15:23:37 with this.

15:23:38 They can't tell you to tell them, and then you act as
15:23:41 referee.
15:23:42 Here is where we need to decide that.
15:23:45 They have presented their case for approval.
15:23:47 They have presented their objections.
15:23:49 And at this point right now, it looks like the ditch
15:23:52 and some of the safety issues are important.
15:23:54 The fact that this thing is just too out of scale
15:23:58 outweighs the fact we want to remove the ditch.
15:24:02 >> I'm not saying anything, we haven't voted.
15:24:05 What I am saying is this is the reason in which we
15:24:07 need to listen to two sides.
15:24:09 And I can't imagine both sides going to your civic
15:24:11 association and arguing it out with the neighborhood.
15:24:14 You would never come to some sort of -- it would be
15:24:17 novel.
15:24:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: With all of --
15:24:26 >>> They come together and decrease some of these
15:24:30 objections.
15:24:31 >> Well, it's not the objections they are posing and
15:24:34 objecting to.
15:24:35 They are pointing out some of these waivers that the

15:24:37 petitioner is asking for.
15:24:38 But it's for them and us to decide.
15:24:40 They are bringing the evidence forward, or weighing
15:24:42 the evidence, we are weighing, and make the decision.
15:24:46 None of us like to be here so many times. This has
15:24:49 gone on for a long, long time.
15:24:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a couple of quick questions.
15:24:54 Andrea, why don't you let staff answer and then do
15:24:58 your rebuttal, if that's okay.
15:24:59 Which staff is on this?
15:25:03 Cathy?
15:25:05 >> Does anyone else want to speak on item 60 or 61?
15:25:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
15:25:10 Here's my question.
15:25:15 Have you gone through the list of ten objections?
15:25:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: No.
15:25:19 Land development.
15:25:19 It was just given to me.
15:25:21 >> I want to go through 2 and 3.
15:25:23 Objection number 1.
15:25:24 A 5-foot setback is inadequate according to the
15:25:29 objector.

15:25:30 Now the other problem on Boy Scout that I have seen
15:25:33 has exterior parking.
15:25:34 They have got uncovered parking.
15:25:40 Therefore the parking is what creates some of this
15:25:43 distance, right?
15:25:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Based on the aerial provided by Ms.
15:25:50 Hammer it appears many developments do have parking
15:25:55 lots in the front including the mall.
15:25:56 >> And also this project seems to have some buffer,
15:26:01 maybe city right-of-way, before you get to the
15:26:03 three-lane.
15:26:06 On a of-lane road are we really worried about
15:26:08 setbacks?
15:26:09 >> If you take a setback, from the planning
15:26:12 perspective, that Ms. Ham area dressed, this area,
15:26:21 this variance area, you have got the international --
15:26:26 sorry.
15:26:50 If you la at the area in particular, Boy Scout
15:26:53 Boulevard, six lane divided roadway through this area,
15:27:02 International Plaza to the north.
15:27:03 You can see the large expanse of this asphalt parking
15:27:06 lot, the large pond, retention area.

15:27:11 The land use in this area is RMU.
15:27:22 >> Let me thumb through a few others.
15:27:28 One-foot landscape buffer.
15:27:30 That does sound a little tight.
15:27:32 Is that true?
15:27:43 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The south side?
15:27:45 I think she said basic zoning requirements.
15:27:52 You look at 27-130, the zoning buffer requirements.
15:27:56 It does require 15-foot buffer between a commercial
15:27:59 use and a multifamily.
15:28:01 However, if you're adjacent to a public right-of-way
15:28:04 it's a 5-foot buffer or a wall and they have a 40-foot
15:28:07 setback.
15:28:10 The one foot is the green space they have adjacent to
15:28:13 the area.
15:28:15 >> But they'll be able to plant something in the one
15:28:17 foot and it will just grow?
15:28:18 >> Potentially if it's a wall they can put a vine.
15:28:21 They have the interior island that separates the
15:28:23 parking spaces, if you notice on the site south.
15:28:26 >> And the last question I have is related to numbers
15:28:30 6, inconsistent note in regard to valet parking.

15:28:36 I'm sure we don't want any inconsistent notes.
15:28:39 I don't know if you had a chance --
15:28:42 >>> Can I read through that one really quick?
15:28:44 >> 7 states that all parking must be valet at all
15:28:48 hours.
15:28:49 >>> Do you mind if I read through that?
15:28:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
15:28:53 And then, Andrea the question I had for you is, what
15:28:56 justification do you an and your client have for the
15:28:59 18% parking reduction?
15:29:04 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I would like to answer that.
15:29:05 But before I start, you have given objections to
15:29:09 Lorraine.
15:29:09 We have a planner here who can respond to the
15:29:11 objections.
15:29:12 Can we get a copy for her so she can look at them as
15:29:14 well?
15:29:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Of course.
15:29:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question of legal staff.
15:29:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Wait.
15:29:27 She's going to answer my question.
15:29:29 What is the justification for the 18% parking

15:29:30 reduction?
15:29:33 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I'm glad you asked that.
15:29:35 I would like to ask councilman Ferlita and Alvarez
15:29:38 before you take some of the objections that were made
15:29:40 at face value, there were a lot of misconceptions
15:29:43 stated and a lot of misleading statements made.
15:29:46 I would like to explain those.
15:29:53 Councilman Dingfelder, I apologize.
15:29:55 It also goes to the question that you just asked
15:29:57 Cathy.
15:29:58 The parking waiver is really a legal exception.
15:30:04 The code doesn't recognize the parking requirements.
15:30:12 What we have explained is that the -- if a high-end
15:30:17 restaurant goes in there, and that's the only type of
15:30:19 restaurant that will go in there, the site plan
15:30:21 requires us to require valet parking for any
15:30:24 restaurant that goes in, and requires to have
15:30:28 agreement with the other uses on the site, to use
15:30:31 their parking spaces in the off hours.
15:30:34 Those will be daytime only uses.
15:30:36 So the only time parking is ever going to be tight is
15:30:38 at lunch time.

15:30:39 Because in the evening, we really don't need a waiver
15:30:41 at all.
15:30:42 And I believe that's a misleading or arguably
15:30:47 inconsistent statement.
15:30:48 >> In the day time you are going to stack with valet?
15:30:51 >> In the daytime the valet parkers will stack the
15:30:54 spaces.
15:30:54 They can only stack on the restaurant property.
15:30:58 And in the evening the valet parkers will park any
15:31:00 excess cars at the office area, because our users are
15:31:04 going to be required to have an agreement allowing us
15:31:08 as a condition of the site plan.
15:31:09 So it's really misleading.
15:31:11 And the only reason we have to even ask for a waiver
15:31:14 is because the code doesn't recollect nice the use of
15:31:16 valet stacking spaces.
15:31:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question of our legal
15:31:25 staff.
15:31:26 When Mr. Carruthers started speaking, the commitment
15:31:31 by the developer to fill the ditch and he said that
15:31:41 needs to be recognized somewhere in the document.
15:31:45 >>> I understood that it was a condition of the

15:31:47 vacation.
15:31:47 But I need to find out more.
15:31:50 >> Would that not be written down somewhere?
15:31:52 >>> I agree with you on that.
15:31:53 Let me get some further clarification on that.
15:31:56 And let me address one issue which relate to the fact
15:31:59 that there's a sale of the property which is a
15:32:02 separate and part of this.
15:32:06 The mayor did sign an authorization to allow the
15:32:08 rezoning to move forward on city-owned property.
15:32:11 And that's perfectly appropriate and legal in both the
15:32:16 sale of the property will come afterwards.
15:32:18 And certainly you could approve this and you could
15:32:21 decide not to sell the property.
15:32:22 And then that would be something that they will have
15:32:25 to deal with, property owners will have to deal with.
15:32:28 Let me get some clarification on that.
15:32:33 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: I'll try to go through rebuttal
15:32:47 points in the order in which they were given.
15:32:48 One of the things that Mr. Carruthers argued was that
15:32:52 there was really no public interest for the vacating.
15:32:54 I want to just show council something on the site

15:32:57 plan.
15:33:14 The property to the south.
15:33:15 One of the conditions of their zoning, when they
15:33:18 rezoned the property to the south, was that this
15:33:21 driveway had to dead-end at the entrance to their
15:33:27 garage.
15:33:28 The reason for that was, the neighborhood association,
15:33:31 again Carver City, Lincoln Gardens, did not want
15:33:36 Spruce Street to ever become a through street in this
15:33:39 location.
15:33:39 Right now it's not paved.
15:33:41 It's just a mess.
15:33:42 And the neighborhood did not want that to become a
15:33:45 through street.
15:33:46 The city imposed this condition on the property owners
15:33:48 to the south that it death dead-end so this street can
15:33:52 never become a through street.
15:33:53 So what the city is left with now once this driveway
15:33:56 is constructed is some property over here with a ditch
15:34:02 that the city has to maintain at its own expense,
15:34:05 worry about people falling in the ditch and try to
15:34:07 keep it looking good.

15:34:09 It looked pretty horrible.
15:34:17 Again, you know, when you specifically look at a
15:34:20 vacating, one of the issues, is the city ever going to
15:34:23 use it out right away?
15:34:25 The city has given up its ability to use this as
15:34:27 right-of-way.
15:34:28 In fact, it be made in such a way that they never can
15:34:33 use it as right-of-way but they are left with
15:34:34 something they have to maintain.
15:34:35 So one of the simple public inputs is giving up the
15:34:39 maintenance responsibilities, in addition to improving
15:34:45 the stormwater conditions and safety conditions, and I
15:34:52 believe your stormwater staff can address that.
15:34:56 I'm sorry, Ms. Ferlita?
15:34:59 The argument that procedurally we can't be here is a
15:35:02 complete and total red herring.
15:35:04 The city authorized that to practice the zoning in
15:35:07 their name for their property.
15:35:11 This argument that site plan still allows for a
15:35:16 variety of uses.
15:35:18 There's four.
15:35:19 There's four possible uses.

15:35:22 Bank, office, hotel, restaurant.
15:35:25 There's 4 different configurations.
15:35:27 You didn't sit inside and do the math.
15:35:29 I think that's a gross exaggeration.
15:35:32 Again it is four.
15:35:32 It is not at all uncommon for this City Council to a
15:35:35 proffer for a building that has mixed use project with
15:35:41 a certain amount of retail, certain amount of office,
15:35:45 certain amount of commercial.
15:35:46 You don't know exactly what is going to end up in
15:35:49 those PDs either.
15:35:51 You know what type of uses are going to end up.
15:35:53 We have taken it a step further and identified four
15:35:56 single uses.
15:35:59 There's a lot of commercial uses that we are not
15:36:01 asking for approval for.
15:36:02 Again, typically asked for on PD.
15:36:07 That's another red herring issue.
15:36:09 As far as the 5-foot setback at the front.
15:36:12 As Cathy told you already she doesn't object to that.
15:36:15 Cathy wasn't in our first DRC meeting.
15:36:18 We were asked at the DRC meeting to move those

15:36:21 buildings up to the front.
15:36:22 That was something they wanted so that people driving
15:36:24 along Boy Scout didn't see asphalt, didn't see a bunch
15:36:30 of surface parking up front.
15:36:31 We were asked to do that.
15:36:32 I believe that's something required, were we in the
15:36:35 Westshore overlay which we are not.
15:36:37 We that pursuant to a staff request done to make it
15:36:41 more aesthetically pleasing.
15:36:43 Ms. Hammer talked about the height, how it's all the
15:36:45 way up to 135.
15:36:47 Guess what -- when we were proposing a stand-alone
15:36:50 garage, with a shorter building, her client said,
15:36:55 can't you put the garage under the building?
15:36:57 We don't want to look at a stand-alone garage.
15:37:00 Women, guess what happens to a building when you put a
15:37:02 garage under N.E.A.T. it.
15:37:03 It goes up.
15:37:05 Case closed.
15:37:08 The one foot of landscaping again, that's a red
15:37:11 herring issue.
15:37:14 Let me tell you.

15:37:26 This is all Spruce Street right-of-way.
15:37:29 Again Mrs. Hammer's client is being allowed to build a
15:37:32 private driveway for their development in the public
15:37:34 right-of-way.
15:37:35 Originally, when we were proposing to vacate spruce,
15:37:38 we were going to vacate more of spruce along this edge
15:37:42 and be able to put in the buffer required by code.
15:37:45 But that would have made their driveway smaller than
15:37:49 they wanted it to be.
15:37:50 We met with her client.
15:37:52 We met with Gloria Moreda.
15:37:53 The agreement that we reached was that the landscape
15:37:57 buffer could be put in the public right-of-way.
15:38:00 That's a minimum of eight feet of landscaping that's
15:38:03 being put there.
15:38:05 Plus the one foot on our own property.
15:38:07 So again that's a red herring.
15:38:15 And that was something their client asked for.
15:38:18 Their landscape architect.
15:38:20 Provided my client with drawings so we could put on
15:38:23 our site plan their proposed landscape buffer.
15:38:25 That was something that Gloria agreed would provide

15:38:29 buffering for both projects.
15:38:38 Just trying to go through.
15:38:39 Ms. Hammer made a statement that if you add up the
15:38:41 square footage in one of our tables that exceeds 223,
15:38:45 again, it's to not exceed 223.
15:38:48 I believe the table she's referring to -- let me find
15:38:53 it.
15:38:54 I apologize.
15:39:07 I believe she's referring to table 1.
15:39:10 I'm not showing you the maximum amount of square
15:39:11 footage that can go on any one pad.
15:39:13 Ifs true if you add these it would exceed 223,000.
15:39:17 But that's not the way the table works.
15:39:18 Again, that shows you the maximum that can go on any
15:39:21 one pad.
15:39:22 But all of them are governed by the footnote at the
15:39:25 bottom that says that the total development can exceed
15:39:28 223,000.
15:39:30 That's where you go back to the trade-up table and you
15:39:36 increase one use, you have to decrease another because
15:39:38 they all have to come under the cap. All that's
15:39:41 telling is you that no one pad can exceed the certain

15:39:45 amount that's shown in there.
15:40:16 I believe I have addressed everything.
15:40:17 If there's anything else please let me know.
15:40:19 We appreciate your time.
15:40:20 >> Could awe dress the question that I asked legal
15:40:22 about, which is where do you commit to the ditch?
15:40:28 >> Oh, thank you.
15:40:29 That is on the site plan.
15:40:34 >> There's a lot on the site plan.
15:40:36 >>ANDREA ZELMAN: 20 that talks about the ditch.
15:40:39 In addition, the sales contract which is not before
15:40:42 council today does make the piping of the ditch a
15:40:48 condition of the sale.
15:40:49 As I understand it.
15:40:50 And again if it's not clear now, it's going to come
15:40:53 before you.
15:40:54 Pleas ask us to make it clear.
15:40:55 We'll be glad to.
15:40:56 That is the intent.
15:41:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Five year limitation on the
15:41:04 vacating.
15:41:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

15:41:14 We need to close the public hearing.
15:41:16 >> Move to close.
15:41:16 >> Second.
15:41:17 (Motion carried).
15:41:17 >> Did you wish to, Ms. Cole, anything that you wish
15:41:25 to advise council in the context of the hearing before
15:41:28 it's closed?
15:41:29 Do you wish to address council with regard to
15:41:30 anything?
15:41:32 >>JULIA COLE: I addressed the issue.
15:41:37 I think that was the only thing.
15:41:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
15:41:39 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:41:41 Opposed, Nay.
15:41:42 Do we have an ordinance or what?
15:41:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think this is much, much, much
15:41:48 improved.
15:41:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we do 60 before we do 59?
15:41:58 Do we have to do 60 first?
15:41:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The vacating first.
15:42:09 >> Move an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing,
15:42:13 and abandoning a certain right-of-way all that portion

15:42:15 of Spruce Street lying south of Boy Scout Boulevard,
15:42:18 north of Main Street, east of Hesperides street and
15:42:22 west of Manhattan in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
15:42:25 County Florida the same being more fully described in
15:42:27 section 2 hereof, reserving certain easements and
15:42:30 conditions, providing an effective date.
15:42:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:42:33 Question on the motion.
15:42:35 Mrs. Alvarez, then Mr. Dingfelder.
15:42:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
15:42:37 I am going to go ahead and take a leap of faith that
15:42:40 this will be something that I will be proud of,
15:42:44 especially when they get off of City Council and I
15:42:46 want to go by there and I am going to say, gee, I
15:42:49 helped do this.
15:42:50 I want to take that leap of faith.
15:42:53 I accept the explanations that Ms. Zelman had as to
15:42:57 Ms. Hammer's objections.
15:42:59 And I still have some reservations.
15:43:02 And I'm really doing this because I want that ditch
15:43:08 closed.
15:43:09 I will go ahead and support it.

15:43:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Usually, you have seen the not in
15:43:16 my backyard thing, you know, with residential, and
15:43:19 folks like that.
15:43:20 This is an unusual NIMBY.
15:43:27 I think they have done a great job on behalf of their
15:43:30 client identifying some technical objections.
15:43:35 To a great extent we rely on staff and I think Ms.
15:43:38 Coyle and other members of staff have indicated, in
15:43:42 this particular site, and they didn't really see any
15:43:47 particular issues in this, and Ms. Zelman did a good
15:43:50 job of rebutting so I'll support the motion.
15:43:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: I am not going to support 59 based on
15:43:58 objections to 60.
15:43:59 I guess they are one in the same.
15:44:00 Although Ms. Zelman did do a good presentation,
15:44:05 explaining her client's position, I still have some
15:44:07 concerns.
15:44:08 I know we went from configuration, many different ones
15:44:11 to what we have now.
15:44:12 But I still think we are trying to cram this in.
15:44:15 I know she addressed Ms. Hammer's issue about the 34
15:44:18 parking spaces as opposed to the minimum of 108

15:44:21 parking spaces.
15:44:22 But then even if there's just four configurations
15:44:25 versus what Mr. Carruthers said, it becomes an
15:44:29 enforcement issue which means anybody in an office
15:44:31 setting on that particular site can never have a night
15:44:34 meeting with their members, with their clients,
15:44:36 whatever else, and then that will detract that they
15:44:40 need those night parking spaces.
15:44:43 Sir, you don't have to nod. This is my impression, my
15:44:46 opinion.
15:44:46 I beg your pardon.
15:44:47 But at the same time, since they are counting on that
15:44:49 to accommodate their parking requirement, I'm
15:44:51 concerned that, again, the enforcement of that,
15:44:57 tenants who want to use the office space they have
15:44:59 leased at a time other than a nine to five.
15:45:01 We are going to have a problem.
15:45:02 I still think it's too dense.
15:45:05 I think although Ms. Zelman did answer some of the
15:45:07 questions Ms. Hammer did, she didn't answer enough of
15:45:09 them to make me comfortable.
15:45:11 And I agree with Mary filling in the ditch.

15:45:15 But I am not going to support it.
15:45:19 >>KEVIN WHITE: I think that the neighborhood
15:45:21 association has gone through a long, arduous task,
15:45:26 several meetings about what they want in the
15:45:28 neighborhood.
15:45:28 I think the petitioner has made a converted effort --
15:45:31 concerted effort to try to go through several
15:45:34 renditions to make the neighborhood feel comfortable
15:45:36 on this petition.
15:45:38 And although we know when we first got here there were
15:45:41 so many different variables, variations of what could
15:45:44 go in this particular location, between the two, come
15:45:54 up with something that the neighborhood could live
15:45:56 with, and worry looking at a health, safety welfare
15:46:05 issue with this ditch.
15:46:06 I am willing to support this petition.
15:46:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:46:11 All in favor say Aye.
15:46:12 Opposed, Nay.
15:46:13 >>ROSE FERLITA: Nay.
15:46:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
15:46:18 With Ferlita voting no.

15:46:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have an ordinance for number 60?
15:46:32 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
15:46:34 vicinity of had 410 Boy Scout Boulevard in the city of
15:46:37 Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
15:46:38 section 1 from zoning district PD planned development
15:46:42 mixed use and OP-1, to PD planned development, office
15:46:49 hotel, providing an effective date.
15:46:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
15:46:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am speaking to petitioner now.
15:46:57 I would like petitioner to seriously consider access
15:47:00 to the west.
15:47:01 I think that's really important.
15:47:03 And also because it is trying to be relatively dense
15:47:07 on a very difficult site, I hope you will hire a very
15:47:12 good design firm and have them build a beautiful
15:47:14 building and consider public art.
15:47:16 At this point it's voluntary in Westshore.
15:47:19 But you could set the property above others by make
15:47:25 O -- and
15:47:30 >> We have a motion and second.
15:47:37 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Ferlita voting no.
15:47:43 >>GWEN MILLER: item number 61.

15:47:47 61 is a continued public hearing.
15:48:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Which one are we on?
15:48:07 61.
15:48:27 >>> Good afternoon, council.
15:48:28 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
15:48:30 I have been sworn.
15:48:36 The petition 06-87 and 1908, 1910 and 1912 north "A"
15:48:42 street was originally before you on September
15:48:44 28th.
15:48:47 Staff had raised objections to the compatibility of
15:48:49 the structure, the height, and scale, in comparison
15:48:53 with the surrounding neighborhood.
15:48:55 The petitioner has made some revision to the plan in
15:49:00 order to address council concerns.
15:49:07 I'll just kind of reference you back to the site.
15:49:18 An compensation of the green space waiver from 3900
15:49:21 square feet to 3200 square feet which is reduction of
15:49:25 687 square feet.
15:49:27 The height of the building is now 44 feet with the
15:49:31 arch feature and 46 feet without.
15:49:47 The property is located on north "A" street between
15:49:50 Albany and Fremont.

15:50:06 To show you again there was also a PD that was rezoned
15:50:09 recently.
15:50:38 This is across the street from the site.
15:50:40 There's one two-story home there and some of the
15:50:43 bungalow homes located on this street in order to give
15:50:45 you an idea.
15:50:46 This is actually the neighbor to the east of the site.
15:51:00 Her is the neighbor to the west of the site.
15:51:02 Another single-family home.
15:51:04 And two lots down to the west -- two lots down to the
15:51:09 west is the other PD.
15:51:12 That has been approved.
15:51:17 Some of the concerns on the evening of the 28th,
15:51:21 councilman Dingfelder, you had asked about the
15:51:23 provision of some front porches.
15:51:26 The fence.
15:51:29 Shows the previous elevation that was presented.
15:51:42 It had the four garages in the front.
15:51:50 The pedestrian level so that they could promote
15:51:52 activity and soften the whole project.
15:51:58 The revised elevation.
15:52:01 I have met with the petitioner several times and we

15:52:04 discussed some of the options.
15:52:08 They could get a little bit of space but they couldn't
15:52:10 get a functional front porch.
15:52:12 So what they have done is created two community areas
15:52:15 in the front.
15:52:17 They did list two garages internal to the project and
15:52:20 then provided two community spaces on the front.
15:52:22 And have some proposed design for those contained in
15:52:25 the elevations that I provided you with.
15:52:30 Some furniture there for meeting area, green walkway
15:52:32 for people to have some area community meeting space.
15:52:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm looking at the site plan.
15:52:41 I don't think this is the one you are talking about.
15:52:43 Did you have like an old site plan and a new one?
15:52:45 Because the site plan that I'm looking at right now
15:52:55 shows additional on the front and this doesn't show
15:53:07 that.
15:53:08 The detail date is July.
15:53:10 Is there a new site plan?
15:53:52 >>> They are facing the rear, facing the alley.
15:53:54 The space in north "A" had the two most internal to
15:54:00 the site.

15:54:05 When we first had discussion concerning this case we
15:54:07 looked at the length of the building in comparison to
15:54:09 the lots.
15:54:10 It was at 115 feet of 154 feet of the lot.
15:54:22 There has been some modification as requested.
15:54:32 Staff is available for any questions.
15:54:51 When this first came forth staff had objections in
15:54:53 relation to the compatibility of this project given
15:54:56 two single-family homes located on each side and the
15:54:59 proposed three-story height and the scale of the
15:55:02 project in comparison to these two homes.
15:55:12 The structure has only come down two feet in height.
15:55:15 The length has only shortened by two feet.
15:55:18 So there are concerns about the massing, scale of the
15:55:22 project in relation to existing homes on both sides
15:55:24 and the nature and character of the existing
15:55:27 neighborhood.
15:55:40 John Marshall.
15:55:40 I have been sworn.
15:55:41 Holland and Knight LLC here in Tampa.
15:55:45 I am going to ask Mr. LaRocca to pass out a packet
15:55:49 that has the elevation that Ms. Feeley just showed you

15:55:54 and I believe some of the side elevations as well for
15:55:57 you to take a look at.
15:55:59 One thing that Ms. Feeley asked me to clarify
15:56:01 initially and I am going to start out by doing that
15:56:04 was with regard to a stormwater objection that we
15:56:07 hadn't realized it was on the report but we understand
15:56:11 that stormwater made an objection, and told we could
15:56:16 take care of that by stating on the record that we
15:56:18 confirm on the record that our understanding is that
15:56:21 no credit will be given for existing -- so we put that
15:56:28 on the record for council.
15:56:36 We have the entire team here today.
15:56:40 As well as our architect and our engineer it
15:56:56 We met with the neighbors in a neighborhood meeting
15:56:58 about the project.
15:57:02 We do want to highlight a couple of things.
15:57:11 Right now the height of the wall has gone -- 35 being
15:57:16 the maximum in the zoning district.
15:57:18 So we feel they were right there at the height.
15:57:21 And the architectural detail is something at the last
15:57:24 meeting, council might, we could take that off and
15:57:36 bring the whole thing down to 36 feet as well.

15:57:48 I talked to the architect again this morning just to
15:57:51 affirm.
15:57:51 And what we have here -- and my computer drive is hot
15:57:57 and I just put it on the Elmo.
15:57:59 Buts would at 1150 before.
15:58:01 We have actually managed to shave off a little bit
15:58:04 more than just a few feet.
15:58:05 It's gone down to 106.
15:58:07 And if you take the porches off it's actually 98 but
15:58:12 it's 106 as you look at the size from the one porch to
15:58:15 the other as you look all the way down the side.
15:58:17 So we have been able to shave off about 9 feet there
15:58:21 on the length of this structure.
15:58:28 The green space has increased which we are really
15:58:32 pleased with.
15:58:33 The two you -- all the town homeowners, if we had the
15:58:43 initial porch approval we think that would have given
15:58:48 benefit.
15:58:49 We are hoping that this is an amenity that all
15:58:54 residents use.
15:58:55 And finally side loaded garages that councilman
15:58:58 Dingfelder mentioned that specify, and that took some

15:59:01 maneuvering between the engineering and architect but
15:59:04 we were able to which has helped improve the green
15:59:07 space.
15:59:07 So we are pleased with that change as well.
15:59:10 Again, the entire team is here.
15:59:12 And they would be happy to answer questions if you
15:59:14 have any.
15:59:16 And I look forward to your thoughts.
15:59:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions?
15:59:19 Ms. Alvarez?
15:59:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Morgan?
15:59:24 >>> Mr. Marshall.
15:59:25 >> The towers that are shown.
15:59:31 Are these towers functional?
15:59:34 I mean, can you go up there and look out, or
15:59:39 something?
15:59:39 >> I believe -- let me just confirm with the
15:59:42 architect.
15:59:43 I don't want to tell you anything that -- so they are
15:59:47 not functional.
15:59:48 Not functional.
15:59:52 >> Maybe you can lop off the -- you can come down to

16:00:00 the 135.
16:00:06 >> I think the applicant was willing to take them
16:00:08 away.
16:00:09 And it might be a nice view from the street.
16:00:19 >>GWEN MILLER: It is.
16:00:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
16:00:25 wants ton speak on item 61?
16:00:26 >> Keith Peete, north "A" street.
16:00:49 I have not been sworn.
16:00:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else need to be sworn in?
16:00:53 Raise your hand.
16:00:54 (Oath administered by Clerk).
16:01:03 >> Living in the neighborhood, being in this
16:01:05 neighborhood since 1985.
16:01:06 I have seen a lot going on.
16:01:08 And I have been in front of you on several occasions.
16:01:11 On the issue of height of this building, as I
16:01:14 mentioned at the last meeting, north "A" street is a
16:01:17 different neighborhood.
16:01:27 The rest of the neighborhood has about a 100-foot
16:01:29 depth.
16:01:29 As a neighborhood, we see as a transition from the

16:01:33 commercial, which is Kennedy into our neighborhood,
16:01:37 the residence, and town homes are a natural
16:01:40 transition, which is a very aesthetic to the
16:01:42 neighborhood.
16:01:43 Once again, the neighborhood welcomes the progress
16:01:47 from south to north of Kennedy, which has been a big
16:01:52 step.
16:01:53 Also speaking to the height.
16:01:56 Solomon, when they billed built their building in our
16:01:59 neighborhood, they have the large towers that abut the
16:02:01 residential neighborhood.
16:02:02 This is a very extracted feature that we as neighbors
16:02:05 enjoy seeing in the neighborhood.
16:02:07 We do not want the flat front of the building.
16:02:12 We want the towers on front of the building.
16:02:14 So the height is not an issue of concern.
16:02:17 We do appreciate the design.
16:02:18 We have approved this design.
16:02:21 And it's something that the neighborhood feels is
16:02:24 attractive and is welcome.
16:02:25 The only thing that's going to be left on that block
16:02:28 are two residences.

16:02:30 One to the west, and one to the east.
16:02:33 At the end of that block, in the future they plan on
16:02:39 put something type of financial structure and that's
16:02:41 what they indicated to us in the neighborhood.
16:02:44 So this is something that we welcome and we look
16:02:47 forward to being part of our neighborhood.
16:02:50 >> Do you think the drawing looks better now that we
16:02:52 have gotten rid of two of those big garage doors?
16:02:55 >>> Yes.
16:02:56 I do like the feature of the sitting area in front.
16:02:58 I do think that's very aesthetic to the neighborhood.
16:03:00 And also the one wall that's all the way down the side
16:03:03 that's on the east side that was mentioned by Ms.
16:03:07 Saul-Sena, the decoration of that wall --
16:03:12 >> So we are earning our keep a little bit.
16:03:15 >> Yes.
16:03:15 I do appreciate it at times.
16:03:16 It's been frustrating but we do appreciate it.
16:03:18 And we do welcome it.
16:03:20 Thank you.
16:03:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for waiting all day.
16:03:35 The structure to the east of that has a two-car

16:03:38 garage, in the back.
16:03:39 Also our house is 35 feet, in the next block, which
16:03:44 abuts Solomon.
16:03:47 I think directly behind the commercial there on
16:03:49 Kennedy going into the neighborhood it acts as a wall
16:03:55 or a buffer, the commercial that is on Kennedy.
16:04:00 So we are in support of the project.
16:04:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
16:04:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close the public hearing.
16:04:05 >> Second.
16:04:05 (Motion carried).
16:04:06 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Marshall, it looks like the towers
16:04:12 stay.
16:04:13 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
16:04:15 vicinity of 1908 and 1912 north "A" street more
16:04:19 particularly described in section 1 RM-16 residential
16:04:23 multi-family to PD planned development townhouse,
16:04:26 providing an effective date.
16:04:26 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
16:04:29 Ms. Saul-Sena?
16:04:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone)
16:04:34 I think it's important for the council to get

16:04:40 elevation so we know what the proposal is.
16:04:42 I appreciate the neighborhood staying all day to share
16:04:46 their input because it's really important.
16:04:47 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
16:04:49 Opposed, Nay.
16:04:51 (Motion Carried)
16:04:51 Item 62 has been continued.
16:04:53 Item 63 we need to make a motion to continue.
16:04:59 Give a date?
16:05:01 What's the available date?
16:05:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How about April 1st?
16:05:09 [ Laughter ]
16:05:09 >> Two weeks from now?
16:05:26 >> The date, there's one date that doesn't have a lot
16:05:29 going on.
16:05:30 That's December 7th.
16:05:32 We don't have a night meeting.
16:05:35 Row rose is that a motion?
16:05:36 >> Yes.
16:05:37 Rose Ross second it.
16:05:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 11:00 o'clock.
16:05:42 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.

16:05:44 (Motion carried)
16:05:45 Information by council members.
16:05:46 Mr. Dingfelder.
16:05:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
16:05:53 Mr. LAZAR brought to us an unusual problem, and I just
16:05:58 wanted us to look at it real quick.
16:06:04 He runs a Dachshund rescue.
16:06:07 Apparently our code says that you can't have more than
16:06:10 four animals, dogs or cats, in your house.
16:06:15 And they got cited and they are trying to do good
16:06:18 things and I understand there's other rescues out of
16:06:22 homes.
16:06:23 So I want us to look at section 19-71, which is our
16:06:29 animal code to address this usual you.
16:06:35 And they have to get permitted.
16:06:36 They are permitted with the county as a home rescue
16:06:40 operation, and the county comes and inspects, makes
16:06:43 sure that it's a good, clean operation and all that
16:06:51 We wanted to get it started before Ms. Ferlita left.
16:06:54 >>ROSE FERLITA: You're right.
16:06:56 Because you're talking about big size dogs anyway in
16:06:58 terms of that number, right?

16:07:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The ordinance is very vague and
16:07:04 says, nobody shall permit more than four large
16:07:07 domestic animals.
16:07:10 >>> They are not large domestic.
16:07:11 >> But apparently our code people said large domestic
16:07:14 animals mean dogs and cats.
16:07:17 Small domestic animals means gerbils and guinea pigs.
16:07:21 >> When can we fix this?
16:07:22 Hopefully in the next two weeks.
16:07:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anyway, I want to go ahead and make
16:07:28 a motion for legal and staff to look at this, to
16:07:33 accommodate legitimate permitted rescue operations to
16:07:38 be able to operate within the city the modified
16:07:42 section 19-71 accordingly and get back to us with a
16:07:46 report.
16:07:52 >>ROSE FERLITA: Two weeks they can do that?
16:07:59 >> All right two, weeks.
16:08:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the meantime, I am going to make
16:08:03 that motion.
16:08:04 And make one other.
16:08:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
16:08:06 (Motion carried).

16:08:09 >> The other related motion, they are under code
16:08:12 enforcement right now.
16:08:13 I think we have a pending ordinance doctrine to lay
16:08:17 off.
16:08:18 So I would ask legal to work with code enforcement
16:08:21 just to give them some relief until we can address
16:08:24 this issue.
16:08:26 >>GWEN MILLER:
16:08:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: How big do they --
16:08:30 >>> They don't define it.
16:08:32 That's part of the problem.
16:08:34 >> Like dogs versus not dogs.
16:08:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know.
16:08:41 Maybe the whole provision needs to be looked at.
16:08:43 But this part definitely needs to be looked at.
16:08:45 There are others that Julia worked on.
16:08:52 >> The motion is asking legal --
16:08:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Leave him alone until we take care of
16:08:59 this.
16:09:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know that council has the
16:09:02 authority.
16:09:02 >>JULIA COLE: I think what we can do is see if there's

16:09:07 any opportunity to maybe continue the action.
16:09:13 >> Give him an extension.
16:09:14 >>JULIA COLE: But we'll have to look at that.
16:09:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can't order it but we can ask.
16:09:19 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
16:09:21 All in favor say Aye.
16:09:22 (Motion carried).
16:09:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for waiting all day.
16:09:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
16:09:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quickly.
16:09:29 I want to compliment City Council on last Thursday.
16:09:32 We approved more last Thursday than ever in the
16:09:35 history --
16:09:41 >> A marathon.
16:09:44 >> And 3,000 dwelling units, which is 1%, potentially
16:09:51 in the City of Tampa population.
16:09:52 It felt lick a long time.
16:09:54 It was.
16:09:56 I thought we brought great concern to it.
16:09:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We need to congratulate the zoning and
16:10:05 planning department for bringing all these things to
16:10:08 us at 2:00 in the morning.

16:10:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My friend the architect, a
16:10:16 professor at USF school of architecture, gave his
16:10:23 students the project of redesigning the chambers, and
16:10:31 just to give the students a challenging -- rose Ross
16:10:37 how about the budget department?
16:10:40 (multiple conversations).
16:10:41 >> So has like 16 students.
16:10:45 And he's everything them vote on the best
16:10:49 presentation.
16:10:49 And I thought I would share this with City Council.
16:10:51 I thought that would be a lot of fun to do.
16:11:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Have you found some money?
16:11:04 >> No, I have no money.
16:11:08 I would like to propose he bring the model on the
16:11:11 30th and we spend seven minutes.
16:11:17 >> Do we need a motion on that?
16:11:21 >>> Just to let you know that November 30th as a
16:11:24 reminder per council's resolution at it a.m. is
16:11:28 scheduled to have your appointments.
16:11:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Don't know how many candidates we are
16:11:36 going to have.
16:11:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My proposal will be less than ten

16:11:42 minutes.
16:11:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait, wait, wait.
16:11:50 >> It's been -- then on December 2nd?
16:11:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
16:12:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The 7th at eleven.
16:12:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: We'll be in the holiday season if you
16:12:14 keep that up.
16:12:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You will enjoy it.
16:12:16 I know you will.
16:12:24 >> We are off completely for two weeks.
16:12:34 Would you rather say 9:00 or 11:00?
16:12:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: 11:00.
16:12:41 Then have to come back for the workshop for the public
16:12:43 schools element.
16:12:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's at the end of the day.
16:12:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Let's do it at 10:00.
16:12:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 11:00.
16:12:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A question of procedure.
16:12:54 Normally at 10:00 you have public hearings scheduled.
16:12:58 Do you wish to make a time certain?
16:13:00 Is that what you are doing?
16:13:02 Taking this time --

16:13:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's do it at 11:00 and make it a
16:13:06 time certain for the sake of the students.
16:13:09 Or we could do it at 9:00.
16:13:12 >>ROSE FERLITA: 11:00.
16:13:16 >> If it's really going to take ten minutes do it at
16:13:19 11:45.
16:13:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. White had a point, 11:45.
16:13:24 >> If it takes five extra minutes.
16:13:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excellent suggestion.
16:13:32 >>ROSE FERLITA: Every now and then he comes up with
16:13:34 one.
16:13:35 [ Laughter ]
16:13:37 >> If I leave with you nothing else, you will have
16:13:38 that.
16:13:40 >> Invite these architecture students to present the
16:13:44 new council chambers at 11:45 on December 9th.
16:13:49 >> Second.
16:13:49 (Motion carried).
16:13:50 >> What was that date?
16:13:52 I'm sorry.
16:13:57 9th.
16:13:58 >> I heard 9th.

16:13:59 >>: I thought it was the 7th.
16:14:02 >> You are doing everything you can.
16:14:08 >> What is the first meeting in December?
16:14:10 >> The 7th.
16:14:14 >>GWEN MILLER: December 7th.
16:14:17 Motion and second.
16:14:18 (Motion carried)
16:14:20 Anything else?
16:14:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had our meeting on parking.
16:14:24 We didn't come to any conclusions.
16:14:29 Next month.
16:14:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I have nothing.
16:14:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: Can you give me a little bit of time?
16:14:38 First of all, I got a call from a constituent, Keith
16:14:42 Roberts.
16:14:43 Some of us know him, some of us don't.
16:14:44 He has some concern or some confusion about his
16:14:47 appointment or his repayment to A.R.C.
16:14:50 I they he called Del Acosta's office.
16:14:54 I know we had some discussion about this.
16:14:55 But can somebody from the administration come to us
16:14:57 next week and let us know where these things are?

16:15:03 People he's trying to get an answer from
16:15:05 administration -- can you check on this?
16:15:08 And maybe we can call him?
16:15:13 Now, for another thing.
16:15:15 Colleagues, you know, as we depart, now we have
16:15:22 constituents out there, and Ms. Cury and I are trying
16:15:26 to do a little bit of housekeeping.
16:15:27 I would ask and I would hope that you would consider
16:15:30 doing what I am going to ask in generality.
16:15:33 Depending on the classification of the problem, say,
16:15:37 for instance, I would ask maybe Mr. Dingfelder to take
16:15:40 it over, the public safety, way need help with, and go
16:15:46 from there.
16:15:47 And we are trying to do the best we can to answer
16:15:49 people.
16:15:50 But some of the things, to that point, I would hope, I
16:15:55 would ask you all to help me finish some stuff off,
16:15:59 that you will do that.
16:16:01 >>CHAIRMAN: Of course.
16:16:02 We'll be glad to rose Ross since I knew you would say
16:16:05 yes, I have one issue today.
16:16:07 Linda, not that I don't want everybody to listen.

16:16:09 I would particularly like you to listen to this,
16:16:11 because I think it's in an area of deep concern to
16:16:14 you.
16:16:18 Just recently we received a copy that was sent to
16:16:20 Del Acosta regarding division of his property at 721
16:16:24 south Willow.
16:16:26 Some of you may remember, some of you may not, that
16:16:29 has been a nature mayor for I can't tell you how long.
16:16:36 Are you looking at the pictures, Ms. Saul-Sena?
16:16:39 It's not an inherently attractive house anymore.
16:16:42 When I moved in the block away, there were two
16:16:44 stories, whether or not their front porch fell or
16:16:47 somebody bought the front porch and never replaced it.
16:16:53 It's gone in and out of code issues, code enforcement,
16:16:55 code citations.
16:16:57 And if you read this gentleman's letter, that really
16:17:00 goes to the heart of it.
16:17:04 Said I have a serious problem, one that's going over
16:17:08 more than a year.
16:17:09 It's been abandoned over a year, continues to
16:17:11 deteriorate, rats have invaded my home next door,
16:17:15 several windows are broken, screens flap in the

16:17:18 breeze.
16:17:19 Kids at night are discovering it. It's tempting.
16:17:23 It's a hazard because people go in there.
16:17:25 With later conversation, Ms. Cury, and the current
16:17:29 owner, said those windows are broken but in my
16:17:31 personal estimation it is so demolished or so -- you
16:17:37 can get in from broken floors and other areas to get
16:17:39 in there.
16:17:40 And he goes on and talks about that.
16:17:41 The property, by the way, has 20 years been a
16:17:44 neighborhood eyesore.
16:17:45 In fact it has.
16:17:46 And absolutely in a historical relevance.
16:17:50 They have however not replied to one e-mail and two
16:17:53 letters we have written to Mr. Acosta.
16:17:55 We are asking for an update.
16:17:57 My over arching concern as a property owner is more
16:18:01 practicing Nat tick.
16:18:03 In two weeks forced to write a property tax check for
16:18:06 about $16,000.
16:18:07 My property value deter rates at the same speed that
16:18:09 this house next door falls in.

16:18:11 My taxes, however, continue to rise.
16:18:15 He is simply asking for something.
16:18:17 I know that in one configuration, it was -- yes, it
16:18:21 could be demolished but demolition by neglect will
16:18:24 have to be the same footprint.
16:18:26 I understand the owner was told he could do something
16:18:30 else and then he couldn't.
16:18:31 It has become a real issue for all those people on
16:18:34 Willow.
16:18:37 Della said there was some talk that was maybe it was
16:18:40 in probate.
16:18:41 She talked to the person handling the estate and the
16:18:45 wife of the husband who is deceased.
16:18:48 In essence, I guess what I am saying, Linda, I am
16:18:51 handing this to you.
16:18:53 It has been a huge problem for a huge amount of time.
16:18:56 And I think particularly Mr. Madison and Haas wife --
16:19:03 I would not live there.
16:19:04 I'm embarrassed as they continue top ask me what's the
16:19:07 update on what you all are going to do about it, I
16:19:09 don't have an answer.
16:19:18 Now the son owns it but it's been in disrepair for a

16:19:22 long time.
16:19:23 He said you can repair it, it's fixable.
16:19:25 Then they said, no, we are not going to allow
16:19:27 demolition.
16:19:30 Look at this, Ms. Saul-Sena.
16:19:33 Because that's the same picture you have.
16:19:34 But it's a little clearer.
16:19:39 But it's original.
16:19:40 I would like somebody, maybe from Mr. Acosta's office
16:19:43 or the administration and code enforcement next week
16:19:45 to come in and let us know what the status is. And I
16:19:48 know that the administration magic number is two
16:19:50 weeks.
16:19:51 I don't have two weeks.
16:19:52 I think they can give us an update in the next week
16:19:54 and that's my motion and I hope you support it.
16:19:56 >>ROSE FERLITA: Motion and second.
16:19:58 (Motion carried).
16:19:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This is exactly why I don't like to
16:20:03 bad mouth A.R.C., but sometimes, they don't do their
16:20:07 job.
16:20:09 Here replied to one e-mail and they have written two

16:20:12 letters, and nothing.
16:20:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: And I can tell you the mayor is get
16:20:18 something grief about it.
16:20:20 >> I'm sure she is.
16:20:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe the property owner hasn't
16:20:25 proposed anything.
16:20:26 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Because apparently they try according
16:20:29 to this --
16:20:32 >> We'll find out.
16:20:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Code enforcement, too.
16:20:36 >>ROSE FERLITA: And both of those entities.
16:20:38 Next week.
16:20:39 So that would be the motion, clerk, okay?
16:20:41 >>CHAIRMAN: Anything else?
16:20:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: That's it.
16:20:45 Thank you very much.
16:20:45 I appreciate it.
16:20:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we voted.
16:20:48 Mr. Shelby, do you have anything?
16:20:51 >> Motion to receive and file.
16:20:53 >> So moved.
16:20:53 >> Second.

16:20:56 We stand adjourned.
16:22:19 (City Council meeting adjourned)
16:22:26