Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



City of Tampa
Tampa City Council meeting
Thursday, November 9, 2006
9:00 a.m. session

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

09:10:48 [Sounding gavel]
09:10:49 >> CHAIRMAN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to
09:10:50 order.
09:10:54 The chair will yield to Ms. Rose Ferlita.
09:11:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Good morning, colleagues, ladies and
09:11:03 gentlemen.
09:11:04 Good morning as well.

09:11:06 After eight years of service this will be to share
09:11:11 some thoughts and prayers.
09:11:12 So please stand and join me as I share those thoughts
09:11:15 with all of you.
09:11:21 Denominations of faith expressed at the very closing
09:11:23 at the numerous and extensive, each expressing their
09:11:26 own prayer to our Lord, and each thanking God
09:11:29 according to their own belief.
09:11:32 As we look forward to Thanksgiving later this month,
09:11:38 it is not how to pray to God but rather that you pray
09:11:41 to God.
09:11:42 My Catholic beliefs become one with yours, and yours
09:11:45 with many other denominations.
09:11:47 All our differences and disagreements may be put aside
09:11:50 as we collectively thank God.
09:11:53 We must realize that even in the midst of burdens and
09:11:56 tasks, hardships and losses, we are still the luckiest
09:11:59 nation in the world, and we have our God, yours and
09:12:03 mine, to thank for those many blessings.
09:12:06 I thank God for the opportunity he has given me to
09:12:09 serve the citizens of Tampa, a long with you, my
09:12:11 colleagues, on this City Council.

09:12:14 Although we have many times agreed and disagreed on
09:12:16 separate occasions it has indeed been an honor.
09:12:19 I pray that you your respective Tim time of service
09:12:24 will be filled with success and God intentions as you
09:12:26 continue to serve as members of Tampa City Council.
09:12:29 May God guide each of you as you continue your service
09:12:32 to our citizens.
09:12:33 I will truly, truly miss.
09:12:39 God bless each of you as well as every citizen in this
09:12:41 city and this county N.god's name I pray this for all
09:12:44 of you.
09:12:46 Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.
09:12:49 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:13:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:13:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:13:06 Saul-Sena
09:13:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Should we officially say
09:13:10 congratulations?
09:13:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
09:13:13 [ Applause ]
09:13:14 >>GWEN MILLER: This is not your last chance, you will
09:13:22 be here next.

09:13:23 >> Based on schedule.
09:13:24 >> Thank you, Linda.
09:13:26 It is indeed an honor and a bittersweet victory
09:13:28 because I look forward to the challenges I will have
09:13:30 facing both Mr. White and myself but I will truly miss
09:13:33 the camaraderie we have had, sometimes good, sometimes
09:13:36 bad, but we have accomplished a bunch of stuff for the
09:13:39 people that put us here.
09:13:40 Thanks to you and thanks particularly to our listening
09:13:42 audience.
09:13:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:13:54 Roll call.
09:13:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:13:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:14:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:14:02 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
09:14:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:14:05 Before we get started, I would like to put on record
09:14:08 that Mr. Kevin White will not be here today.
09:14:10 He is out of town.
09:14:13 We are going to go to our staff reports sign-in sheet.
09:14:17 Ms. Julia Cole.

09:14:21 >>JULIA COLE: Good morning.
09:14:23 I'm here on agenda item number 57 in which I have sent
09:14:29 to you the revision 20.5 of the sign code which is the
09:14:36 recommended amendment that came out of the sign
09:14:38 committee.
09:14:39 I have requested that those amendments to the sign
09:14:41 code be transmitted to the Planning Commission.
09:14:44 However, on Monday, I have an information section
09:14:48 which I invited members of the industry and business
09:14:50 community and the development community to a session
09:14:54 under which discuss plan amendment to the sign code.
09:14:59 As a result of that conversation -- and I will note
09:15:01 there are people here in the audience who would like
09:15:03 to speak to the amendments and sign codes today.
09:15:05 But what I am requesting is that instead of it being
09:15:10 sent to the Planning Commission -- a whole other
09:15:13 workshop with council.
09:15:14 I would like to have another workshop scheduled with
09:15:16 council so that we can allow an opportunity to air out
09:15:18 some of the comments and concerns which I heard on
09:15:21 Monday, and then we can either hold on transmitting it
09:15:25 to the Planning Commission, or I could have you go

09:15:27 ahead and vote to allow me to transmit it to the
09:15:29 Planning Commission but not transmit until after the
09:15:31 workshop is held.
09:15:34 Before you take action, I would recommend that you
09:15:37 wait till after the audience portion if you want to
09:15:39 have people come speak to the sign code issue, and
09:15:42 then we can go ahead and take action.
09:15:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll wait for the audience to speak.
09:15:47 Ms. Cathy Coyle.
09:15:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
09:15:57 Next week on the evening agenda, as you recall, you
09:16:00 have scheduled the plan amendment for the Ballast
09:16:01 Point Interbay area with the joint land use study.
09:16:07 I will be appearing before you next week requesting a
09:16:10 continuance of that item to January 25, 2007.
09:16:12 That is in an effort to integrate, fully integrate the
09:16:16 language from the Ballast Point neighborhood plan that
09:16:19 was done in 2001.
09:16:20 I will be working with Cindy Miller when she gets back
09:16:23 on the strategy of contacting the neighborhood
09:16:25 associations and working with them more closely before
09:16:29 the January hearing. This is just a heads-up at this

09:16:31 point for anyone watching and for you all, for next
09:16:35 week.
09:16:36 I will be asking for a continuance.
09:16:37 I do have signs to place on City Hall, and the annex
09:16:43 building, and we do plan on mailing out a letter by
09:16:45 Monday to all 3266 residents letting them know ahead
09:16:50 of time that we will be asking for a continuance.
09:16:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, I think it's a God idea and
09:17:00 I'm sure there's a bit more tweaking to do and a bit
09:17:02 more information to get out in the community.
09:17:04 Speaking of getting information out in the community,
09:17:06 why don't we try and put some signs out in the
09:17:10 major -- on the major thoroughfares, perhaps, so folks
09:17:14 can, you know, be informed that way as well.
09:17:17 Because you are not going to do a total mailing like
09:17:19 you have in the past.
09:17:20 >>I was going to mail to the every property owner.
09:17:23 >> Every property owner?
09:17:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Jimmy Cook is generating the mail
09:17:30 F.I get it out by one they should receive it Saturday.
09:17:33 If I mail it Monday they should hopefully receive it
09:17:38 Tuesday or Wednesday.

09:17:39 I am trying to get it out today.
09:17:42 I am trying to work with placing it on the same
09:17:46 corridors as Sharon placed hers on.
09:17:49 >> The intent is you would come to us next week
09:17:51 formally and ask to reschedule the MacDill joint
09:17:54 land use study to what date?
09:17:56 >>> January 25th, 2007, 5:01 p.m.
09:18:00 >> Okay.
09:18:01 I guess it's hard to say now but if any council person
09:18:09 felt strongly about that they could speak up now.
09:18:12 >> Yesterday, I did forward to your aids, and everyone
09:18:16 in my update group that I send out to the proposed
09:18:19 revisions for the Westshore overlay district.
09:18:22 These have been in the works since 2004.
09:18:31 The language is to implement the agreementation plan
09:18:35 from 2004.
09:18:36 There is a consensus from the alliance that these
09:18:41 changes are what they intended so I hope to wrap that
09:18:45 through the Planning Commission hopefully -- sometimes
09:18:47 their December agenda and schedule is a little off so
09:18:49 it may be January when we get there.
09:18:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we need to move to transmit to

09:18:55 the Planning Commission today?
09:18:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I am awaiting comment from internal
09:19:00 staff for their review so hopefully I will have that
09:19:03 back by next week.
09:19:04 We can transmit from the administration if need be as
09:19:06 well.
09:19:07 >> Because I am really eager for that to happen.
09:19:11 I'm thrilled that this is happening.
09:19:14 And I want to comment on the MacDill discussion.
09:19:19 A constituent from the MacDill area contacted I
09:19:24 think all of the council members.
09:19:26 He had gotten a group together who retained an
09:19:28 attorney who specializes in JLUS agreements who seems
09:19:31 to be a tremendous mediator.
09:19:33 And suggested that we incorporate that level of
09:19:37 expertise in our conversation.
09:19:40 I have the gentleman's VITA in my office.
09:19:42 I would like to share it with you.
09:19:44 I think the administration should consider involving
09:19:46 somebody with this particular expertise.
09:19:49 We know land use.
09:19:50 The MacDill folks know their mission.

09:19:52 The neighbors know their concerns about their
09:19:54 property.
09:19:54 I think someone who dealt with these in the past and
09:19:58 has maybe larger vision way of getting to a consensus
09:20:01 would be helpful.
09:20:02 And I would very much like the administration to
09:20:05 consider working with this person.
09:20:12 >> I do have the information.
09:20:13 Mr. DIACO retained -- Mr. Kelso, I believe.
09:20:18 And he actually has been in contact with our project
09:20:20 liaison from department of defense and they had a
09:20:23 lengthy conversation as well.
09:20:24 >> I think it would be helpful.
09:20:26 We all want to get together.
09:20:28 I think sometimes we need specific expertise is a good
09:20:33 thing.
09:20:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. Dingfelder, you're right.
09:20:38 I think we all feel strongly about this and I know we
09:20:41 want to get it done for both sides.
09:20:43 But probably waiting till January would be better
09:20:45 because we'll be able to digest all the different
09:20:48 comments, and concerns.

09:20:50 I'm sorry in a way that I won't be able to weigh in on
09:20:53 that before I leave, because we have all attended
09:20:56 meetings and stuff.
09:20:57 But given the calendar, I'm sure I'll test how to
09:21:08 stick to three minutes when I'm on that side.
09:21:10 I think it will be a good thing to delay it a little
09:21:12 bit.
09:21:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Ms. Ferlita, commissioner Cathy
09:21:22 castor was the county commission representative, and
09:21:25 you will be in that seat.
09:21:26 So, I mean, you can still contribute if you like.
09:21:32 And I think the expertise will be great.
09:21:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: That will be wonderful.
09:21:36 I look forward to the.
09:21:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Thom Snelling.
09:21:44 >>THOM SNELLING: It's item number 4.
09:22:19 >> Not a public hearing.
09:22:21 >> But it's on staff reports?
09:22:24 Regular staff reports.
09:22:25 So we'll just get to that under staff reports, please.
09:22:31 >>THOM SNELLING: I'm sorry, what does that mean?
09:22:33 [ Laughter ]

09:22:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The sign-in sheet is for changes to
09:22:37 the agenda.
09:22:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. John McKirchy.
09:23:04 >>> John McKirchy, city attorney's office.
09:23:07 There's no need to take that item off the agenda.
09:23:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you provide a substitute for
09:23:11 that?
09:23:14 >>> Yes, I did.
09:23:14 I have copies if you don't have it.
09:23:16 >> Is there a request for council when we get to
09:23:19 pneumonia it to move the substitute?
09:23:21 >>> Yes.
09:23:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is council aware of that?
09:23:24 Have you provided a copy of the substitute to the
09:23:26 clerk's office?
09:23:27 >>> Yes, I have.
09:23:30 Thank you.
09:23:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There have been requests from the
09:24:00 administration to remove 17 and 25 from the consent
09:24:03 docket.
09:24:03 I don't know whether council wishes to do that at this
09:24:05 time or wishes to do that when we come to number 17

09:24:08 and 25.
09:24:10 To remove them.
09:24:12 There was a memo sent to council to remove them from
09:24:15 the agenda.
09:24:18 I believe it was --
09:24:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: I'm sorry, 17 and what, sir?
09:24:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 25.
09:24:24 I believe it was dated November 7th.
09:24:26 It was from Mr. Baird, the director of the water
09:24:29 department.
09:24:32 And also so that council knows, there's also a request
09:24:37 to continue numbers 1 and 6 on the agenda for one week
09:24:42 to November 16th.
09:24:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
09:24:47 >>ROSE FERLITA: second with the hope that's absolutely
09:24:51 final because I have requested this, and I don't want
09:24:54 to keep resonating but the 16th is the last
09:24:57 council meeting.
09:24:58 I sure would like to hear from this because those
09:25:00 transmission that is transcend to county positions as
09:25:02 well so I hope you will attempt to be here next week.
09:25:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Numbers 1 and 6.

09:25:10 I believe council did receive memos with that request.
09:25:16 Also, council -- is that a motion?
09:25:19 I'm sorry.
09:25:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a second.
09:25:22 >> Second.
09:25:22 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
09:25:24 Opposed, Nay.
09:25:25 (Motion carried).
09:25:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: When awe dress the issues of the
09:25:33 appointments to the various boards, to add a formal
09:25:36 resolution memorializing council's action on September
09:25:39 21st repointing Fran Costantino to the Barrio
09:25:44 Latino.
09:25:46 I provided a copy of the resolution to the clerk.
09:25:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move that
09:25:51 resolution.
09:25:55 >> Second.
09:25:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:25:58 (Motion carried).
09:26:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, finally, at the end of the
09:26:03 meeting I'll have a report for council member Ferlita
09:26:05 on the issue with Mr. Roberts from last week.

09:26:12 >>CHAIRMAN: All right.
09:26:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In conversation was Mr. Shelby
09:26:17 about appointments, it occurred to me that when could
09:26:19 do a more proactively organized job of lining up
09:26:28 appointments so that we are not pointing people after
09:26:30 the fact so I would like to request the administration
09:26:37 develop a system where for three months it's an
09:26:41 automatic procedural trigger, three months before a
09:26:43 vacancy occurs on any board, where either the council
09:26:47 makes an appointment or the administration makes an
09:26:49 appointment, but the staff who supports that board is
09:26:54 made aware of the vacancy and immediately attempts to
09:26:58 find her replacement because I think that would be a
09:27:01 more professional practice.
09:27:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, one of the things I wanted
09:27:08 to address with you at the end of the meeting is just
09:27:10 an update on the results of my meetings with Ms.
09:27:12 Miller, who is not available -- Cindy Miller and with
09:27:17 the clerk's office about that.
09:27:18 We do have some suggestions.
09:27:22 And Ms. Saul-Sena, if you don't mind, if you would
09:27:25 hold that request, unless you want it to be added to

09:27:28 the agenda early on.
09:27:29 But --
09:27:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At the end of the meeting is fine.
09:27:33 I just didn't want to lose the thought.
09:27:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Trust me to make sure that I will
09:27:36 bring it back to you.
09:27:37 Thank you.
09:27:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I did have some other items.
09:27:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you ready to approve the agenda?
09:28:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 13 and 14 if TPD could send
09:28:08 somebody over to discuss with me privately or
09:28:10 publicly.
09:28:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would prefer publicly.
09:28:13 I have a circle around 14.
09:28:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have to be sensitive because
09:28:18 it's terrorist -- anti-terrorist related stuff.
09:28:24 We just need to be careful, I think.
09:28:35 I also had a question to staff item 30, 31 and 32, I
09:28:53 haven't been briefed on these.
09:28:55 This is 30, 31 and 32 is a $43 million bond issue, a
09:29:00 $17 million bond issue and $93 million some type of
09:29:04 financial instrument.

09:29:20 >> Did you get a memo from Bonnie on those bonds?
09:29:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Backup material and I don't know if
09:29:26 it's the same thing.
09:29:30 >> I think it's part of what they were talking about.
09:29:34 >> Okay
09:29:35 >> That's a lot for sale in Port Tampa for $7,000.
09:29:43 I think it's a buildable lot.
09:29:47 There's visual issues and perhaps that's why it's so
09:29:49 cheap.
09:29:52 We are going to pull it and then we'll discuss it.
09:29:56 Do you want to do it?
09:29:57 Go ahead.
09:29:59 >>THOM SNELLING: I was just -- Thom Snelling, growth
09:30:02 management.
09:30:03 They explained they the appraisal came back at $7,000
09:30:06 on the property.
09:30:07 It's the site of an old landfill.
09:30:09 Part of the condition for the person before they use
09:30:10 it, going to have to do the environmental and
09:30:13 environmental clean-up of the lot which is why they
09:30:17 established a $7,000 independent appraisal.
09:30:20 They went ahead and just sell it for the pray --

09:30:26 appraised value of the lot.
09:30:28 And go ahead and clean the lot up, do environmental
09:30:30 work on it.
09:30:35 >> Do we know if that was advertised?
09:30:37 I think it was a special negotiated sale.
09:30:42 >>THOM SNELLING: I don't know fountain was advertised
09:30:44 or not.
09:30:44 It just came across my desk this morning.
09:30:47 I was trying to figure out the exact procedure.
09:30:49 He said that we had to follow policy as to how we
09:30:52 dispose of that other lot.
09:30:54 >> Do you know of any urgency on this, Thom?
09:30:56 Can we pull it for two weeks and get better briefed on
09:30:59 it?
09:31:00 >>> If that's council's choice I think you can.
09:31:05 I could get some bullet points and take care of it
09:31:08 that way.
09:31:09 >> The person who e-mailed me said she owned the lot
09:31:11 next door.
09:31:12 >>> That lot is across the street.
09:31:15 I have seen that e-mail.
09:31:16 That property is -- wasn't an old lapped fill as

09:31:21 opposed to this one was.
09:31:24 But I can bring it all back together.
09:31:29 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thom, just like Mr. Dingfelder, I have
09:31:32 gotten some concerns from people that I feel have you
09:31:36 instrumental in what has happened in Port Tampa.
09:31:39 Bill Beuford, Chris Malzone.
09:31:42 And perhaps this was not done appropriately.
09:31:45 I think when we get into phase 1 and phase 2
09:31:48 environmental, et cetera, it might justify it.
09:31:51 Right now I think the perception is, gosh, 7,000, I'll
09:31:54 do that in a second.
09:31:55 So we don't want any "I got a deal for you" type
09:32:00 attitude.
09:32:00 I agree I don't think it would hurt to hold off a
09:32:03 couple of weeks.
09:32:04 But you look like you want to say something.
09:32:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To bring to council's attention in
09:32:08 two weeks council is not meeting because of the
09:32:10 Thanksgiving break.
09:32:12 I would caution against adding things for November
09:32:14 30th, if council wishes to do that.
09:32:16 Just to remind you of the council members.

09:32:23 >>ROSE FERLITA: So, Thom, was there any urgency?
09:32:27 >>> The urgency, I don't know.
09:32:28 But I can get Herb to put together a complete report
09:32:31 explaining how and why we got from A to Z.
09:32:34 >> But the problem is not necessarily just preparing
09:32:37 the report, Thom, it's to make sure that that's
09:32:39 disseminated into that whole neighborhood so they
09:32:42 understand.
09:32:42 But I think you are going to be handicapping yourself
09:32:45 if you say sooner.
09:32:47 If there's no rush and we have the appointment in the
09:32:49 interim council members and the holiday, et cetera,
09:32:51 let's do it afterwards.
09:32:52 But let's make sure everybody is very comfortable
09:32:54 about how this was done.
09:32:56 We had a situation last week about a property owner
09:32:59 using city property, or a pocket park.
09:33:02 Even if there's a remote idea that something is
09:33:04 inappropriate, I don't think we should support it and
09:33:07 I don't think we will support it.
09:33:08 So unless you know of some reason why we can't.
09:33:13 >>THOM SNELLING: No, ma'am.

09:33:15 >>ROSE FERLITA: That would be my motion to continue
09:33:17 this to the first week in December.
09:33:19 I don't know what the -- 7th?
09:33:24 >> December 7th.
09:33:25 >> So moved.
09:33:27 (Motion Carried).
09:33:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And number 58 is the streetcar
09:33:31 budget.
09:33:33 And I just was asking staff, legal staff.
09:33:37 I was trying to find -- we set aside some of the TIF
09:33:41 money from the three TIFs but I couldn't find it in
09:33:46 it streetcar budget.
09:33:47 Maybe it's there tucked away under some other item.
09:33:50 I couldn't find it as part of the revenue.
09:33:53 And so if Bonnie or Mr. Huffstutler wants to speak to
09:34:01 that, I want to make sure it's in the budget.
09:34:03 We went to great lengths to put it there.
09:34:05 So I want to make sure it's there.
09:34:07 And then so I want to pull 58 for the time being until
09:34:11 they can come down and enlighten us.
09:34:13 Finally, number 46.
09:34:17 Number 46 is the K-bar ranch.

09:34:19 It's an agreement with the owners of the K-bar ranch
09:34:22 for a wildlife habitat management plan.
09:34:24 And according to the agenda, it says see attached.
09:34:28 But then it wasn't attached.
09:34:29 So before I vote on that, I want to be able to see the
09:34:32 wildlife habitat management plan, which would probably
09:34:35 take two weeks to at least look at.
09:34:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Three weeks.
09:34:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Three weeks.
09:34:41 So I'll pull it for now in case somebody wants to come
09:34:45 down and talk to us about it, or if they don't talk to
09:34:48 us about it then we'll delay it for a period.
09:34:53 >> Second.
09:34:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Number 35, I'd like to pull that one.
09:34:58 I don't know.
09:34:59 I was just told that Mr. March low is not a member of
09:35:03 the Ybor City museum society, and so I need to find
09:35:06 out about that.
09:35:07 So I would like to pull that.
09:35:09 >>GWEN MILLER: 35.
09:35:10 Any other items?
09:35:11 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think we continue to get briefed as

09:35:16 recently this morning in the Times and Tribune about
09:35:22 number 8 the expressway authority.
09:35:24 Are we continue to continue as to who is coming?
09:35:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Maybe our attorney can tell us.
09:35:38 >> There he is.
09:35:41 >>> Martin stone.
09:35:42 371 Channelside walkway on Harbor Island.
09:35:46 I am the director of planning for the expressway
09:35:48 authority.
09:35:49 And I appreciate very much the opportunity to come
09:35:52 here and update you about the expressway authority.
09:35:56 Could I have the PowerPoint?
09:35:58 >>ROSE FERLITA: Oh, no, I just wanted to know if
09:36:01 someone was here.
09:36:02 I didn't know who you were and who you were affiliated
09:36:05 with.
09:36:05 My question was simply, is this going to be on the
09:36:07 agenda?
09:36:08 She'll call you back up when we get to 8.
09:36:11 Thanks.
09:36:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other items we need to pull?
09:36:14 We need to approve the agenda.

09:36:16 >> So moved.
09:36:17 >> Second.
09:36:17 (Motion carried).
09:36:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to item number 2.
09:36:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to clarify.
09:36:29 Last week at our council meeting, I asked Cindy Miller
09:36:35 to bring council up to speed with what was happening
09:36:39 and she said it really isn't my bailiwick, it's Mr.
09:36:44 Huey's, and I didn't know if it was going to come as a
09:36:50 walk-on or not.
09:36:51 >>GWEN MILLER: They didn't sign the sign-up sheet.
09:36:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then that next week they come speak
09:36:56 to that.
09:36:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 2.
09:36:57 Ms. Julia Cole.
09:36:59 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:37:02 In reviewing item number 2 I went back and reviewed
09:37:05 the transcript because I think I had some confusion as
09:37:08 to what I was coming back for.
09:37:09 And it wasn't exactly what the intent was.
09:37:11 You may recall that there was a billboard sign that
09:37:14 was relocated on Howard Avenue pursuant to a

09:37:17 relocation agreement that council approved and that
09:37:20 was done pursuant to the Florida statutory provision
09:37:22 which if a sign needs to be relocated in order to, for
09:37:28 example, 75, that's a local jurisdiction needs to
09:37:32 accommodate that, having to pay for the billboard
09:37:36 sign.
09:37:37 What I recall the conversation was is asking the legal
09:37:41 department to review 7.20, Florida statute, which is
09:37:45 that provision and provide a report to you.
09:37:47 I am actually going to suggest that we go ahead and
09:37:49 view this in the form of a special discussion meeting.
09:37:51 I think it will be easier for us to have a
09:37:53 conversation about that, and give me a little more
09:37:55 time to review Florida law on this issue because it is
09:37:59 quite complicated.
09:38:00 So I would recommend and request that we schedule a
09:38:04 special discussion meeting.
09:38:10 >> Number 3.
09:38:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I had a chance to speak with Ms.
09:38:15 Cole about this.
09:38:16 I'm very interested.
09:38:17 Have been hits the billboard, hates it, hates it,

09:38:19 hates it.
09:38:20 I want to know as we go forward what we can do to
09:38:22 prevent this in the future.
09:38:23 I would like to move to schedule a special discussion
09:38:25 meeting on the 15th, November 15th at 9:00.
09:38:32 >> Could I request that we put it back two more weeks,
09:38:35 to go ahead and research the issue?
09:38:37 It is complicated.
09:38:38 I started doing some research.
09:38:40 And it's actually going to take some time to go back
09:38:43 and look on the legislative history on that.
09:38:45 >> How about November 29th?
09:38:47 >> That would be great.
09:38:48 >> That's a Wednesday morning at 9 a.m.
09:38:53 In the Mascotte room.
09:38:54 A special discussion meeting on Florida statute 70-20.
09:39:01 And would you mind having somebody from the
09:39:03 administration get ahold of both neighborhood groups
09:39:07 and the sign people, probably want to weigh in on it.
09:39:12 >> I sure will.
09:39:14 >> Ms. Cole, I know we are going to have a special
09:39:16 discussion on it.

09:39:17 But how do we address the illegal signs that is up
09:39:23 there?
09:39:24 Because the state decided to put the sign there.
09:39:27 >> I think if the sign is there legally, there's
09:39:30 actually a legally approved sign by council pursuant
09:39:33 to a relocation agreement.
09:39:34 The sign is able to -- the billboard, legal existing
09:39:39 billboard sign that was taken by FDOT, and pursuant to
09:39:43 Florida statute and pursuant to that agreement that
09:39:45 you have with those two billboard companies, the sign
09:39:49 could be relocated.
09:39:50 So that's why it was a little confusing.
09:39:53 It's not an illegal sign.
09:39:55 It is in fact a legal sign.
09:39:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Then it happens that they need to
09:40:00 remove the sign and relocate it, does that mean that
09:40:03 the city has to relocate the sign at our expense?
09:40:08 >>> 70-20, which is the Florida statute which governs
09:40:11 these types of relocations, seems to indicate that we
09:40:15 as a local government do not allow the signs, the
09:40:18 billboard sign to be relocated, then instead of
09:40:23 Florida department of transportation be stuck for

09:40:25 paying for the billboard the city would have to bear
09:40:27 that cost.
09:40:27 That's why I need time to go back and check the
09:40:31 legislative history of those.
09:40:32 Because what I understood the conversation to be when
09:40:33 we discussed it was to look at 70.20 to determine
09:40:38 whether or not that's in fact what it says.
09:40:40 And I will tell you that I couldn't find very much on
09:40:44 that point so if we are going to make a decision
09:40:47 moving forward to potentially not allow one of these
09:40:49 billboard signs to be relocated we need to do so very
09:40:52 cautiously and that's why I would like the extra time
09:40:55 to review it and then sit down in a special discussion
09:40:57 meeting so that we can review that issue.
09:41:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion.
09:41:01 Did we get a second?
09:41:04 >> Second.
09:41:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Discussion meeting November 29 at 9:00.
09:41:11 (Motion carried).
09:41:12 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:41:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What was that date?
09:41:16 >>GWEN MILLER: November 29th, a Wednesday.

09:41:18 >>JULIA COLE: I have been requested to review our
09:41:24 political sign provisions.
09:41:26 And sign code and come back with a recommendation.
09:41:31 It's actually a little bit more of a complicated
09:41:33 question than it would seem because obviously when you
09:41:35 are talking about political signs you are talking
09:41:37 about first amendments implications.
09:41:41 The issue which came out of the large banner style
09:41:47 signs which were put up in the City of Tampa, and I
09:41:49 will tell you that the sign code recommendations that
09:41:51 we are bringing forward to you making it more clear as
09:41:54 to what type of banners will be allowed, where they
09:41:57 can be located, and now that we have looked at the
09:42:00 issue a little further, I will be adding some
09:42:04 regulations as relates to the size of banners.
09:42:07 I think that particular issue can be resolved.
09:42:10 The other issue with the political signs relate to
09:42:14 signs in the right-of-way.
09:42:15 It relates to signs on private property and how many
09:42:18 political signs you can have.
09:42:20 It also -- relates to code enforcement issues if we
09:42:24 have a political sign which is illegal.

09:42:26 It's clearly illegal under the code.
09:42:30 When we site a property owner.
09:42:33 There's a time frame that often comes through the
09:42:38 elections cycle.
09:42:39 So it becomes sort of a nonissue.
09:42:44 Those are all pretty significant issues especially as
09:42:46 it relates to code enforcement.
09:42:48 I've reviewed the laws that relates to that.
09:42:52 Our code enforcement.
09:42:53 And while we may be able to put in place some
09:42:56 regulations relating to how long it needs to come into
09:42:59 compliance, it still doesn't alleviate the necessity
09:43:01 to go through the code enforcement process.
09:43:04 In addition as it relates to the office of -- to the
09:43:07 signs which are in the right-of-way, those would be
09:43:09 considered illegal signs, whether or not they are
09:43:11 political signs or any other kind of snipe signs.
09:43:13 And there is an ability under our code the way it
09:43:18 currently reads to remove those signs from the
09:43:20 right-of-way and I know the clean city provision does
09:43:22 in fact do that.
09:43:23 But it's pretty overwhelming.

09:43:26 And as relates to the political signs on private
09:43:29 property, we may want to look at whether or not the
09:43:33 way the sign code is written allows for too much
09:43:35 political sign.
09:43:39 While we can't regulate speech, we can regulate the
09:43:42 manner which signs are placed in the right-of-way.
09:43:45 My recommendation, I'm requesting you to schedule a
09:43:49 workshop as relates to the sign code.
09:43:51 I think it's a perfect opportunity in that forum for
09:43:54 me to come back as part of that, make recommendations
09:43:57 on our sign code issues, and bring that to you in a
09:44:00 workshop form so that we can discuss that as well.
09:44:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the idea is good that we
09:44:07 need to have a good, healthy discussion on this.
09:44:10 The banner thing is interesting.
09:44:13 I think when it comes to the banners, I thought the
09:44:19 intent of banners was to let retail people hang a
09:44:23 banner, they can do that once or twice a year, that
09:44:26 sort of thing, and not abuse it.
09:44:29 But if you let the politicals slip into the banner
09:44:33 provision that I think it could be abused.
09:44:36 So I think the banner provisions --

09:44:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Could be?
09:44:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think the banner provisions
09:44:42 should specifically exclude political.
09:44:44 I think to do our best to get all the political focus
09:44:48 into one provision of our code.
09:44:50 So that way everybody is playing on the same ball
09:44:53 field.
09:44:54 Otherwise what they will do is look to slip out and
09:44:57 go, you know, slip in under another provision.
09:44:59 And I don't think that's fair to anybody.
09:45:04 >>JULIA COLE: And I understand, the conflict whenever
09:45:07 you are dealing with a sign regulation is the first
09:45:09 amendment, and case law and our code the way it's
09:45:12 written says that any sign which is allowed to have
09:45:14 commercial message can also have a non-commercial
09:45:17 message on it.
09:45:18 So we can't, for example, have a regulation which says
09:45:20 you can have banners so long as they don't contain
09:45:23 political messages, because that may, more likely than
09:45:28 not, would have a first amendment implication and may
09:45:30 have some Constitutional --
09:45:32 >> But as long as that same piece of property has the

09:45:35 right to have an -square foot sign just like
09:45:38 everybody else, then that, to me, that's the freedom
09:45:42 of expression that they should be allowed.
09:45:44 And it's equal -- that way property by property by
09:45:48 property is equal.
09:45:50 Don't allow that one property to have a 2-by-4 foot
09:45:53 sign and then hang a banner from the building also.
09:45:56 I just think that's inherently unfair to the citizens
09:45:59 of Tampa and also unfair to the other candidates.
09:46:01 Because you have got people playing by different
09:46:04 rules.
09:46:04 >>JULIA COLE: And I think there's -- I'm glad you
09:46:08 brought that up, because I think that we can be
09:46:10 creative -- not creative, but we can create a sign
09:46:15 code which deals with your issue, I think in the way
09:46:17 you are thinking of it and I think it would be a good
09:46:19 idea for me to bring back some recommendations.
09:46:21 I have been in the process of looking at sign codes in
09:46:23 other jurisdictions.
09:46:24 There's a lot written on this issue.
09:46:26 Everything with the sign code, it's always very
09:46:28 complicated.

09:46:29 So if we could go ahead and maybe schedule a workshop,
09:46:32 I would recommend maybe in December.
09:46:34 That way we can have when the new council members come
09:46:37 on, give them a little time to bring it back and I'll
09:46:40 bring back those kinds of recommendations.
09:46:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other thing is on the timing of
09:46:44 enforcement.
09:46:44 You know, clearly the timing of enforcement needs to
09:46:47 be squished down to three days or something like that.
09:46:51 The amount of time it should take you to walk out into
09:46:53 your yard and pull the illegal sign out, is the amount
09:46:56 of time the enforcement should be.
09:46:58 And I'm okay because of code enforcement but I think
09:47:01 what we have to do during election season make sure
09:47:04 that code enforcement, that they have special
09:47:06 scheduled hearings for this issue.
09:47:08 Because if we are going to be serious about it, then
09:47:11 we can't say, oh, you know, come to code enforcement
09:47:14 two months from now when the election is over.
09:47:16 You know, that's just silly.
09:47:19 >>> I think we can go ahead and add in the sign code
09:47:22 some kind of shortened time frame.

09:47:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm glad you brought that up, too.
09:47:30 That was my feeling on the time frame of these things.
09:47:35 It seems like we are always creating ordinances, and
09:47:40 because we reacted to something that happened.
09:47:43 Now what I'm saying?
09:47:44 And it seems like people just come up with creative
09:47:49 ideas on how to wind their way through these
09:47:54 ordinances and so on.
09:47:55 So we have to nip this in the bud now that we know
09:47:59 it's happening or has happened.
09:48:00 We need to put a time frame on these things.
09:48:02 Political signs -- I don't want to say political signs
09:48:06 but banners, especially, like we have seen in downtown
09:48:10 Tampa, those were really way out of line.
09:48:13 And for them to come and say, oh, yeah, we got 30 days
09:48:17 and we'll take it off afterwards.
09:48:19 Well, you know what?
09:48:20 The election is over.
09:48:22 And those things should have been down when the code
09:48:25 enforcement went up and said, you have got to get them
09:48:27 down now.
09:48:28 So if you can work on that type of ordinance, I think

09:48:32 it would behoove everybody.
09:48:34 And I think it will be fair to everybody.
09:48:35 These things are not fair.
09:48:37 >>JULIA COLE: And within the recommendations, the
09:48:41 current sign code recommendation, the problem with
09:48:45 banners previously is they didn't have to be
09:48:47 permitted.
09:48:47 Our recommendation is that temporary banners will now
09:48:50 need to be permitted and there will be size
09:48:53 limitations and height limitations on them.
09:48:55 So some of those issues will be alleviated with the
09:48:58 recommendations from the new sign code but I think
09:49:00 it's become a bigger issue on how we deal with
09:49:03 political signs and I am recommending we discuss that
09:49:06 in the workshop.
09:49:08 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am looking forward to the
09:49:10 discussion.
09:49:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This sounds complicated.
09:49:12 The 70.20 sounds complicated.
09:49:15 Would it be a recommendation we discuss them both at
09:49:17 the same time or have two separate discussions?
09:49:19 >>JULIA COLE: I think we have two separate

09:49:20 discussions.
09:49:21 One is really on-site signs.
09:49:26 >> Should we schedule that?
09:49:30 >>JULIA COLE: In scheduling the workshop, there are
09:49:32 some folks that want to general sign code issues.
09:49:37 I don't know if you want to wait until after hearing
09:49:40 from them or do that now.
09:49:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: You know, we have the city elections
09:49:45 coming on.
09:49:46 I don't know if anybody is going to come up and do an
09:49:49 80 by 120-foot sign.
09:49:51 But, you know, you never know.
09:49:52 So we need to have a discussion on this fairly soon.
09:49:58 >>JULIA COLE: Maybe in December when you have a T new
09:50:00 council members.
09:50:06 >> Get it on our agenda maybe the -- November is such
09:50:14 a a bear.
09:50:15 Maybe December 6th, Wednesday at 9:00.
09:50:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thursday afternoon.
09:50:28 >> We could do it Thursday afternoon.
09:50:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Are these workshops or special
09:50:35 discussion meetings?

09:50:37 Motion for workshop or special discussion meeting?
09:50:41 >> What do you recommend?
09:50:43 >>JULIA COLE: I was requesting a workshop.
09:50:46 The only question I would ask is a special discussion
09:50:50 meeting.
09:50:52 Action be taken at the end of the workshop.
09:50:55 I may want the opportunity to request that what the
09:51:00 consensus is on the changes and potentially taking
09:51:03 that to the Planning Commission so maybe a workshop
09:51:05 would be better.
09:51:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Apparently on the 7th we have
09:51:11 an end of meeting workshop on the public school
09:51:13 facility development.
09:51:14 I have no idea how long.
09:51:17 >>> That may take you some time.
09:51:19 >> I don't know.
09:51:20 I don't think it's controversial at this point.
09:51:22 But maybe after that.
09:51:25 Particularly the political signs.
09:51:27 We need to get going because we want it to be in place
09:51:32 so it will be germain for city selection elections.
09:51:34 My motion would be after the workshop on public school

09:51:37 facilities then we discuss the sign ordinance.
09:51:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On December 7th?
09:51:41 >>THE CLERK: We don't have a night meeting.
09:51:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a motion and second?
09:51:59 >> So moved.
09:51:59 >> Second.
09:52:00 (Motion carried)
09:52:03 69 Ms. Bonnie Wise to come over and speak on 30 and
09:52:10 31.
09:52:20 >>BONNIE WISE: Revenue and finance.
09:52:22 I'm here to speak regarding the bond issues.
09:52:24 And I do have extra copies of the memo that I
09:52:27 distributed on November 2nd for your information.
09:52:45 In the memo I talked about I was so pleased because
09:52:47 this was really good news received from the rating
09:52:50 agencies.
09:53:03 The first bond issue is $17 million.
09:53:06 It's a CIT issue.
09:53:09 It went through a hearing in June.
09:53:12 And we have received -- you can see the upgrades
09:53:16 before you.
09:53:17 We are now in the AA category from all of our rating

09:53:20 agencies on the particular bond issues so I was so
09:53:24 pleased that we received that.
09:53:25 In addition we have the bond insurance that we will
09:53:30 then have an AAA rating on these bonds.
09:53:32 So this is action that you took in June so we are just
09:53:37 moving forward with that particular bond issue.
09:53:39 The other issue is utility tax refunding.
09:53:42 As you know, I continually monitor outstanding debt.
09:53:46 And if we have an opportunity to refund bonds for
09:53:48 savings, moving forward as such.
09:53:52 This is a case where we do, and we fund 199 , 1999
09:53:57 and half of 2000 bonds.
09:53:59 And I say perhaps because as we watch the market, we
09:54:01 don't really know exactly which maturities we'll be
09:54:05 refunding.
09:54:05 It really depends on what interest rates are and
09:54:08 market conditions are at that time.
09:54:11 We will monitor continuously.
09:54:13 As of right now we are looking to receive a net
09:54:15 present value savings after all expenses are paid over
09:54:19 a million dollars.
09:54:20 So I'm very pleased that we are going to be able to

09:54:23 move forward with that.
09:54:25 That bond issue as well.
09:54:26 We did receive some bond upgrades.
09:54:28 So we really had some very good information from the
09:54:31 bond rating agencies.
09:54:34 Our chief accountant worked very hard with the rating
09:54:37 agencies.
09:54:38 And while the rating agencies, they did rate our debt
09:54:50 rating to AA-2.
09:54:53 So those two issues get upgraded, our overall city
09:54:58 rating and they had some very fine comments and I have
09:55:00 some quotes from the rating reports for your review.
09:55:04 One of the things they mentioned was our policy on
09:55:06 reserve so I was really pleased to see that.
09:55:08 They recognized our diligence in that regard.
09:55:13 And as a final issue that you have on your agenda
09:55:16 today is the actual commercial paper.
09:55:21 As you know you have previously approved our
09:55:23 commercial paper program.
09:55:23 It was specifically, however, limited to stormwater
09:55:26 and transportation improvements.
09:55:28 But this seems like a really good financing vehicle

09:55:31 for CIAC, which is one of those projects that money is
09:55:34 going to be coming in over time, and only want to draw
09:55:38 the money when we need it.
09:55:39 So it seems like at least in the initial stages that
09:55:43 having a flexible commercial paper program as opposed
09:55:46 to a bond issue at the time, you are limited on when
09:55:50 your retainment can be.
09:55:53 So this is a much better revenue financing source.
09:55:56 So this is why I knew it was pretty complicated, is
09:55:59 why I sent you the memo in advance.
09:56:01 But if you have any further questions on those items,
09:56:05 I would be happy to answer them for you.
09:56:09 >>ROSE FERLITA: We did get this in advance and I
09:56:11 appreciate that.
09:56:13 Just to take that opportunity again.
09:56:18 I certainly supported your position on the importance
09:56:19 of those reserves and I think this is a benefit from
09:56:22 it.
09:56:24 Just very quickly, you sure know your stuff.
09:56:28 I've told you that publicly and privately and I
09:56:30 appreciate your role in getting this.
09:56:38 Thanks.

09:56:38 >>BONNIE WISE: It's really an effort of all.
09:56:41 >>ROSE FERLITA: Just appreciate what you have done in
09:56:43 terms of finance.
09:56:44 Thank you.
09:56:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It all appears to be in order and
09:56:47 good things.
09:56:48 My problem is communication.
09:56:51 I'm not dealing much with paper anymore for some
09:56:53 reason.
09:56:54 This memo that you sent seven days ago is probably in
09:56:57 a folder with a lot of other things in there,
09:56:59 because -- if it's important, I suggest in addition to
09:57:02 sending it in paper form that you e-mail it.
09:57:05 And then that way, you know, and perhaps if it's
09:57:07 really important, to perhaps pick up the phone and
09:57:11 chat, too.
09:57:12 That's all I would say, so we can hopefully go on into
09:57:15 the next perhaps four years with better communication
09:57:18 on this.
09:57:21 That way, we can chat about these things in advance.
09:57:24 As long as you're here, Bonnie, I had a question on
09:57:28 the streetcar budget which you were kind enough to

09:57:30 leave me a message on.
09:57:32 And I was looking for the TIF amount.
09:57:34 >>BONNIE WISE: TIF, resources from three TIF areas,
09:57:42 $150,000 that you mentioned.
09:57:44 And that is at this point on the capital side.
09:57:47 It probably best.
09:57:48 And I looked at the backup material.
09:57:49 It's probably best to pull that agenda item for next
09:57:53 week.
09:57:54 Because it appears that the capital part of that
09:57:57 budget did not get included on the agenda item.
09:58:01 I think that's probably the easiest thing to do is
09:58:03 pull it.
09:58:04 And then have it for next week.
09:58:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So it's not time sensitive.
09:58:09 So that's item 58.
09:58:12 >>BONNIE WISE: I'm sorry, continue it if we could.
09:58:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Continue it to next week.
09:58:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for coming down.
09:58:22 This is really impressive that we have been able to
09:58:25 raise the rating.
09:58:27 And I appreciate your explaining the nomenclature

09:58:29 because it's a different language to me.
09:58:31 I didn't know that a AAA-2 is better than AAA-3.
09:58:36 This is the world of bond rating.
09:58:38 Congratulations.
09:58:40 I'm thrilled that we'll be saving a million dollars.
09:58:44 That's why you have the job.
09:58:48 You're good.
09:58:50 That's why you are there and I appreciate you coming
09:58:52 down.
09:58:53 We are going to go back to our agenda item number 4.
09:58:58 Stormwater.
09:59:04 >>THOM SNELLING: Growth management.
09:59:06 Item number 4 was a request by council to come back to
09:59:11 brief you on a stormwater issue that happened at
09:59:16 Heritage Isles.
09:59:18 A report that John Barrios put together for us, and
09:59:24 clearly watch the details of what happened in the
09:59:26 situation.
09:59:27 But briefly what I'll do is touch on that.
09:59:31 There was a construction project going on in Heritage
09:59:35 Isles, part of an overall construction project.
09:59:40 Is significant rain event.

09:59:42 Those barriers failed and water was running on land
09:59:46 unabated throughout the coral key street.
09:59:52 The inlets for the existing stormwater facilities that
09:59:55 were in place were covered to protect other dirt and
09:59:59 debris, normal to have those covered as part of a
10:00:02 construction project to keep, you know, chunks of
10:00:06 construction debris from going in those kinds of
10:00:08 things.
10:00:12 Once the contractor was able to pull those, that
10:00:14 started to work a little better.
10:00:16 The flooding went down.
10:00:18 Unfortunately some of the flooding got to the houses.
10:00:19 I believe it got to the garages.
10:00:21 Construction service sent area long with stormwater
10:00:23 division went on-site.
10:00:25 They reviewed the project, what was going on.
10:00:27 They supervised making sure that the silk barriers
10:00:31 were put up to accommodate the construction that was
10:00:34 happening there.
10:00:36 And identify why it happened, and there hasn't been
10:00:47 any problems since that major event.
10:00:49 Subsequent to that, there were some concerns and

10:00:51 questions by homeowners in the area that the overall
10:00:55 design of that particular portion of the development
10:00:59 perhaps could cause future flooding, because it was
10:01:01 not done properly or engineered properly.
10:01:04 The stormwater division went back and reverified the
10:01:09 drawings, studied them and analyzing them and showed
10:01:14 that yes, indeed, the project as designed would
10:01:17 accommodate the type of drainage facilities needed to
10:01:20 serve the project very well.
10:01:26 The project at this point, we are monitoring it in
10:01:29 terms of the stormwater issues, and John Barrios and
10:01:33 my staff requested a stormwater revision.
10:01:38 R, are very aware, they are watching this closely in
10:01:41 terms of making sure having is being done in
10:01:43 accordance at this point.
10:01:45 I believe the engineer, the person who has the
10:01:48 concerns, if they have a comment they would like to
10:01:52 make you can certainly hear that as well.
10:01:54 But from the city's perspective we have seen the
10:01:56 flooding problems, have identified the flooding
10:01:59 problems and the cause for it.
10:02:01 We are monitoring it very closely to ensure that that

10:02:03 type of flooding situation doesn't happen again.
10:02:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Snelling.
10:02:07 I appreciate that.
10:02:08 Number 5.
10:02:13 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:02:15 I am presenting on behalf of code enforcement.
10:02:19 The usual you on Bruce B. Downs is very interesting.
10:02:22 When the annexations occurred for New Tampa, Bruce B.
10:02:27 Downs and adjoining right-of-way were specifically
10:02:29 kept out of the legal description of that annexation.
10:02:33 Technically these signs, people holding signs in the
10:02:37 right-of-way of Bruce B. Downs are within the county's
10:02:39 jurisdiction. The county is aware of that issue.
10:02:42 However, apparently, the county code allows people to
10:02:45 hold signs within the right-of-way in the manner in
10:02:48 which they are doing.
10:02:49 I just wanted to let you know legally where that stood
10:02:52 and technically the city has no authority or
10:02:54 jurisdiction over those signs.
10:02:55 Thank you.
10:02:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:02:57 Ms. Saul-Sena?

10:02:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have any plans to remedy
10:03:00 that?
10:03:00 I can't imagine why -- both sides of the street are
10:03:08 the city and the street isn't.
10:03:10 We certainly have a lot of county roads and state
10:03:12 roads in the city.
10:03:13 >>> The way to remedy that would be to annex that
10:03:16 back.
10:03:17 And we have to annex that.
10:03:21 >> Do you have a file called annexation and the next
10:03:24 time we get around to annexation we can address that.
10:03:28 >>> I was quite frankly shocked.
10:03:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:03:34 Item number 8.
10:03:36 No, 7.
10:03:37 Sorry.
10:03:37 Number 7.
10:03:47 >>> Del Acosta, architectural review commission here
10:03:51 to address, a letter received October 27, 2006,
10:03:57 regarding 721 south Willow Avenue.
10:04:01 There's an update October 26, 2005, a little over a
10:04:04 year ago, an application for demolition submitted on

10:04:06 this parcel.
10:04:07 It was scheduled to go before the architectural review
10:04:10 commission on December 7th, 2005.
10:04:13 On December 7th, the day of the public hearing in
10:04:16 the afternoon the agent requested a continuation on
10:04:18 that project.
10:04:19 On December 13th, 2005, the application was
10:04:23 withdrawn.
10:04:24 The A.R.C. really acted upon a request for
10:04:32 alterations, demolition, ad valorems.
10:04:34 It essentially act upon an agent or own theory wants
10:04:38 to do something on their property. The A.R.C. has no
10:04:42 jurisdiction on regular maintenance or painting, on
10:04:45 one end of the scale.
10:04:46 When it goes into code violation, we transfer any of
10:04:48 those issues to code enforcement.
10:04:51 In this particular case, 721 south Willow Avenue,
10:04:54 being that there appeared to be some code violation
10:04:57 issues, we transferred those over to neighborhood
10:04:59 improvement.
10:05:01 And he's here to address it on that property.
10:05:08 >>> Kevin INGUS, code enforcement.

10:05:12 Our department does have an active case of 721 south
10:05:15 Willow for structural problems, deterioration,
10:05:19 overgrown conditions and accumulation of debris.
10:05:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When can we expect to see some
10:05:27 action?
10:05:30 >>> That's incumbent upon the property owner.
10:05:33 >> When is there a date when they are supposed to --
10:05:37 >>> We got an inspection scheduled for the 17th of
10:05:40 November, which will basically -- it's their final
10:05:44 notice is what it is.
10:05:47 At that time they will be placed on the agenda for the
10:05:50 code enforcement agenda for compliance.
10:05:53 >> And when will that come before the Code Enforcement
10:05:55 Board if it's not cleaned up by November?
10:05:58 >>> That depends on the current workload of the code
10:06:01 enforcement at the time.
10:06:02 It's generally about two months.
10:06:04 >> That would be January?
10:06:08 >>> Sometime I'm guessing January, early February.
10:06:13 From that inspection date.
10:06:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I had a chance to
10:06:18 talk with Mr. Acosta about this.

10:06:20 And if the A.R.C. can't make somebody make
10:06:23 improvements to their house, the code enforcement can
10:06:26 do something.
10:06:26 And I know we have worked with you to try to get more
10:06:29 timely compliance.
10:06:30 I think that January, given the space that it is now
10:06:34 is far out there.
10:06:35 But maybe the fact that council is discussing will
10:06:40 make them comply by the end of November.
10:06:44 Is there any way to speed it up?
10:06:47 >>> I can inquire with management, with the
10:06:50 department, to see if we can fast track that to place
10:06:52 it on an earlier agenda.
10:06:54 But we are bound by that inspection date of November
10:06:57 17th.
10:06:58 >> But perhaps if it could be set up in terms of being
10:07:02 place on an agenda.
10:07:03 Does the city -- some of the problems here are
10:07:07 overgrown trash.
10:07:08 Does the city ever go in and clone it up and then
10:07:10 place a lien for the cost of the on the property own
10:07:14 er?

10:07:14 >>> On vacant property, we have done that.
10:07:19 On egregious violations.
10:07:20 But only after notice.
10:07:22 >> Is egregious like three feet?
10:07:24 How do you define it?
10:07:26 >>> It got to be pretty bad before we send a city
10:07:30 contractor out there and spend taxpayer money on it.
10:07:32 >> Although the assumption is that we'll recoup the
10:07:35 investment in cleaning it up by placing a lien on the
10:07:38 property.
10:07:39 >>> Absolutely.
10:07:39 A lien is placed on the property for nonpayment of the
10:07:42 cost that we incur for that job.
10:07:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This has been going on for a long,
10:07:49 long time.
10:07:50 Hasn't it?
10:07:51 >>> Yes, ma'am, I believe it has.
10:07:52 >> I remember talking about this property three or
10:07:57 four years ago.
10:07:59 And nothing seems to be done.
10:08:01 This guy just keeps going on and on and on.
10:08:06 Other than code enforcement, what else can we do?

10:08:11 How does he get away from coming to the Code
10:08:14 Enforcement Board year in and year out and so on?
10:08:17 >>> That I don't know.
10:08:18 I have to do some research and submit a report on
10:08:21 that.
10:08:21 But as far as this case is concerned, the reinspection
10:08:25 is scheduled for November 17th.
10:08:27 And if they are out of compliance at that time, --
10:08:32 >> How many reinspections does this place have?
10:08:34 >>> On this current case, there's only been -- on this
10:08:38 current case there's only been one initial inspection.
10:08:43 I can't tell you why this case was reinitiated.
10:08:48 Probably because of problems with past code
10:08:51 enforcement inspections, change of ownership perhaps.
10:08:54 I'm not sure.
10:08:55 I know it's in some sort of estate now due to the
10:09:01 passing of one of the property owners. This case was
10:09:03 actually initiated or initially inspected on October
10:09:07 27th.
10:09:09 So that's what brings us to the reinspection of
10:09:12 November 17th.
10:09:15 >> According to a letter we got from one of the

10:09:17 neighbors, it said that kids are finding the place is
10:09:20 empty, and they are going in there.
10:09:22 I mean --
10:09:25 >>> It is vacant and open.
10:09:27 And then we'll have it secured by emergency order.
10:09:31 >> Can you do that now?
10:09:32 >>> Absolutely.
10:09:37 I noticed that in the letter and so did the department
10:09:39 management.
10:09:40 And if it hasn't already been done, we are looking
10:09:44 into sending a contractor out there to have it
10:09:47 secured.
10:09:47 We are going to confirm that first.
10:09:48 >> When can you put liens on these properties?
10:09:51 After the Code Enforcement Board?
10:09:53 >>> There will be a lien placed on the property for
10:09:55 what it cost us to have it secured.
10:09:58 There will be a lien placed on the property for
10:10:01 whatever it costs us to have it environmentally a
10:10:04 baited if we do that.
10:10:06 And I can't speak on any previous liens or work that's
10:10:09 been done prior to that.

10:10:11 I don't know.
10:10:11 >> Well, I would like for you to report, tell us how
10:10:16 many times code enforcement has been out there and how
10:10:18 many reinspections it has had.
10:10:21 >>> We can submit a report.
10:10:23 >> There has to be some way we can circumvent the Code
10:10:26 Enforcement Board after so many reinspections and so
10:10:29 on, and.
10:10:34 >>> If it's actually egregious enough, and Judge
10:10:36 Dominguez will hear cases that are seriously
10:10:41 egregious, and we have to have a property owner that
10:10:44 we can actually bring into court, someone that's
10:10:47 local, someone that we actually can be -- that can be
10:10:51 served by process server through the sheriff's office.
10:10:54 And in this case, like I said, to take it to criminal
10:11:01 course has to be seriously egregious.
10:11:04 >> I've only seen just copies of photographs, and I'm
10:11:07 sure they are a lot worse, the property's in a lot
10:11:16 worse shape.
10:11:17 And if you can't call that egregious I don't know what
10:11:19 you can call it but give me a report back in about a
10:11:23 week or so.

10:11:24 >>> Yes, ma'am.
10:11:25 >> It could be a written report.
10:11:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, you and I met with the
10:11:33 clerk's office and Ms. Marshall yesterday and she
10:11:37 wants to share with regard to putting things on for
10:11:39 next week, she's requesting, I guess as long as this
10:11:44 person is here from code enforcement is aware, she's
10:11:47 concerned that it may not make it onto the actual
10:11:49 agenda because tomorrow is a legal holiday.
10:11:52 To bring to the your attention.
10:11:53 >> I ask for a written report.
10:11:55 >>> That will be fine.
10:11:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mr. INGUS, I'm sorry, you're the
10:12:02 person up here so you are going to get it.
10:12:04 I don't know what your definition is of egregious.
10:12:07 But I don't know how many, many -- I can't say many
10:12:10 enough times -- years this has been a problem for that
10:12:13 neighborhood.
10:12:13 When we say we are going to secure it because of
10:12:15 doors, I personally myself have seen holes in this
10:12:18 house where kids can get in.
10:12:20 I don't know what your definition is of egregious.

10:12:22 I don't know what your definition is of securing the
10:12:24 property.
10:12:24 I don't have any idea why this particular location has
10:12:29 gone on and has been an extreme nuisance to the entire
10:12:34 neighborhood.
10:12:35 Mr. Mannous made it very clear being the abutting
10:12:39 neighbor.
10:12:40 He's really sick and tired of this.
10:12:41 I'm really sick and tired of it as a neighbor down the
10:12:44 street.
10:12:44 And I just truly do not understand how it has
10:12:47 continued to go on.
10:12:49 The fact that some people suggested it was in probate.
10:12:53 Ms. CURY checked, talked to the attorney handling that
10:12:57 situation.
10:12:57 It is not in fact in probate.
10:13:01 Whether the owner decides she wants to sell it or not
10:13:03 sell it, et cetera, that doesn't matter.
10:13:06 But the issue is that this continues to be a nuisance
10:13:09 on the back of those neighbors.
10:13:11 It's ridiculous.
10:13:12 It was a standing joke at one time and it's not funny

10:13:14 anymore.
10:13:15 There were two different versions.
10:13:16 The front porch fell off.
10:13:22 That's what kind of good structural situation it was
10:13:24 in.
10:13:24 And there was one story they carted it away or
10:13:26 somebody just for the heck of it bought the porch.
10:13:29 It is ridiculous.
10:13:30 I don't think we need to put any more of those
10:13:31 pictures on the Elmo.
10:13:33 But I don't know what's done but I have a feeling that
10:13:36 it keeps bouncing from code enforcement to Mr. Acosta,
10:13:39 back and forth.
10:13:39 At one time it was going to be demolished, it was
10:13:42 going to be demolition by neglect.
10:13:44 I think we are getting caught up in the system, in the
10:13:48 process, in the terminology.
10:13:50 It continues to be a new sans.
10:13:52 And I'm going to tell you that people in that area are
10:13:54 sick and tired of it.
10:13:55 I'm sick and tired of them stopping me at the corner
10:13:58 of Inman and Willow wanting to know what I'm going to

10:14:01 do about it.
10:14:03 Well, somebody needs to do something about it.
10:14:05 And we need to quick tap dancing around it.
10:14:09 It's not your particular issue, it not Mr. Acosta's
10:14:12 issue.
10:14:13 But enough time is enough time.
10:14:14 This is starting to mimic or take the lead about that
10:14:16 same situation that Mr. Shelby and I met with Mr.
10:14:19 Smith in New Tampa.
10:14:21 I think the short and the long of this message is,
10:14:24 enough is enough is enough.
10:14:25 And you guys really need to give due process.
10:14:30 It's time.
10:14:31 But it's awful.
10:14:34 It's disgusting.
10:14:35 I don't know what you all are going to do.
10:14:37 But believe me when I tell you, when I leave here, I
10:14:39 am going to be real looking forward to sitting out
10:14:42 there and giving you a hassle as a resident who lives
10:14:46 five houses from that.
10:14:48 It's an embarrassment.
10:14:51 Really an embarrassment.

10:14:52 And I never liked to be in a position as a council
10:14:54 member in that neighborhood not having an answer
10:14:58 that's adequate for those citizens who have really,
10:15:00 really been long patient.
10:15:02 So you and Mr. Lane, Mr. Acosta, whoever is involved,
10:15:05 we just need to move this on.
10:15:07 >>> I understand.
10:15:07 >> The owner can't decide what he wants to do.
10:15:09 Please, you guys help him decide.
10:15:12 >>> We'll help him decide, absolutely.
10:15:14 I have not personally seen this since this case has
10:15:16 been initiated.
10:15:17 It may be egregious enough to take it before criminal
10:15:20 court.
10:15:20 And we'll certainly research that.
10:15:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In your report, I would like the
10:15:26 times, the dates that you all have gone out there as
10:15:30 many times as you have, and what the resolution is
10:15:32 that you are planning on, and if it's egregious enough
10:15:34 I want to know that we are going to do something about
10:15:36 it and I don't want to wait until next year, because
10:15:39 this has been going on for at least 20 years,

10:15:42 according to the letter.
10:15:43 So it's time.
10:15:44 It's time for us to get off the dime and do something
10:15:46 about this.
10:15:49 >>ROSE FERLITA: If I can interject.
10:15:51 So long as you don't misinterpret what Ms. Alvarez is
10:15:54 saying.
10:15:55 This one was initiated because Ms. Cury turned it in.
10:16:01 We are talking about the numerous code enforcement and
10:16:03 the paper trail.
10:16:05 >>> The case history on it.
10:16:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And if it has to be a notebook full of
10:16:14 information, please do it.
10:16:16 >>> It probably will be.
10:16:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Because we need to move on this.
10:16:20 This has been going on long enough.
10:16:21 And then when we get the written report, if we are not
10:16:24 completely satisfied with your answers on what the
10:16:27 resolution is going to be, I am going to ask you to
10:16:29 come back in two or three weeks and talk again.
10:16:32 >>> We will.
10:16:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?

10:16:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:16:35 Officer, since I think this is my district, I would
10:16:40 like a copy of the summary.
10:16:43 I don't think I want the whole notebook.
10:16:45 But I would like a copy of your summary report.
10:16:48 And I would like it to be e-mailed in addition to hard
10:16:53 copy.
10:16:54 That way I'll see it quickly.
10:16:55 Thank you.
10:16:57 >>> Yes, sir.
10:16:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:16:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
10:17:00 You asked for a week for that report?
10:17:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: When is the code enforcement
10:17:05 hearing?
10:17:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: The 17th, right?
10:17:08 >>> Reinspection is 17th.
10:17:10 And that in turn will actually schedule another
10:17:14 inspection shortly after that.
10:17:16 And that inspection, that third inspection will
10:17:18 actually generate the hearing.
10:17:22 They get notice of hearing, it will go out to the

10:17:24 property owner, and then appear on that agenda.
10:17:28 >> When will that hearing tentatively be?
10:17:30 >>> Tentatively, like I said, hopefully sometime,
10:17:34 January, February.
10:17:36 >> Would a week be long enough to do a written report?
10:17:38 >>> Like I said, we can actually fast track it.
10:17:41 I can talk to city clerk's office.
10:17:43 I can talk to our own clerk to determine -- as well as
10:17:47 management and see if they can actually put that on a
10:17:50 sooner agenda.
10:17:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to get a
10:17:53 written report in a week.
10:17:54 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:17:55 Opposed, Nay.
10:17:57 (Motion carried) thank you.
10:17:58 Item number 8.
10:18:02 Expressway authority representative.
10:18:21 >>> Good morning again, Ms. Miller.
10:18:23 I'm very pleased to be here this morning to give you
10:18:26 an update on the expressway authority activities.
10:18:29 If I could have the PowerPoint presentation, please.
10:18:33 >>GWEN MILLER: It's on.

10:18:37 >>> The two projects that I would like to update you
10:18:39 on first is our reversible express lane project.
10:18:45 Many of you are familiar with the express lanes since
10:18:48 we began interim operation in July and August.
10:18:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your name and title again?
10:18:55 >>> Martin stone, planning director for the expressway
10:18:58 authority.
10:19:00 I don't think many of you are familiar with the
10:19:05 extreme positive note right this project has brought
10:19:08 to the City of Tampa from across the United States and
10:19:12 around the world.
10:19:15 This is, by many, considered to be the poster child
10:19:18 for urban traffic congestion relief, and is being
10:19:24 considered not only by communities in the United
10:19:26 States but all over the world as a solution for
10:19:29 traffic congestion in urban areas.
10:19:32 As you can see, our express lane traffic already is
10:19:37 achieving pricked traffic for our opening year.
10:19:43 And on top of that is diverting an additional 2,000
10:19:48 trips a day away from State Road 60 and Causeway
10:19:50 Boulevard and the interstate, and providing better
10:19:55 operations on those facilities as well.

10:19:59 We again are still in interim operations, have not
10:20:01 gone to our full-time operations, but we have recently
10:20:06 added a new feature, and this also is a first in the
10:20:09 United States.
10:20:11 It is a system called pay by play, which adds to the
10:20:15 all-electronic toll collection an opportunity for
10:20:19 those people without trance ponders to use the system.
10:20:23 It is set up based on license plate photography and
10:20:28 allows -- people who do not have the sun pass account
10:20:32 to use the facilities.
10:20:34 It is designed for council users, and for occurrences
10:20:38 like this morning, when there was an accident on the
10:20:41 lower lanes, allowing people to divert to the upper
10:20:44 lanes, and still do so and be treated like a customer
10:20:49 instead of a violater.
10:20:52 The pay by plate system allows people to sign up in
10:20:55 advance for video account, or up to 72 hours after
10:21:00 they have used the system by dialing an 800 number.
10:21:04 Actually it's an 888 number.
10:21:06 888-tag-toll.
10:21:08 This is a unique system that's being tested by the
10:21:13 Florida turnpike and the expressway authority, and

10:21:16 hopefully will be migrated to the entire State of
10:21:20 Florida.
10:21:21 Some of the things that you also may not know is that
10:21:24 this is a long-term transportation solution.
10:21:26 This is not just a solution for today's traffic.
10:21:30 It provides six lanes of uncongested traffic, three in
10:21:34 and three out, in the morning and afternoon when we
10:21:38 reverse it, and the open road tolling system, because
10:21:42 it can be adapted to variable pricing, will ensure
10:21:46 that we will provide uncongested travel within this
10:21:49 corridor, for the city, for many years to come.
10:21:53 It has been a very environmentally friendly project.
10:21:57 We built 27 lane miles, new lane miles of
10:21:59 construction, and impacted less than one acre of
10:22:03 wetland.
10:22:04 We have gotten five stars from the environmental
10:22:07 agencies from this construction technique.
10:22:11 The design itself is quite beautiful.
10:22:13 It was one of our goals to provide a project that this
10:22:16 community can be proud of, not just in terms of its
10:22:19 functional abilities but also in terms of its
10:22:22 aesthetics.

10:22:23 And like I said, it's providing congestion free
10:22:27 access. In fact I think this is the only community
10:22:31 this size or larger that can boast of a truly
10:22:33 congestion-free corridor in and out of their city
10:22:36 every morning and afternoon.
10:22:40 Along with FDOT, this agency and this project put us
10:22:45 in position to solve some other problems.
10:22:48 And hopefully with the city's cooperation and the
10:22:52 cooperation of the department of transportation, at
10:22:54 some point in time we'll be looking at solutions for
10:22:56 the Gandy corridor, and certainly moving forward with
10:23:00 the I-4 connector which are extremely important
10:23:03 projects for the City of Tampa.
10:23:06 On top of that, I want you to know that not only are
10:23:10 we extremely proud of this project, but like I said
10:23:14 earlier, other communities have started to look at
10:23:18 this as a solution.
10:23:19 The district 4 of the department of transportation in
10:23:22 Ft. Lauderdale has adopted this particular solution
10:23:26 for application to 95 and is under contract with the
10:23:34 elevated reversible express lanes to solve the
10:23:38 congestion on that corridor from western Broward into

10:23:41 the Ft. Lauderdale area.
10:23:44 As you can see, also, the city of Birmingham has
10:23:48 underway a project on I 65 with the Alabama D.O.T.
10:23:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is really interesting.
10:23:58 But this is not why we asked to you come to City
10:24:00 Council today.
10:24:02 And I love what you have done.
10:24:04 But we ask you, maybe you didn't get the request that
10:24:08 you are here to talk about the beltway.
10:24:11 >>> I would be very happy to talk about the beltway.
10:24:14 >> And you have about two minutes left.
10:24:16 >>> I was told that the preference was not to talk
10:24:18 about the beltway this morning.
10:24:21 >> From whom?
10:24:22 >>> From the mayor.
10:24:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
10:24:27 >>> You are just giving us an update --
10:24:32 >>CHAIRMAN: In that case we don't need to hear
10:24:34 anything.
10:24:34 >>ROSE FERLITA: Our agenda said we want to talk about
10:24:37 the beltway.
10:24:38 You should talk about the beltway.

10:24:40 >>> I would be very happy to.
10:24:41 >> With all due respect.
10:24:42 We control our own agenda, and we appreciate you
10:24:47 responding to that.
10:24:47 Thank you.
10:24:50 >>> And if you will put the presentation back up I do
10:24:52 have some slides on that, that directly talk about the
10:24:58 possible beltway, and its direct effects on the City
10:25:02 of Tampa.
10:25:02 >>CHAIRMAN: Would you move to that then?
10:25:05 >>> If they'll put --
10:25:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are seeing it.
10:25:12 >>> We started in 2005 looking at -- with our
10:25:16 consultants methods for improving transportation and
10:25:20 addressing the more than $3 billion of backlog in
10:25:24 Hillsborough County and the city in terms of
10:25:26 transportation needs.
10:25:28 We looked at the five major areas of growth in the
10:25:31 county.
10:25:33 And identified a corridor that could possibly hold new
10:25:38 expressways.
10:25:39 But we were also looking at how to address congestion

10:25:43 in downtown Tampa specifically, the junction of
10:25:48 interstate 4 and I-275, as well as the interchange of
10:25:51 I-75 and I-4 and the I-75 corridor.
10:25:56 Because traffic congestion is not just located within
10:25:58 the county.
10:25:59 It is virtually everywhere.
10:26:02 In Tampa, for example, virtually every trip headed for
10:26:05 central and southern Pinellas is forced through the
10:26:09 junction in downtown Tampa.
10:26:12 On top of that, all trips from western Pinellas headed
10:26:16 east to Lakeland, Orlando, and south on I-75 are
10:26:22 forced through downtown Tampa.
10:26:23 And from New Tampa, virtually all trips headed to
10:26:26 Westshore and/or any of the locations west of the
10:26:30 airport are forced through downtown Tampa, and
10:26:33 according to D.O.T. statistics, more than half of the
10:26:36 trips through the downtown junction are headed for
10:26:40 someplace other than the Tampa urban core.
10:26:46 A system of connecting our existing roadways, if you
10:26:49 want to call it a beltway, will in fact make our
10:26:53 system more utilitarian, and address a large
10:26:58 percentage of these trips.

10:27:00 And by removing these trips from downtown Tampa, we
10:27:04 improved the mobility and the economic vitality of our
10:27:07 downtown.
10:27:10 The study is being done in two phases.
10:27:13 First, to identify whether or not this is a viable
10:27:18 alternative, meaning are there locations for locating
10:27:23 such a project?
10:27:24 And is it a good transportation project, which is a
10:27:28 modeling exercise.
10:27:30 And then secondly to identify the costs, and to
10:27:33 determine if it's a reasonable toll facility.
10:27:38 Our initial modeling looked at 2015 in the black is an
10:27:42 opening year, and 2025 as a ten-year projection.
10:27:48 We used the department of transportation's 20-year
10:27:51 model, and it goes through the year 2025.
10:27:56 What we have found in our first traffic runs is that
10:27:59 this is an outstanding transportation project, and the
10:28:04 numbers that you are looking at are average daily
10:28:06 traffic volumes that would be diverted off of the
10:28:09 existing highway and local street system.
10:28:13 These are not new trips.
10:28:14 These are redistributions of trips that are produced

10:28:18 by the model, by the growth, the population and
10:28:22 employment in the existing model, and by diverting
10:28:25 these types of numbers off of the existing roads and
10:28:28 streets, we free up the access and mobility of the
10:28:33 system.
10:28:34 But this is not -- and in a project like this should
10:28:39 be considered in a vacuum.
10:28:41 It needs to be developed as a partnership of all of
10:28:45 the transportation agencies, and all of the different
10:28:48 modes of travel.
10:28:49 For example, if you overlaid potential rail system for
10:28:54 the city, not only the initial rail system, but also
10:28:57 the extensions, you could see how a network connector
10:29:01 or beltway system would act as a natural feeder to
10:29:05 such a light rail system.
10:29:07 On top of that, add in the existing toll roads and you
10:29:10 can begin to see that there is the possibility of
10:29:13 developing a true regional transportation system for
10:29:16 the city.
10:29:21 Plug in what exists in Pinellas County, and you begin
10:29:24 to also see the regional mobility that can be created
10:29:27 by such a system.

10:29:29 And now the focus of both the city and the county can
10:29:33 be to look at putting their transportation resources
10:29:37 into the local arterials that connect to such a
10:29:41 system, both feeding the beltway and a potential light
10:29:46 rail system in the future, when funding for that light
10:29:50 rail system could be found.
10:29:55 That's essentially the five-minute version.
10:29:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:29:58 Mr. Dingfelder?
10:29:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:30:01 A few slides back before you got into the beltway
10:30:04 was -- there were some slides about the New Tampa
10:30:07 project, and I think it's out on the street to bid.
10:30:11 >>> Yes, sir.
10:30:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are well informed about that
10:30:15 project but we need to be assured, especially in light
10:30:19 of the recent instability of the expressway authority,
10:30:21 that all of that is going forward.
10:30:24 That's very, very important to the City of Tampa.
10:30:26 >>> I can assure you, sir, that there is no
10:30:29 instability of the expressway authority.
10:30:32 The staff of the expressway authority has not only

10:30:35 been there for a long time, but is smoothly operating
10:30:39 the expressway authority.
10:30:41 Mary hall, in-house legal counsel has been there 22
10:30:48 years, our chief engineer Ben lunds has been there 15
10:30:52 years, and I have been there for ten years and worked
10:30:54 directly on the planning of every new project that the
10:30:56 expressway authority has delivered in the past ten
10:30:59 years, and look forward to working with the city and
10:31:02 the county and the D.O.T. in delivering the four
10:31:06 projects that we have discussed very, very briefly
10:31:09 this morning.
10:31:10 >> Can you respond specifically to the project in New
10:31:13 Tampa that there's a bid out on the street on that?
10:31:17 >>> Yes, sir.
10:31:17 There are two -- we have received two bids.
10:31:21 Because they have not gone through the legally
10:31:23 mandated evaluation process, I really cannot discuss
10:31:27 the two bids, other than to tell you that one comes
10:31:30 from a Spanish firm called OHL.
10:31:33 They are an owner and operator and lessor of many toll
10:31:41 roads and very proficient in N that kind of operation.
10:31:44 The other bid comes from plenary, a consortium of

10:31:48 Canadian and Australian companies that also have a
10:31:51 history of public-private partnerships.
10:31:53 Both of those will be evaluated within the next two
10:31:58 weeks.
10:31:59 And, in fact, if, after that evaluation, our board
10:32:04 determines that an interview is necessary, that would
10:32:08 be conducted on December 14th, and ultimately our
10:32:14 board is set to hopefully rank these two firms at our
10:32:21 December board meeting on the 18th.
10:32:23 At that time we would open negotiations with the
10:32:25 number one ranked firm.
10:32:28 Those negotiations we anticipate taking three to five
10:32:31 months, and coinciding with the completion of the
10:32:36 environmental work underway by the city, and sometime
10:32:39 this spring, we hope that we will be in position to go
10:32:42 to contract.
10:32:44 That means that you could see construction on this
10:32:46 project by the end of next year.
10:32:49 And I think that's really good news for the people of
10:32:51 New Tampa.
10:32:52 Of course, the bridge over the interstate that is part
10:32:58 of the connection to this project is a city project,

10:33:02 and before this project could be constructed, funding
10:33:07 for that has to be solidified.
10:33:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the last question I have
10:33:13 relates a little bit to the headlines from this
10:33:16 morning.
10:33:16 Is there an interim director of the expressway
10:33:19 authority?
10:33:20 Has that person been selected?
10:33:22 >>> Our board will be meeting on Monday morning at 9
10:33:25 a.m.
10:33:27 Ms. Miller, you may not have gotten notice yet.
10:33:31 We'll be meeting Monday morning at 9 a.m. to take that
10:33:36 issue.
10:33:37 It's my understanding at that time, there will be
10:33:42 recommendation for an interim director.
10:33:44 Because we are in essence closed tomorrow, like
10:33:48 everyone else in government for veterans day, our
10:33:54 board chairman and our in-house counsel and outside
10:33:59 counsel believe that this will create a very timely
10:34:02 and positive continuation of the services provided by
10:34:05 the expressway authority.
10:34:08 >> And the Louisiana last thing, Madam Chair, a quick

10:34:11 comment.
10:34:11 I think the county commission expressed an interest in
10:34:14 a change in governance of the expressway authority,
10:34:18 and I'm going to chime in and say that I think there
10:34:25 should probably be more elected officials on the
10:34:28 expressway authority.
10:34:29 I think you have done a Yeoman's job as well as
10:34:33 Commissioner Scott in representing the public on that
10:34:37 board.
10:34:37 But I think you probably could maybe use some help
10:34:40 with some additional elected officials.
10:34:42 >> I agree.
10:34:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That is a function of state law.
10:34:47 And obviously that would need to be changed in
10:34:50 Tallahassee if that were the case.
10:34:51 But I think that's something that this entire
10:34:54 community needs to debate and look into in a very
10:34:56 strong way.
10:35:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Real briefly.
10:35:02 Thank you for coming.
10:35:02 You have been a great professional.
10:35:04 And the project that you just completed is one to brag

10:35:07 about internationally.
10:35:09 And particularly the Meridian street portion is a
10:35:13 tremendous asset to the city.
10:35:15 I'm interested in you all pursuing the two projects
10:35:18 that you discussed, the road in north Tampa.
10:35:22 Looking at opportunities for Gandy.
10:35:24 And as somebody who has been involved in
10:35:26 transportation community for two decades, I'm very
10:35:28 concerned that we look at all our options together.
10:35:31 I'm very concerned that sometimes new roadways create
10:35:36 sprawl.
10:35:36 And I don't want to do that.
10:35:38 That would be so counterproductive.
10:35:41 We have seen negative results from that in the past.
10:35:44 And I think it would be irresponsible for us as a
10:35:48 community to look at a road in isolation from land
10:35:50 uses and all the other implications that that road
10:35:54 creates.
10:35:55 So while it's an interesting presentation, we really
10:36:00 need to look at ways and debate very carefully
10:36:02 community-wide before any more consulting dollars are
10:36:06 put into studying this.

10:36:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Ms. Saul-Sena, thank you for bringing
10:36:10 that up.
10:36:11 I was kind of quietly thinking the same thing and
10:36:14 perhaps holding some of my comments for a couple weeks
10:36:17 down the road.
10:36:17 But that's a perfect segue into some of these things
10:36:20 that occurred after the elections were completed.
10:36:23 I had a conversation with the mayor.
10:36:25 And we committed to each other and to the constituents
10:36:27 we represent that we were going to jointly take some
10:36:32 leadership roles, already has in transportation, and
10:36:36 look at it in a more regional fashion, and without
10:36:39 those boundaries that sometimes people think exist
10:36:42 between the county and the city.
10:36:44 In terms of transportation.
10:36:46 At the same time, in the invitation of now U.S.
10:36:52 Senate-elect Cathy castor, I spent time with her and
10:36:57 her support team talking about how she will be
10:36:59 instrumental in helping finish that circle at the
10:37:01 federal level in terms ever funding and in terms of
10:37:04 lines ever communication.
10:37:05 So I think we are all aggressively looking at the

10:37:09 opportunity of trying to move forward with
10:37:10 transportation issues that concern all of our
10:37:13 constituents here and there, and Ms. Saul-Sena brings
10:37:16 up exactly what we have talked about.
10:37:19 I appreciate your presentation on the beltway.
10:37:22 But I think we have to start looking county and city
10:37:28 about shorter term goals and longer term goals, and I
10:37:31 think her point is well received at least by me that
10:37:34 will that encourage sprawl?
10:37:36 I don't know at this point but certainly research and
10:37:38 homework and commitment and relationship with Pam and
10:37:43 Cathy will show that.
10:37:44 I'm a little bit leery about that, too.
10:37:47 I think we have closer to home issues with
10:37:49 transportation.
10:37:51 And so we are trying to build the infrastructure to
10:37:53 get that done first in terms of multi-modal and rail
10:37:55 and stuff.
10:37:56 And I know everything at one point or another will
10:37:58 interact and will hopefully complement each other.
10:38:02 But it just remains for me to be seen as an on coming
10:38:07 county commissioner whether or not this is the first

10:38:09 thing we need to look at or some of the other
10:38:11 transportation issues.
10:38:12 I'm sure we will all at each of those levels interact
10:38:16 with the expressway authority in trying to get some of
10:38:18 these things done.
10:38:19 In closing, I thank you.
10:38:21 >>> Thank you.
10:38:21 I appreciate that very much.
10:38:22 I think the important thing is that we work together,
10:38:24 that we don't do these things independently, and by
10:38:28 working together we can develop a vision, hopefully,
10:38:32 for a multi-modal transportation system that will
10:38:36 really benefit this community.
10:38:37 >> And I think that's exactly what the theme about my
10:38:41 conversation with the mayor and Cathy castor's meeting
10:38:44 with me and my legislative aide.
10:38:46 So thank you very much.
10:38:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you want to say something?
10:38:57 >>> I do need to clarify something, though.
10:38:59 The mayor had a meeting yesterday morning with the
10:39:04 Executive Director of the Crosstown authority, and Mr.
10:39:06 Karl and Rhea Law.

10:39:10 At that time there was discussion about the
10:39:11 presentation.
10:39:11 The mayor did not say do not make this presentation.
10:39:15 The mayor, in that conversation, said, certainly she
10:39:19 is not in favor of the beltway, she is in favor of
10:39:23 transit, and that her recommendation would be, if it
10:39:27 were up to her, that that presentation not be made.
10:39:29 But again that was not her direction.
10:39:31 So I just want to make that real clear.
10:39:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
10:39:40 At this time, is there anyone in the public that would
10:39:41 like to ask for reconsideration?
10:39:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess the only thing I would say
10:39:46 in response, Mr. Daignault, if you would, the only
10:39:49 thing I would say in response is, if the mayor is
10:39:54 suggesting that we table something like a discussion
10:39:58 about the beltway or something more specifically about
10:40:01 that, that she communicate that with this council.
10:40:05 She could communicate that to the chair, and didn't
10:40:07 seem like she necessarily did, or with us as a whole,
10:40:13 or through you, with phone calls that you all can do.
10:40:18 So that might have been perhaps a more effective way

10:40:21 of trying to discourage spanks of the beltway if that
10:40:26 was her intent.
10:40:27 But as it turned out, this way seems a little awkward.
10:40:32 >>> Again I don't think she was trying to control your
10:40:33 agenda in any way.
10:40:36 Her preference is to pursue transit.
10:40:38 I think that's the only difference.
10:40:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
10:40:42 would like to ask for reconsideration?
10:40:45 Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
10:40:47 on any item that is on the agenda that is not set for
10:40:49 public hearing?
10:40:50 You may come up and speak now.
10:40:57 >>> Frank Camaro, coral key.
10:41:00 I'm a Heritage Isles resident.
10:41:02 I would just like to say when I initially spoke to
10:41:09 Shawn Harrison -- the one that was on the agenda, I
10:41:12 think item number 4, I believe, Heritage Isles, he led
10:41:16 me to believe that there was a possibility that I
10:41:17 would be able to speak more than three minutes at the
10:41:21 public -- okay.
10:41:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Three minutes.

10:41:24 >>> What I would like to say is, there are some issues
10:41:27 that I would like to address.
10:41:29 However, we don't want to take up the public's time
10:41:31 right now.
10:41:32 The developer, myself, and all the engineers got
10:41:36 together, and in the event that we can't get it worked
10:41:38 out, I would like for consideration at a later date in
10:41:41 the event we cannot get it worked out and we are still
10:41:44 subject to the flooding.
10:41:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have a copy of that report?
10:41:46 >>> I don't have a copy of the report.
10:41:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you like to have one?
10:41:49 >>> Yes, I would.
10:41:50 >>GWEN MILLER: I'll give you one.
10:41:51 Would anyone else like to speak?
10:42:01 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on item -- it's not on
10:42:05 your agenda right now.
10:42:06 It was a hearing that was set, Z 06-120.
10:42:10 And the issue is involving notice and providing notice
10:42:15 to me as the agent for the petitioner, an inadequate
10:42:22 amount of time to get the notices out and perfect the
10:42:24 notices to the property owners and the neighborhood

10:42:26 association.
10:42:27 I'm respectfully requesting that you reset this
10:42:30 hearing for December 14th at 6 p.m.
10:42:32 I understand from staff you have an opening.
10:42:35 I'm also requesting that you waive the amendment fee.
10:42:40 And I guess this is 3215 west Fielder street.
10:42:45 I prepared a letter.
10:42:46 I discussed this with Julia Cole and I will provide a
10:42:49 copy to Marty Shelby, City Council and city clerk.
10:42:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could we hear from city staff on
10:42:55 this?
10:42:55 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Land development.
10:43:03 We have no problem with it moving forward to December
10:43:06 14th, 6 p.m.
10:43:07 There are two slots available for new cases.
10:43:13 Staff's concern is the waiver of the amendment fee.
10:43:17 We did forward for the agenda October 19th to the
10:43:22 clerk's office, and it was set October 26th for
10:43:27 public hearing for the 11:30 meeting.
10:43:29 So we are concerned about that there were no
10:43:32 administrative errors to be able to approve a waiver
10:43:36 of the amendment fee.

10:43:38 >>GWEN MILLER: What number is this?
10:43:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not on the agenda.
10:43:43 Z-06-120 is what we are talking about and trying to
10:43:47 schedule it.
10:43:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: November 30th.
10:43:54 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:43:55 The situation and what occurred is for applicants to
10:43:59 know the public hearing has been set.
10:44:02 Apparently the notice went out was sent out on the
10:44:05 same date that the notice was actually due to be sent.
10:44:08 There was some confusion within the letter.
10:44:11 While it is a courtesy notice, that courtesy notice
10:44:16 does need to actually be corrected, sent out in a
10:44:19 timely manner.
10:44:20 It is up to council to determine whether or not the
10:44:22 waiver is appropriate and it appears by getting the
10:44:24 case rescheduled this morning.
10:44:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't have a problem with
10:44:30 rescheduling.
10:44:30 I think it's staff's recommendation we do not waive
10:44:32 the fee.
10:44:35 But, Steve, I also wanted to make sure that this gets

10:44:41 renoticed to the surrounding neighbors in the
10:44:44 community, so they know that it's the 14th and not
10:44:47 the 30th, right?
10:44:49 >>STEVE MICHELINI: No notice was sent out.
10:44:51 What happened was, the letter, and actually a fax that
10:44:54 I received saying it's being rescheduled to November
10:44:58 30th.
10:44:59 And I received that on the 31st which was the same
10:45:01 day that the notices were supposed to go out.
10:45:04 I don't think the notice was perfected to me telling
10:45:08 me exactly what the date was.
10:45:11 >> Well, we have a difference of opinions.
10:45:14 >>> Well, when I met with legal department, they
10:45:16 concurred with my -- at least my request, and it's up
10:45:19 to staff, I guess it's up to City Council, to
10:45:21 determine whether or not that was fair or not.
10:45:23 Everyone else is held to a notice standard.
10:45:25 I'm held to one.
10:45:26 I have to notify property owners and neighborhood
10:45:29 associations.
10:45:30 But the city is not held to a notice standard.
10:45:32 That's inappropriate.

10:45:34 >> And the date that you are requesting is December
10:45:36 14th?
10:45:37 >>> December 14th.
10:45:38 >> I move Z-06-120 scheduled for December 14th at
10:45:41 6 p.m.
10:45:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
10:45:44 >> We have a motion and second.
10:45:45 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Is that with the fee amendment?
10:45:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not in the motion.
10:45:54 >>STEVE MICHELINI: So I pay the fee.
10:45:57 >>CHAIRMAN: Was it our fault?
10:45:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She said it wasn't.
10:46:03 >>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: I said that we have concerns
10:46:05 with the waiver as a fee because we didn't feel like
10:46:07 there was an administrative error.
10:46:09 We do tell petitioners, it's in our application, that
10:46:12 you must make notice 30 days prayer to your hearing.
10:46:15 We do let them know not to wait for the clerk's letter
10:46:19 because it's been seen as a courtesy letter.
10:46:22 So that's our stance.
10:46:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:46:28 (Motion carried)

10:46:30 Is there anyone else that would like to speak?
10:46:34 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
10:46:37 As a member of the sign code revision committee, I'm
10:46:42 just here to say that I hope that the workshop goes
10:46:46 well, and that this will come back to council very
10:46:49 quickly, passed on to the Planning Commission.
10:46:54 There was much give and take on that committee, both
10:46:56 from the sign, the business people, the neighborhoods,
10:47:01 et cetera.
10:47:02 There's already been a lot of give and take.
10:47:04 So I will be interested in attending the workshop.
10:47:08 Though the time and date I didn't quite catch.
10:47:11 And I just want to confirm that.
10:47:16 The issue of the sign that's on Howard, I hope that in
10:47:23 researching it, at least there's some provisions in
10:47:26 there for the city to find a better place for some of
10:47:32 these than where it's been determined to be put.
10:47:35 Because I know we heard early on from the
10:47:37 neighborhood.
10:47:39 I hope in some way if it's not in the code now that
10:47:41 the city can work with the state to get appropriate
10:47:54 location for the signs.

10:47:55 And last week you were told by one of the home
10:47:58 builders, I think, that the neighborhoods are notified
10:48:02 of everything that goes on in this council.
10:48:04 Believe me, it's not.
10:48:05 And I am personally today most upset because this
10:48:10 issue of the Westshore overlay going before you very
10:48:15 quickly has not come to the Westshore neighborhood
10:48:19 committee.
10:48:20 And that is very upsetting to me, because we have
10:48:24 always reviewed, and the Westshore alliance knows,
10:48:28 that we always reviewed any of the things that have to
10:48:31 do with the Westshore area.
10:48:32 So I hope that you -- we do have a meeting on the
10:48:36 28th scheduled of that Westshore neighborhood
10:48:40 overlay committee, that you postpone any forwarding of
10:48:45 that ordinance to the Planning Commission until we get
10:48:48 to review it and come back to you with our comments on
10:48:51 it.
10:48:54 And those are my comments.
10:48:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:48:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Vizzi, thanks so much for all
10:48:59 you do and for coming down.

10:49:02 I was reading that Westshore alliance, the exact
10:49:05 question came to my mind, was there are several
10:49:07 neighborhoods that are impacted.
10:49:09 >>> Well, the committee.
10:49:11 >> And I wanted -- I'm glad you pointed it out because
10:49:14 I want to make sure you guys were participating.
10:49:16 So we'll slow down a little bit on that and make sure
10:49:18 that your input is taken.
10:49:21 Mr. Shelby?
10:49:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
10:49:24 I want to be clear because I believe when Ms. Coyle
10:49:26 was here it was her intention to transmit this
10:49:28 administratively to the Planning Commission as it is,
10:49:31 then bring it back to council for public hearing
10:49:32 process, after review.
10:49:37 >> Was there a motion?
10:49:38 >>> No.
10:49:38 I think it was information that's what she intended to
10:49:41 do.
10:49:41 >> I think we need to revise that.
10:49:43 Maybe Ms. Coyle can come back and we revisit that a
10:49:48 little bit.

10:49:49 The other thing I wanted to say, Ms. Vizzi, Ms. Vizzi
10:49:53 and I had, along with several other folks, had a good
10:49:56 discussion yesterday on the front porch issue.
10:49:58 And even though we are not in total agreement, I think
10:50:01 it was a very healthy discussion from the development
10:50:04 community as well as from T.H.A.N. representatives and
10:50:06 neighborhood representatives.
10:50:07 And my staff.
10:50:08 And we are making good progress to hopefully tweak
10:50:12 that ordinance and bring it back to you.
10:50:16 >>> Soon, I hope.
10:50:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:50:18 Would anyone else --
10:50:20 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
10:50:21 If I can interrupt you.
10:50:24 On the issue that Mr. Michelini brought up previously,
10:50:27 I want to make sure it's clear that council understood
10:50:29 what occurred.
10:50:31 There is a courtesy notice, after you all schedule a
10:50:35 rezoning public hearing, there is a courtesy notice
10:50:38 which is sent from the clerk's office.
10:50:41 It is a courtesy notice.

10:50:42 But in this instance what occurred is the courtesy
10:50:44 notice was faxed to Mr. Michelini on October 31st,
10:50:49 and had that date on it, within the body of the
10:50:53 letter, it gave that the notice needed to be sent out
10:50:56 was on October 31st.
10:50:58 So it was confusing.
10:50:59 I think what staff's position is that they tell
10:51:02 everybody what the requirement is.
10:51:04 But in this instance, it was a courtesy let theory was
10:51:07 sent, was confusing, and that's where the problem S.I
10:51:11 just wanted to make sure that was Clare for council.
10:51:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:51:14 Next?
10:51:21 >>> Ann: Westshore alliance.
10:51:22 I want to address briefly Ms. Vizzi's comments.
10:51:25 We are scheduled to appear with them on November
10:51:27 2th with the Westshore residential neighborhood
10:51:30 committee to review what's happening with the overlay
10:51:32 district.
10:51:33 We have had, as you know, this has been in the works
10:51:34 for two years, and we had several discussion was them
10:51:38 about it.

10:51:38 That committee was originally supposed to meet this
10:51:40 week.
10:51:44 If you feel more comfortable not transmitting to
10:51:46 Planning Commission until after we do that.
10:51:48 But we certainly had discussions.
10:51:50 I know Ms. Vizzi is very concerned about the existing
10:51:53 neighborhood section in that overlay district
10:51:56 ordinance, and but if you are more comfortable waiting
10:52:01 till after we meet with them one final time, that's
10:52:04 fine with us.
10:52:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:52:06 Next.
10:52:12 >>> Hoffman, real estate attorney, 600 North Westshore
10:52:15 Boulevard, suite 1200, Tampa.
10:52:18 I'm here regarding item number 57, the sign code and
10:52:22 the amendments to it as it relates to the awning.
10:52:26 I would like to hand out our brochure.
10:52:49 It shows the effect of the use of the trademark
10:52:51 awning.
10:52:51 As you can see, trademark awning provides corporate
10:52:54 identification with the business.
10:52:58 The trademark identifications and staff, the golden

10:53:01 arches foods, H&R Block.
10:53:06 Alternatives to awnings, same trademark to the
10:53:11 business
10:53:15 Any reduction to the size of the awning is personally
10:53:19 detrimental to the business.
10:53:23 Locate and identify the business.
10:53:27 Doesn't have an adverse economic impact to the City of
10:53:30 Tampa.
10:53:32 Material Amscot used for the awning, for ten years
10:53:38 without planning.
10:53:39 Amscot however plans the awnings with a local Tampa
10:53:44 company each year.
10:53:47 Awnings are more expensive than letters costing $350
10:53:51 per linear foot, $14,000 for a 40-foot frontage.
10:53:57 It's more than made up for since it provides corporate
10:54:00 logo and trademark identification.
10:54:03 The lighting of the awning provides security for
10:54:04 business by I will Lim lum naturing the exterior,
10:54:09 playing a safe place.
10:54:11 Amscot uses internal illumination and does not hang
10:54:17 down like down lighting proposed in the amendment.
10:54:20 If there is a hurricane, that would turn our

10:54:28 illumination.
10:54:29 The proposed amendment not be transmitted to the
10:54:32 Planning Commission.
10:54:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
10:54:38 Does Amscot operate in Vermont?
10:54:41 >>> No.
10:54:41 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you want to open a franchise?
10:54:49 >>> Vermont would never allow signs like this.
10:54:51 And other communities have one in Longboat Key?
10:54:54 No.
10:54:54 I mean, there are many communities who have design
10:54:57 standards that preclude what you want to do.
10:55:03 >>> We have 163 locations.
10:55:05 I think 150 are open right now.
10:55:07 And it's basically based in Tampa, St. Pete, and
10:55:11 Orlando, and over to Brevard county right now.
10:55:16 Vermont isn't really --
10:55:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Winter Park would be more like it.
10:55:23 And Clearwater, which also has more specific design
10:55:28 standards.
10:55:29 We are trying to upgrade the aesthetics of our
10:55:32 community.

10:55:33 >>> And we use -- I'm sorry, excuse me.
10:55:37 We have in Clearwater, on sunset Highlands location.
10:55:41 We have been approved for awnings there.
10:55:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:55:48 Next.
10:55:57 >>> May I get my notes and photos before I speak?
10:56:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which item on the agenda?
10:56:05 >>> I'm sorry, 57.
10:56:25 I'm Paul Cail we are Tampa signs and I'm not proposing
10:56:30 anything squirrelly in the words of Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:56:35 I heard earlier, I'll try to talk as quickly as I can.
10:56:38 I only have three minutes.
10:56:39 You heard earlier that the council calling for code
10:56:42 enforcement regarding a particular property.
10:56:47 We are also calling for code enforcement of the
10:56:51 illegal signs as opposed to mandating a new ordinance
10:56:55 which would literally punish the legal business people
10:57:00 in the business community.
10:57:02 The signs we are talking about are not billboards.
10:57:04 We have nothing to do with billboards whatsoever.
10:57:08 Nothing to say either way about them.
10:57:10 It's not what we are here today about.

10:57:12 It's strictly the sign that's generally illustrated on
10:57:16 a business person's property.
10:57:18 We support the present City of Tampa sign code, and we
10:57:23 also support enforcement of the present city sign
10:57:25 code.
10:57:26 The sign code was passed February 22nd, 2002, by
10:57:32 City Council.
10:57:33 And also approved by mayor Dick Greco at that
10:57:36 particular time.
10:57:40 We want to ask for code enforcement.
10:57:43 You can go ahead and send code enforcement with
10:57:51 existing permits.
10:57:52 But passed ordinance after ordinance and it doesn't
10:57:56 really matter. The proposed sign codes drastically
10:57:59 restrict things of this proposed code would create a
10:58:03 hardship to law a bidding business owners.
10:58:07 I estimate that there will be a removal probably 70%
10:58:12 of the existing business signs in the City of Tampa.
10:58:17 Most signs over 50 square feet, and 10 feet in height.
10:58:24 If a legal sign now sustains any kind of damage
10:58:26 through no fault of its owner it cannot be replaced on
10:58:30 this proposed sign code.

10:58:31 Again it's wrong to in effect punish business owners
10:58:37 of legal, law a bidding signs, and it would cost them
10:58:40 money to remove the legal signs and also cost them to
10:58:45 manufacture new signs and install them that may not
10:58:49 function as legal methods today.
10:58:52 Photographic examples.
10:58:55 >>GWEN MILLER: it's on.
10:59:06 >>> Okay.
10:59:07 I happened to be driving down Nebraska Avenue because
10:59:10 Florida was under construction.
10:59:11 I just photographed this sign.
10:59:15 This is a well maintained -- I am not knocking it in
10:59:19 any way, shape or form -- well maintained, good
10:59:22 appearance, functional sign.
10:59:26 If the new code is passed, and if anything happens to
10:59:30 it, they move it, if a tree falls on it, you this sign
10:59:33 would literally be chopped in half.
10:59:35 You would lose the changeable message portion of the
10:59:38 sign.
10:59:39 Would you lose the portion of the sign that says who
10:59:43 the pharmacist is, phone numbers, et cetera, and the
10:59:46 very first truck that parks beside it would block the

10:59:49 sign entirely.
10:59:55 We have quickly photographed what code enforcement
10:59:59 could do.
10:59:59 We have two signs.
11:00:00 One is legal.
11:00:03 The other one, yellow sign, is not legal.
11:00:06 It has graphics all the way leading to the ground.
11:00:08 Everything is nailed to the boards.
11:00:10 If in fact code enforcement were able to go ahead and
11:00:14 do something about this, and your image only as a
11:00:25 legal permitted sign.
11:00:26 This is true throughout the City of Tampa.
11:00:33 You will eliminate 30 to 40% of the clutter in this
11:00:36 town by code enforcement, if code enforcement would
11:00:41 enforce that abandoned house situation that was talked
11:00:43 about earlier.
11:00:45 That is the key to everything.
11:00:48 And why not try enforcement of your present sign code
11:00:53 that was just approved February 2002.
11:00:57 We F we try enforcing the sign code and it doesn't
11:01:01 clean up the city, then there is opportunity to look
11:01:03 at other avenues.

11:01:03 But I don't feel that the business community should be
11:01:05 punished for certain offenders continually offending
11:01:10 and not being reprimanded by code enforcement.
11:01:14 I would be happy to answer any questions.
11:01:16 And I thank you for your time.
11:01:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, sir.
11:01:18 Next.
11:01:20 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman.
11:01:25 I do want to make some comments.
11:01:28 Probably because -- sir, I have gotten your
11:01:33 correspondence through Ms. CURY.
11:01:36 I didn't realize we were going to be displayed here
11:01:39 and I wish it had happened before the election because
11:01:41 that would have been free advertising.
11:01:42 But in any case, some of the issues, I don't know, we
11:01:45 are going to discuss it at length, at least Mr. Shelby
11:01:49 isn't, Ms. Coyle is, when we have a more expanded
11:01:52 discussion.
11:01:52 But some of those concerns you brought up were
11:01:55 considered by our sign code.
11:01:57 For instance, in the example that you gave "A" versus
11:02:01 "D," yes that would cut the sign lower.

11:02:04 But, however, be compensated for that because of the
11:02:07 canyon effect.
11:02:08 If this owner of this property, in this case being
11:02:11 myself, had to comply with this, if there were change
11:02:14 of use, because if there is no change of use -- if we
11:02:18 had a change of use, then we compensated for these
11:02:21 kinds of issues for owners, particularly small
11:02:24 business owners would be concerned about this, because
11:02:26 of the canyon effect.
11:02:27 The further back you went, the higher you can go.
11:02:30 So there is still some factors that would weigh with
11:02:34 that but at the same time I said given the same usage,
11:02:41 there would be no requirement to change that.
11:02:44 And the second thing I just want to tell you, sir, is
11:02:47 that I certainly appreciate your suggestion about th
11:02:50 enforcement of the ordinance.
11:02:52 This committee who has been in existence or has been
11:02:56 in existence for I guess over a year had that same
11:03:00 suggestion.
11:03:00 And enforcement is always at the basis of the validity
11:03:04 or the effectiveness of an ordinance.
11:03:07 For some of you who remember, Mr. Rotella and myself

11:03:10 and some of our other committee, did schedule a
11:03:12 meeting with the mayor, and didn't get as far as we
11:03:16 wanted it to get as far as enforcement personnel,
11:03:20 specifically given the task or the challenge of
11:03:21 enforcing our sign ordinance.
11:03:24 So hopefully, as you colleagues go further, remember
11:03:27 that as we go forward in terms of cleaning up the city
11:03:31 in terms of sign pollution, might want to ask again
11:03:34 whether or not we can do enforcement.
11:03:37 So we are on the same page.
11:03:39 It's not a new idea but I appreciate the fact that you
11:03:41 brought it up again and hopefully we'll all work to
11:03:44 that end.
11:03:45 Sorry to interrupt you.
11:03:47 >> Bob Smith, owner of electric sign company, I'm a
11:03:51 state certified electric sign contractor and I have
11:03:53 been doing signs for going on 23 years.
11:03:57 I was fortunate to be a member of the committee for
11:04:00 the sign and also Frank POLSTUM, was the other
11:04:07 licensed sign contractor that was in on this program,
11:04:10 too.
11:04:10 We support, Frank and I, we feel the same way, we

11:04:13 support the new code, and we like it.
11:04:16 There's one problem we cannot and that is the
11:04:19 electronic message centers.
11:04:21 And this is a very popular one.
11:04:23 This is an electronic mess annal centers where the
11:04:28 copy can be changed.
11:04:31 These are the ones that the city has.
11:04:33 Now, the city has quite a few electronic message
11:04:37 centers and there's no restriction on these.
11:04:39 They run them 24 hours a day.
11:04:41 They are they look great.
11:04:43 And I am going to put through some of them here.
11:04:47 'S arts center, big electronic message board.
11:04:51 The Tampa -- this is a beautiful sign. This is really
11:04:55 nice.
11:04:55 It is all electronic messages.
11:04:57 And they are running 24 hours a day.
11:04:59 No restrictions.
11:05:00 No time requirements between messages.
11:05:03 Here's another shot.
11:05:04 I you just took the other day.
11:05:06 You can see the L.E.D. even for directional signs

11:05:09 going down to Channelside.
11:05:14 Another one the city owns.
11:05:16 Tampa Convention Center.
11:05:18 Full electronics.
11:05:19 Now we go to the state.
11:05:20 The state has the same privileges that the City of
11:05:22 Tampa has.
11:05:23 They can run their signs 24 hours a day, put anything
11:05:26 on it, no restrictions.
11:05:30 Another state-owned sign.
11:05:35 Sun dome.
11:05:37 This one is full color, too.
11:05:43 This is a very big one.
11:05:46 Here are some new ones that I just caught wind on down
11:05:49 on Channelside by Hooters, directional signs to where
11:05:52 the ships come in.
11:05:53 This sign was kind of interesting, because they are
11:05:58 real close to where that roundabout area is down at
11:06:01 Channelside.
11:06:02 You don't see the numbers on it very well.
11:06:04 But that sign is probably 6 feet long, probably 12
11:06:08 inches tall. That thing is changing faster than --

11:06:11 less than a second.
11:06:12 And it's saying, next terminal, terminal parking, turn
11:06:16 left.
11:06:16 And it does it three or four times before you even get
11:06:19 through there.
11:06:20 So this is very good for you to find your way around.
11:06:27 Otherwise, you would have to read, parking terminal.
11:06:30 But this is flashing constantly.
11:06:32 It does get your attention.
11:06:33 I think it's a great way to point people in the right
11:06:35 direction when they are in a 30 mile-an-hour zone.
11:06:41 This huge L.E.D. electronic message center is coming
11:06:47 into Tampa, that's Tampa in the background there.
11:06:51 Now, the federal highway administration controls these
11:06:55 types of signs.
11:06:56 And there was -- was a study done by the Florida
11:06:59 highway administration back in 1980.
11:07:02 And it was upgraded again in 2001.
11:07:06 And what they found out, that was electronic message
11:07:12 boards do not cause car crashes as found in this
11:07:15 study.
11:07:16 And this is also for public and private use.

11:07:20 The electronic message provided a high contrast
11:07:24 between characters and background, thus providing
11:07:26 super legibility performance reflecting signs at
11:07:29 night.
11:07:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up, sir.
11:07:33 Thank you.
11:07:34 Would anyone else like to speak?
11:07:35 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What is your point on bringing this to
11:07:48 us?
11:07:48 >>> Well, right now, the present code is electronic
11:07:51 message boards in the City of Tampa can only change
11:07:53 once every 24 hours.
11:07:56 We just find that totally ridiculous.
11:07:58 What we want, we want the same liberties that the
11:08:01 state has, the federal highway, and the City of Tampa
11:08:04 has, for everyone that wants to have an electronic
11:08:08 message board to have one for their business.
11:08:10 We want no restrictions on them.
11:08:12 We want whatever the same thing the city and the State
11:08:15 of Florida has.
11:08:16 That's what we are asking.
11:08:17 This is the only point in the committee that we cannot

11:08:20 come together on.
11:08:25 Electronic message boards.
11:08:26 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:08:30 When I got the sign code previously and we had the
11:08:33 workshop on it, I did indicate to you that there was
11:08:35 only one issue which the sign committee did not have
11:08:37 consensus on and that was the electronic sign issue.
11:08:41 What we are proposing in the code and moving forward
11:08:44 is to codify the current process and policies for
11:08:50 electronic signs, which is you can have a sign that
11:08:52 has electronic messages, but those electronic messages
11:08:57 cannot change more than once in a 24-hour period.
11:09:01 Mr. Smith -- and I believe you will hear from some
11:09:04 other folks -- argue that why it would be appropriate
11:09:07 to add additional liability for electronic signs in
11:09:11 our sign code.
11:09:13 That's what I believe Mr. Smith is indicating right
11:09:14 now.
11:09:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just wondering if we haven't
11:09:22 looked at some sort of compromise position.
11:09:28 I may not be here so I am going to spit it out now.
11:09:37 I'm just wondering if we can't find a compromise

11:09:39 position when we have the special discussion.
11:09:43 On the one hand, I do think that the moving, you know,
11:09:47 constantly moving and scrolling and all of that, you
11:09:50 know, downtown I think that's fine, and elsewhere, you
11:09:54 know, I don't think we need Times Square all over the
11:09:58 City of Tampa.
11:10:00 And in terms of all that busyness.
11:10:04 But the flip side is, if the message changes, you
11:10:07 know, every 30 seconds or once a minute or something
11:10:10 like that -- I'm not allowed to talk about these
11:10:15 things?
11:10:16 Okay.
11:10:17 If a message -- message changes every 30 seconds or
11:10:20 once a minute I am not going to thereby to look at it.
11:10:23 You know what I mean?
11:10:25 I'm driving in my car and I have moved on so it's kind
11:10:27 of irrelevant to me as the passer-by.
11:10:31 So I think that maybe there is -- and whether or not
11:10:36 it's one minute or 24 hours, doesn't really make a
11:10:39 difference.
11:10:40 Because I'm still not going to be there.
11:10:43 So I think that there might be some opportunity to

11:10:45 tighten it down from 24 hours to something a lot less.
11:10:49 But still not have it be busy, busy, busy, moving,
11:10:53 jumping, flashing, beeping, booping.
11:10:57 Okay.
11:10:57 So one of the reasons we were talking about we met
11:11:01 halfway somewhere is that our square footage of the
11:11:05 city, remember, is coming down from the old code from
11:11:08 300-some odd square feet.
11:11:10 >> That's a nice improvement.
11:11:12 >>> Down to 50.
11:11:13 So we are trying to work something in there.
11:11:15 Especially for our multiple occupancy.
11:11:17 We have several stores.
11:11:19 One 50-square foot sign could flash --
11:11:22 >> You see what I'm saying.
11:11:24 I'm sort of agreeing with you.
11:11:25 I don't know that it needs the change to be totally
11:11:27 unrestricted as you said as compared to maybe having
11:11:30 some reasonable thing if it changes once a minute or
11:11:33 once every couple of minutes.
11:11:34 So be it.
11:11:35 And that way, your multiple tenants can get plenty of

11:11:39 air time.
11:11:39 >> Hillsborough County code has second second
11:11:43 intervals, change every six seconds.
11:11:46 >> That's a little busy.
11:11:47 But, anyway, fine.
11:11:51 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
11:11:52 I was going to mention what Bob just mentioned to you,
11:11:55 and that is there are other jurisdictions that have
11:11:59 different time sequences.
11:12:01 We'll certainly that bring to you during the workshop.
11:12:04 But one of the things being considered, I think Mr.
11:12:06 Dingfelder may have been one of the initiators of
11:12:08 this.
11:12:08 This that is that we need to look at certain areas of
11:12:11 our city and we may want to have certain sets of
11:12:15 requirements.
11:12:16 We have an entertainment district.
11:12:17 Perhaps that term is not the best term of art.
11:12:19 But largely the downtown Channel District and maybe
11:12:23 Ybor City in which we should have certain types of
11:12:25 sign requirements that may reflect the activities that
11:12:29 go on there and will provide the sort of entertainment

11:12:32 atmosphere that might be conducive.
11:12:35 I believe that's some of the discussion previously.
11:12:36 I don't know if we will have that with the very next
11:12:40 round but if we are going to have a workshop I guess
11:12:42 it makes sense to start that process as well.
11:12:45 I want to let you know we are looking at that issue
11:12:47 also.
11:12:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I was always under the impression if
11:12:50 you wrote ordinances it was for the whole city.
11:12:53 And I'm glad to see that we can regulate some cities,
11:12:58 you know, some areas, and not make it one fits all.
11:13:05 And that seems to be a problem with the city is that
11:13:07 we try to do that.
11:13:09 We try to fit everybody into one NFL and it doesn't
11:13:12 work that way.
11:13:15 >>DAVID SMITH: Essentially what we have to do is if we
11:13:19 treat different areas differently, we have to have a
11:13:22 bona fide reason for doing so.
11:13:24 And we think we do with regard to entertainment
11:13:26 district.
11:13:26 So as long as we have a legitimate basis for a
11:13:30 distinction that's appropriate and fair to do so.

11:13:32 And that's part of what we are researching now to make
11:13:34 sure we don't go beyond the scope of that
11:13:36 differentiation, because as you know, this is an area
11:13:39 that's --
11:13:44 >> My other question, Bob brought up it seems to be
11:13:47 two sets of ideas, one is the city can do whatever
11:13:51 they want, Hillsborough County can do whatever they
11:13:53 want, but everybody else has to conform to what we say
11:13:57 is part of an ordinance.
11:13:59 I mean, it's got to be Fairall the way around.
11:14:02 >>> We will be addressing that.
11:14:03 You're correct.
11:14:04 We do need to mention, we have consistency.
11:14:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:14:08 Next.
11:14:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman.
11:14:11 This is a question for staff.
11:14:13 That is when we have this workshop, if you could bring
11:14:15 us the ordinances from other municipalities in
11:14:19 Florida, that would be helpful.
11:14:21 You don't have to say anything.
11:14:22 That would be helpful.

11:14:23 Thank you.
11:14:25 >>> Joe Robinson changing the subject matter.
11:14:28 I am here talking on items 1 and 26, as the vice chair
11:14:32 of the northwest Hillsborough basin board with SWFWMD.
11:14:37 I'm pleased, the city is pleased the city is moving
11:14:40 forward with reclaimed water, Star 1.
11:14:42 This is the phase 1 of the South Tampa area reclaimed
11:14:46 water project.
11:14:46 And I want to say that this is going a long way to
11:14:51 make sure that our water issues are involved in Tampa.
11:14:54 They are going to get worse.
11:14:56 Especially with the issue of minimum flows on the
11:14:59 Hillsborough River.
11:15:00 That is a hot topic.
11:15:02 I will be following that for the city.
11:15:04 And trying to make sure that it's resolved equitably
11:15:08 and fairly.
11:15:09 It's going to be one of those issues that the city
11:15:15 uses upstream of the dam as a reservoir to hold its
11:15:18 water.
11:15:19 People are withdrawing water.
11:15:23 On the other end we want you to maintain the oxygen

11:15:27 level by having the minimum flow.
11:15:29 I believe there was an area, that error has been
11:15:35 corrected in what the numbers should be.
11:15:37 However, I believe that if you start having the
11:15:40 minimum flow, and normally there's no flow over or
11:15:44 under the dam, then it creates an issue because what
11:15:48 happens is the city -- what is flowing down the river,
11:15:53 now you are draining down your storage and now you are
11:15:56 going to have to go and pay Tampa Bay water.
11:15:58 So I believe that the city is always had their own
11:16:02 water supply, and it's been somewhat adequate.
11:16:06 But now with minimum flow levels, that you have an
11:16:10 upstream withdrawal, the city is being put in a
11:16:12 quandary, where they are going to be caught in the
11:16:15 middle.
11:16:15 So I am going to be monitoring that and making sure
11:16:18 that this city keep what it's got but when they don't
11:16:23 have water, Tampa Bay water starts making money, and I
11:16:26 believe what they charge the city residents is going
11:16:29 to be more than what the city is charging.
11:16:31 I just want to say, let's keep moving forward, that
11:16:34 reclaimed water, and Star 1 and get more customers on

11:16:39 line.
11:16:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Robinson I.want to
11:16:42 say a couple of things.
11:16:43 First of all, the number one thing we should do is
11:16:45 conserve.
11:16:46 And then we have to talk about a balance between
11:16:48 paying more to Tampa Bay water, and protecting our
11:16:51 environment.
11:16:52 And I think that that's the kind of balance we have to
11:16:54 look at.
11:16:56 >>> I agree.
11:16:57 Thank you.
11:16:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
11:16:59 We go to our ordinances for first reading.
11:17:02 Item number 9.
11:17:03 Mrs. Alvarez, would you read that, please?
11:17:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance of the city of Tampa,
11:17:19 Florida amending the City of Tampa code chapter 17.5
11:17:22 article II, section 17.5-17 entitled "created" to
11:17:27 amend the list of chapters, articles, and ordinances
11:17:30 enumerated therein as comprising the City of Tampa
11:17:34 Land Development Code, Land Development Code, deleting

11:17:36 certain chapters, articles and ordinances from the
11:17:40 Land Development Code, repealing all ordinances or
11:17:42 parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing
11:17:45 for severability, providing an effective date.
11:17:48 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:17:49 (Motion carried).
11:17:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 10, first reading.
11:17:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: An ordinance approving ans historic
11:18:01 preservation property tax exemption application
11:18:03 relative to the restoration, renovation or
11:18:05 rehabilitation of certain property owned by Eric C.
11:18:08 and Kelly C.lamb I son located at 1401 Nance Avenue,
11:18:14 Tampa, Florida in the Hyde Park historic district
11:18:16 based upon certain findings, providing for notice to
11:18:19 the property appraiser of Hillsborough County,
11:18:21 providing for severability, providing for repeal of
11:18:23 all ordinances in conflict, providing an effective
11:18:25 date.
11:18:26 (Motion Carried).
11:18:26 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our committee reports.
11:18:32 Public safety, Mr. Dingfelder, vice chair.
11:18:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a chance to speak with TPD on

11:18:43 items 13 and 14 and they answered my questions for
11:18:45 this year anyway.
11:18:46 I'll move items 11 through 14.
11:18:49 >> Second.
11:18:49 (Motion carried).
11:18:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Parks, recreation, Ms. Mary Alvarez.
11:18:53 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move items 15 and 16.
11:18:58 >> Second.
11:18:59 (Motion carried).
11:19:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. John Dingfelder.
11:19:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Item 17 was removed.
11:19:13 Move to remove item 17 and item 25 from the agenda.
11:19:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:19:19 (Motion carried).
11:19:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to approve items 18 through
11:19:25 24, 26 through 29.
11:19:31 Hold on one second.
11:19:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Discussion on the motion?
11:19:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hold on one second.
11:19:39 The motion will stand.
11:19:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:19:41 (Motion carried)

11:19:44 Finance Committee, Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
11:19:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolutions number 30 through
11:19:52 37.
11:19:53 >> Second.
11:19:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There is a question on 35.
11:19:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'm okay with it.
11:20:01 Mr. March low is a member of the -- Marlow is a member
11:20:05 of the Ybor City museum society.
11:20:11 So it's okay.
11:20:12 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
11:20:13 (Motion carried)
11:20:17 Building, zoning, Linda Saul-Sena.
11:20:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I need to do something -- I didn't
11:20:25 do that.
11:20:27 I'm sorry.
11:20:27 I move resolutions 38 through 40.
11:20:30 >> Second.
11:20:30 (Motion carried).
11:20:35 >> For the building, zoning, preservation committee, I
11:20:37 would like to move 42 through 45, and 47 through 56.
11:20:53 >> Second.
11:20:53 (Motion carried).

11:20:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I honestly don't
11:20:58 remember.
11:20:59 Did we put this off for two weeks?
11:21:01 >>GWEN MILLER: A week.
11:21:02 >> Did we already do that?
11:21:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to do that.
11:21:05 >> Number 41 that was the question on port Tampa city.
11:21:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, do you remember, number 41?
11:21:19 >> The piece of property being sold for --
11:21:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We ended up with a month, I think.
11:21:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: so the first week in -- December
11:21:30 7th?
11:21:30 So on number 41, I move to continue this till December
11:21:33 7th.
11:21:34 >> Second.
11:21:34 (Motion carried).
11:21:36 >> And appear under staff reports.
11:21:38 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:21:41 (Motion carried).
11:21:42 Number 46. You want to continue that one.
11:21:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: For how long?
11:21:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The same date.

11:21:50 >> Move to continue item 46 until December 7th.
11:21:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
11:21:55 (Motion carried).
11:21:59 >> And number 57.
11:22:01 We said we were going to hold this until we have our
11:22:04 meeting, our workshop.
11:22:12 >> All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:22:14 Opposed, Nay.
11:22:15 (Motion Carried)
11:22:16 Transportation, Mary Alvarez, vice chair.
11:22:20 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to continue item 58 to
11:22:22 next week.
11:22:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:22:26 (Motion carried).
11:22:27 >> And move item 59 through 56.
11:22:34 >> Second.
11:22:36 -- through 6.
11:22:37 (Motion carried).
11:22:39 >> Now we go to our public hearings for second
11:22:41 reading.
11:22:42 Anyone in the public that's going to speak on items 67
11:22:44 through 82.

11:23:01 Anyone in the public that's going to speak on 7
11:23:03 through 2.
11:23:05 Would you please stand and raise your right hand.
11:23:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What about 85?
11:23:12 (Oath administered by Clerk).
11:23:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, some housekeeping, please.
11:23:19 Ski that all written communications relative to
11:23:20 today's hearings first and second readings which have
11:23:23 been available for public inspection through council's
11:23:25 office be received and filed at this time.
11:23:30 >> So moved.
11:23:30 >> Second.
11:23:31 (Motion Carried).
11:23:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Secondly a quick reminder for council
11:23:35 members, if you have any ex parte communication was
11:23:38 anybody relating to any hearing disclose the sum and
11:23:41 substance of that prior to the vote.
11:23:43 Finally, ladies and gentlemen, for quasi-judicial
11:23:45 hearings, when you state your name, please reaffirm
11:23:48 for the record that you have been sworn.
11:23:50 I will put a little sign here to remind you.
11:23:52 Thank you very much.

11:23:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open the public hearing.
11:23:54 >> So moved.
11:23:55 >> Second.
11:23:55 (Motion carried)
11:23:56 .
11:23:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:23:59 wants to speak on item 67?
11:24:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:24:03 >> Motion and second to close.
11:24:04 (Motion carried).
11:24:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 67.
11:24:10 Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second
11:24:12 reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
11:24:14 revising chapter 22 City of Tampa code of ordinances
11:24:17 amending section 22-235-A, installation and dimension
11:24:22 requirements repealing all ordinances or parts of
11:24:24 ordinances in conflict therewith providing for
11:24:26 severability, providing an effective date.
11:24:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:24:29 Voice roll call.
11:24:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:24:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

11:24:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:24:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:24:39 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:24:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:24:44 being absent.
11:24:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:24:47 wants to speak on item 68?
11:24:50 >> Move to close.
11:24:51 >>: Second.
11:24:51 (Motion carried)
11:24:54 79 Mr. Dingfelder, read 6, please.
11:24:59 >> Move the following ordinance on second reading, an
11:25:01 ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing, and
11:25:03 abandoning a certain right-of-way a portion of Aileen
11:25:07 street at the intersection of and west of north Albany
11:25:10 Avenue in West Tampa heights subdivision a subdivision
11:25:13 in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County Florida the
11:25:16 same being more fully described in section 2 hereof
11:25:18 providing an effective date.
11:25:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
11:25:20 Voice roll call vote.
11:25:23 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white

11:25:29 absent.
11:25:33 It is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:25:36 on item 69?
11:25:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:25:39 >>: Second.
11:25:39 (Motion carried).
11:25:40 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance
11:25:46 upon second reading.
11:25:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Are you getting melancholy on us?
11:25:55 >>ROSE FERLITA: An ordinance vacating, closing,
11:25:57 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way
11:26:01 all that portion of 72nd street bounded by the 8th
11:26:05 Avenue to the north and 7th Avenue to the south in
11:26:08 orient park a subdivision in the City of Tampa the
11:26:10 same being more fully described in section 2 hereof
11:26:13 providing an effective date.
11:26:13 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:26:15 Voice roll call.
11:26:27 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:26:29 absent.
11:26:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:26:31 wants to speak on item number 70?

11:26:34 >> Move to close.
11:26:35 >> Second.
11:26:35 (Motion carried).
11:26:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move to adopt the following ordinance
11:26:40 upon second reading, an ordinance of the city of
11:26:42 Tampa, Florida approving a first amendment to a
11:26:44 development order rendered pursuant to chapter 3 0
11:26:47 Florida statutes for the independenten park
11:26:49 development of regional impact DRI number 250 and
11:26:52 providing an effective date.
11:26:54 >> Second.
11:26:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Voice roll call.
11:27:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:27:06 absent.
11:27:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:27:09 wants ton speak on item 71?
11:27:12 You may come up and speak.
11:27:34 >>> My name is NISHA.
11:27:36 I have property at 3105.
11:27:45 Shopping center.
11:27:47 >> Are you in favor of the project?
11:27:50 >>> Yes, sir.

11:27:50 And in favor of it.
11:27:59 >> Would anyone else like to speak?
11:28:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:28:03 >> Second.
11:28:03 (Motion carried).
11:28:04 >>ROSE FERLITA: I want to say something in response to
11:28:11 that petition.
11:28:12 I think I was the only no vote on it.
11:28:15 And I did go by that place and look at it.
11:28:17 And while I know some people were here in opposition
11:28:20 to it the first time, the opportunity to look at it
11:28:25 again, certainly we don't want to encourage wet
11:28:27 zonings that will be a problem to a neighborhood or to
11:28:30 any churches or anybody in that immediate area.
11:28:32 But I think given the footing, the size, everything, I
11:28:36 certainly think this will serve that community.
11:28:38 And I am going to reverse my vote at this point and I
11:28:41 am going to support it as well.
11:28:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
11:28:47 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance making
11:28:49 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol more
11:28:52 than 1% by weight and not more than 14% weight and

11:28:56 wines regardless of alcoholic content beer and wine
11:28:59 2(COP-R) for couples on premises only in connection
11:29:02 with a restaurant business establishment at or from
11:29:04 that certain lot, plot or tract ever land located at
11:29:08 6102 South MacDill Avenue Tampa, Florida as more
11:29:11 particularly described in section 2 hereof waiving
11:29:15 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
11:29:17 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
11:29:20 conflict, providing an effective date.
11:29:22 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:29:23 Voice roll call.
11:29:31 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:29:38 absent.
11:29:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:29:41 wants to speak on item 72?
11:29:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:29:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:29:45 (Motion carried).
11:29:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
11:29:49 ordinance upon second reading.
11:29:51 An ordinance repealing ordinance number 7010-A making
11:29:55 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of

11:29:57 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
11:30:00 and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and
11:30:03 wine, 2(APS), in sealed containers for consumption off
11:30:06 premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or
11:30:09 tract of land located at 2333 west Hillsborough
11:30:12 Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described
11:30:15 in section 3 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as
11:30:18 to distance based upon certain findings, providing for
11:30:20 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
11:30:23 effective date.
11:30:23 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:30:25 Voice roll call.
11:30:27 >>THE CLERK: Who was the second?
11:30:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:30:32 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:30:42 absent.
11:30:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:30:45 wants to speak on item 73?
11:30:47 >> Move to close.
11:30:47 >> Second.
11:30:48 (Motion carried).
11:30:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the following

11:30:54 ordinance upon second reading.
11:30:55 An ordinance making lawful the sale of beverages
11:30:57 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and
11:30:59 liquor, 3 PS, in sealed containers for consumption off
11:31:03 premises only at or from that certain lot, plot or
11:31:05 tract of land located at 2333 west Hillsborough
11:31:09 Avenue, Tampa, Florida as more particularly described
11:31:11 in section 2 hereof, waiving certain restrictions as
11:31:14 to distance based upon certain findings, providing for
11:31:17 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing an
11:31:19 effective date.
11:31:20 >> I have a motion and second.
11:31:21 Voice roll call.
11:31:31 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:31:35 absent.
11:31:36 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:31:38 on item 74?
11:31:39 >> Move to close.
11:31:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance upon
11:31:47 second reading, an ordinance rezoning properties in
11:31:49 the general vicinity of 100 West Kennedy Boulevard in
11:31:52 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly

11:31:54 described in section 1 from zoning district
11:31:56 classifications central business district office,
11:32:00 CBD2, central business district office, restaurant
11:32:04 residential, providing an effective date.
11:32:05 >> I have a motion and second.
11:32:07 Voice roll call.
11:32:19 Motion carried with Harrison and white absent.
11:32:22 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
11:32:25 on item 75?
11:32:26 You may come up and speak.
11:32:29 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:32:31 Before we move forward, some comments from the public,
11:32:34 I did want to let you know where we are in terms of a
11:32:38 discussion.
11:32:40 I understand -- I was not at the hearing but I
11:32:42 understand at the hearing the petitioner agreed to
11:32:45 place as part of the development agreement a
11:32:46 restriction on the use of the retail portion of this
11:32:49 project for certain retail uses.
11:32:51 In looking at it legally, I didn't feel that was an
11:32:54 appropriate use of a development agreement.
11:32:56 So what I am recommending -- and I feel there is a

11:32:59 much better way to accomplish it the use of
11:33:02 restrictive covenant.
11:33:03 I prepared some language.
11:33:04 Mr. Mechanik is looking at it and I believe we will be
11:33:06 able to come to conclusion on that language.
11:33:08 And that restriction will actually run with the land
11:33:11 instead of being a contractual obligation.
11:33:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Mechanik, did you want to speak on
11:33:19 that?
11:33:20 >>DAVID MECHANIK: We are perfectly agreeable to
11:33:23 Julia's proposal.
11:33:26 >>GWEN MILLER: You may speak.
11:33:28 >>> Janell Hanson, 101 park street.
11:33:31 I have been sworn in.
11:33:32 There are three key points I would like to bring to
11:33:34 your attention, that are being taken care of.
11:33:37 One being the fact of developers conditions.
11:33:39 We were told by the city we would be -- would be the
11:33:43 only thing accessible in the Channel District.
11:33:45 As you were talking earlier, very clearly, as far as
11:33:48 how you address illegal signs, something can be
11:33:54 circumvented, any of the -- in the developer's

11:33:57 agreement.
11:33:57 That is solely between the people in the city and the
11:34:01 developer.
11:34:02 It goes around being checked by code.
11:34:04 We have only one developer's agreement in the
11:34:06 neighborhood right now.
11:34:07 It is the Meridian.
11:34:08 The Meridian has public access street parking but they
11:34:13 turn into private parking.
11:34:14 Transportation cannot enforce anything on it.
11:34:16 People can be towed.
11:34:19 To show you where to pick up your car if towed by the
11:34:24 developer isn't even visible on the screen. That is
11:34:27 legal.
11:34:27 Why?
11:34:27 Because it was a developer's agreement.
11:34:29 So all we ask is that anything that is in the Channel
11:34:31 District, please be on the site plan so that it is
11:34:34 developer's conditions, and all departments can advise
11:34:37 you correctly in that sense.
11:34:39 As well as also to make sure the community of the
11:34:42 developer works together so that when the development

11:34:44 is being built, such as in the past being able to
11:34:49 ferry their workers and subcontractors from a parking
11:34:52 garage to the site.
11:34:53 As you know our streets are narrow, we have residents,
11:34:55 and we have fledgling retail opening up and we wanted
11:34:58 that to be able to work well as the developer also
11:35:01 build their development, so it's a success for
11:35:03 everyone and everything.
11:35:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's interesting you mentioning
11:35:09 this because I was at a meeting of Bayshore residents
11:35:12 last night, and they expressed a similar concern.
11:35:17 The concern being that we are not necessarily
11:35:20 including some of the types of conditions on the site
11:35:23 plan, conditions of how are you going to deal with --
11:35:29 especially for large projects.
11:35:30 How are you going to deal with the surrounding
11:35:34 streets?
11:35:34 How are you going to deal with surrounding communities
11:35:36 during construction?
11:35:39 And I think we need to sort that out.
11:35:41 Because, you know, for one thing, some of these
11:35:44 highlights projects that we have seen downtown or in

11:35:47 Channelside are closing off, you know, streets or
11:35:49 portions of streets for a long period of time.
11:35:52 And they do that merely by going to transportation
11:35:55 staff, and asking for a permit, a right-of-way permit,
11:36:00 a closure permit for X amount of time.
11:36:03 I think that those are types of issues that should be
11:36:06 banged out in advance, and put on the PD site
11:36:10 conditions.
11:36:11 And it's a funny coincidence because I hadn't really
11:36:15 given it much thought until last night and here you
11:36:17 are saying the same thing.
11:36:19 >> If I can add to that, transportation proactively
11:36:22 wanted to reach a community.
11:36:23 So Victory Lofts community, got as many as we put
11:36:26 together for an hour and a half.
11:36:27 It was Jim Corbett, Wayne Mixdorf and Jonathan Scott.
11:36:32 I believe tookly took a parking garage, had places for
11:36:39 the people to park there and they were ferrying people
11:36:42 back and forth from the site to their cars, because
11:36:45 that's one of the issues of transportation on top of
11:36:47 the developer's agreement, the off street issue, is
11:36:50 the fact that people live there during the day, they

11:36:53 are parking right in front of homes, in front of
11:36:55 retail.
11:36:56 To get ordinances, people to come out and fix that,
11:36:58 they just write the check.
11:36:59 And I'm sure it won't be the case hopefully with these
11:37:03 developers but can we make sure that it doesn't
11:37:05 happen?
11:37:05 Because right now we are asking for help.
11:37:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much for bringing this
11:37:11 before council.
11:37:13 I think what should have to happen in a formalized way
11:37:16 is that when projects of a certain scale come before
11:37:19 council that we are assured that there is a
11:37:25 construction -- throws a word for it.
11:37:30 It's like a mitigation plan, that addresses the
11:37:34 parking of the people working on the project, and
11:37:36 staging of the equipment.
11:37:41 So if that falls through, for one thing it will
11:37:45 probably cut down on speculative row zoning and ensure
11:37:48 the neighborhood that they will be protected during
11:37:50 the construction process.
11:37:52 So I really appreciate you bringing this to us and I

11:37:56 guess I would like to hear from our legal department,
11:37:59 because -- Julia?
11:38:06 I felt like we were hearing two different things, is
11:38:09 it better for these things to be in the covenant or
11:38:13 develop err Griese and can we address the construction
11:38:17 staging.
11:38:19 >>> Developer's conditions.
11:38:21 >>JULIA COLE: Lem department as it relates to the
11:38:26 specific issue.
11:38:27 And this rezoning, it was really an agreed-upon
11:38:29 restriction to the type of retail uses and now there's
11:38:33 more appropriate -- as opposed to a development
11:38:37 agreement.
11:38:38 We can have a long conversation about that.
11:38:40 Appropriate use of development agreement.
11:38:41 But I think, you know, there are certain instances,
11:38:45 where you can utilize -- in essence, you are rezoning
11:38:47 your PD rezoning and you have notes.
11:38:50 Those are in essence a contract as well.
11:38:52 So they can be utilized for these kinds of issues.
11:38:55 However, if you wanted to have something that's in
11:38:58 place for, say, developments of certain size or scale,

11:39:02 that require them to provide construction, staging
11:39:09 plan, you probably want to go ahead and codify that in
11:39:13 your ordinance, so that it's something that is done.
11:39:18 You ma I not want to necessarily Ned it done at the re
11:39:21 zoning stage but somewhere between rezoning and
11:39:24 permits or doing some kind of work on the site.
11:39:27 You may want to do that the way.
11:39:29 There's a variety of different ways it can be dealt
11:39:31 with.
11:39:31 I would recommend that it is better done probably in
11:39:34 ordinance, in form of ordinance than on a case-by-case
11:39:38 basis.
11:39:39 But when we get to that point you can certainly make
11:39:41 that request during council meeting.
11:39:43 >> I think we need to do something about it because
11:39:45 more and more construction is happening in that area,
11:39:47 and it's really putting the burden on the residences
11:39:54 to find parking spaces especially when we are living
11:39:57 there. We don't know because we don't live in that
11:39:59 area.
11:39:59 But I could see that this could become a nightmare for
11:40:02 them.

11:40:02 So we need to work on this somehow.
11:40:05 Mr. Mechanik, did you have any thoughts on how to
11:40:09 mitigate this?
11:40:11 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Well, I was at least perceiving that
11:40:15 most of these comments weren't really directed at our
11:40:17 petition but a concern in general and I was hoping
11:40:19 that was the case.
11:40:22 You do have a right-of-way permit procedure in the
11:40:25 code.
11:40:25 And I believe that's where that would normally be
11:40:28 addressed.
11:40:29 I don't know if it's working well.
11:40:39 But you do have a -- the staff can impose conditions
11:40:42 and so forth.
11:40:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems to me we need to do something
11:40:47 about it because the street is within the project
11:40:49 itself are very narrow.
11:40:50 And when you start putting construction vehicles in
11:40:54 all kinds of, I guess, it puts a burden on the
11:41:00 homeowners and people that are living in there.
11:41:10 >>CHAIRMAN: That's not the concern of this project.
11:41:13 We need to do that after.

11:41:15 Mr. Dingfelder, something concerning this project?
11:41:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, perhaps.
11:41:22 Transportation, Melanie, did you want to speak to this
11:41:24 issue, or this issue generally?
11:41:29 >>> The issue about the Meridian or the parking?
11:41:32 >> Well, staging and -- I mean, we have problems with
11:41:36 the large projects, the Alagon, over in South Tampa.
11:41:45 I think there's clearly a problem in Channelside.
11:41:47 I won't even drive through those streets in
11:41:50 Channelside because I don't know what's going to be
11:41:52 closed or open next.
11:41:53 And I sympathies with the residents who actually live
11:41:58 there during all of this.
11:42:00 So how do we get a better handle on it, a better
11:42:03 control on it?
11:42:04 Mr. Mechanik, I don't even know --
11:42:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Why don't we.
11:42:09 >> Well, this is fine if you want to.
11:42:13 >> Come back and tell us after we vote on this
11:42:16 project.
11:42:18 Are we going to make a suggestion of what we can do?
11:42:20 >> Well, unless we added some conditions to this one

11:42:25 and all the other Channelsides that we approved two
11:42:28 weeks ago.
11:42:29 I don't know.
11:42:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This might be the opportunity to do
11:42:36 it because if it is we want top do it now.
11:42:38 >> Right.
11:42:38 Because when don't want to get past second reading.
11:42:40 >>JULIA COLE: I think if you are going to request any
11:42:43 of the conditions of these projects to change we would
11:42:46 need to hear from petitioner.
11:42:49 It would actually go back to first reading.
11:42:51 But I do think what we could do, and there would be
11:42:54 nothing that will prey clued these projects to from
11:42:59 moving forward is if we codify within a right-of-way
11:43:02 process that they will require before building permits
11:43:05 are issued that a construction staging plan is
11:43:08 produced to the city and approved, that just because
11:43:12 these receive rezoning doesn't mean that they still
11:43:15 wouldn't have to comply with such an ordinance and
11:43:17 there may be a way for us to look at the issue and
11:43:20 going back and codify that, and that way all of these
11:43:23 projects that have been already been rezoned would

11:43:27 still have to comply.
11:43:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In that neighborhood anyway.
11:43:35 >>ROSE FERLITA: I think you are absolutely right, Ms.
11:43:37 Cole, it seems we continue to make this along with the
11:43:40 project that Mr. Mechanik is representing, and I don't
11:43:42 think that's fair.
11:43:43 If there are issues in terms ever staging that have to
11:43:46 be complied with, a bidded by, but it seems like now
11:43:50 we are making this somewhat directly connected with
11:43:54 the project we are discussing.
11:43:55 And I don't know that that's fair in the process.
11:43:59 >>GWEN MILLER: We are going to move on.
11:44:01 Anyone else in the public that wants to speak on item
11:44:03 number 75?
11:44:04 >> Move to close 69 can D we get a second?
11:44:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:44:11 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Saul-Sena.
11:44:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question --
11:44:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We closed.
11:44:16 Did you want to read that?
11:44:17 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
11:44:19 We are aware of some issues in Channelside and we have

11:44:22 been working with the right-of-way permitting section
11:44:24 as well as our construction service, and try to work
11:44:27 out some issues, and transportation is aware of what's
11:44:32 going on down there. Kind of been bombarded with
11:44:35 building quickly on new projects.
11:44:39 We do understand what's going on down there.
11:44:41 We are trying to work on it.
11:44:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We know that the transportation
11:44:47 department is wear of it.
11:44:49 We wanted developers to know that there's a problem.
11:44:51 >>GWEN MILLER: The public hearing is closed.
11:44:53 We cannot discuss it.
11:44:59 Do you want to read it?
11:45:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, I support it.
11:45:02 I would like to move the following ordinance upon
11:45:04 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
11:45:06 general vicinity of 102 Whiting Street and 105 and 109
11:45:10 Meridian Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
11:45:12 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
11:45:15 district classifications CD-1 Channel District to CD-3
11:45:19 Channel District, retail and multifamily residential,
11:45:21 providing an effective date.

11:45:22 With the understanding that there will be a way to
11:45:25 address the retail uses with the legal department.
11:45:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call vote.
11:45:39 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:45:46 absent.
11:45:47 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Saul-Sena?
11:45:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to request we get a
11:45:52 report back from legal in three weeks working in
11:45:54 conjunction with transportation to address the staging
11:45:56 issues and also the construction worker parking for
11:45:59 large-scale projects.
11:46:00 I would like to you come back with something that we
11:46:02 can act on, or some way that you all can do something
11:46:06 about it.
11:46:07 But it needs to recognize the projects previously
11:46:11 approved have to play to --
11:46:15 >> And it's not just Channelside.
11:46:16 Any large project.
11:46:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And it also needs to include some
11:46:22 process by which the neighborhood can provide input on
11:46:25 the plan that's being proposed.
11:46:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.

11:46:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:46:30 (Motion carried)
11:46:32 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
11:46:34 item number 76?
11:46:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
11:46:38 >> Second.
11:46:38 (Motion carried).
11:46:38 >>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Ferlita, would you read that, please?
11:46:44 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes, move to adopt the following
11:46:46 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning
11:46:49 property in the general vicinity of 501 and 503 south
11:46:53 Fremont Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
11:46:54 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
11:46:57 district classifications RM-16 residential multifamily
11:47:00 to PD planned development, single-family attached,
11:47:04 providing an effective date.
11:47:05 79 motion and second.
11:47:07 Voice roll call.
11:47:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 76?
11:47:13 No.
11:47:20 76 is no.
11:47:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.

11:47:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
11:47:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
11:47:26 >>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
11:47:29 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to bring it back next week.
11:47:33 >> No, it's denied.
11:47:35 >> Motion carried 3 to 2.
11:47:37 >> Don't you have to have four affirmative votes?
11:47:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion was to approve.
11:47:45 And it failed to get the requisite four votes.
11:47:48 Under council rules it comes back at the next meeting
11:47:51 at a closed public hearing under unfinished business.
11:47:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that wants to speak to
11:47:59 77?
11:47:59 >>: Move to close.
11:48:00 >> Second.
11:48:01 (Motion carried).
11:48:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move the following ordinance upon
11:48:06 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
11:48:08 general vicinity of 504 north Hubert Avenue, in the
11:48:11 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
11:48:14 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
11:48:16 RS-50 residential single family to PD planned

11:48:19 development single family attached, providing an
11:48:21 effective date.
11:48:21 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
11:48:23 Voice roll call.
11:48:32 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:48:37 absent.
11:48:38 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants
11:48:40 to speak on item 79?
11:48:49 78.
11:48:49 I'm sorry.
11:48:50 78.
11:48:51 Need a motion to close the public hearing.
11:48:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:48:54 >>CHAIRMAN: Second, Mrs. Alvarez?
11:48:59 All in favor?
11:49:00 Opposed?
11:49:02 (Motion carried).
11:49:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
11:49:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 7.
11:49:05 Move to adopt the following ordinance on second
11:49:09 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
11:49:11 vicinity of 4110 George Road in the city of Tampa,

11:49:14 Florida and more particularly described in section 1
11:49:16 from zoning district classifications PD-A planned
11:49:19 developmental alternative, office, parking, retention,
11:49:22 to PD-A, planned developmental alternative, mixed use
11:49:27 office, residential, retail, hotel, providing an
11:49:29 effective date.
11:49:30 69 roll call vote.
11:49:34 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
11:49:37 absent.
11:49:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
11:49:40 wants to speak on item 9?
11:49:47 >>> Land development.
11:49:51 Came to our office, a letter, City of Tampa, wanted to
11:49:55 give a 204.
11:49:57 We made copies for council.
11:49:59 >>GWEN MILLER: You may come up and speak.
11:50:10 >>> Richard REVICC, 3907 West Gray Street.
11:50:15 Yes, I have been sworn in.
11:50:16 First, congratulations, Ms. Ferlita.
11:50:19 My name is Richard.
11:50:22 I'm also the secretary of the north neighborhood
11:50:25 association.

11:50:26 Our president could not be here today so I am speaking
11:50:28 on behalf of the board.
11:50:30 There are so many things wrong with this proposal.
11:50:33 And I will try to hit on as many as I can in the
11:50:35 allotted time.
11:50:36 First, it has been stated numerous times previously by
11:50:39 this council that the vision of Kennedy Boulevard is
11:50:42 that of a gateway view corridor.
11:50:44 This council has adhered to the requests made on
11:50:51 Kennedy and the Gateway Boulevard and we respectfully
11:50:54 request that you continue this practice.
11:50:56 The petitioner stated that he had absolutely no
11:51:00 negative feedback regarding this proposal and has
11:51:03 actually received a letter in support.
11:51:05 Our association and board has unanimously and
11:51:09 steadfastly opposed this from the start, and sent
11:51:13 Mr. Bentley a letter stating this, as well as
11:51:16 presenting council a petition with over 200 signatures
11:51:19 in opposition.
11:51:20 I think by my calculation that's less than 1% of our
11:51:24 neighborhood in favor of this proposal.
11:51:30 He promises many things on the site plan one of which

11:51:33 is test driving not to be done in our neighborhood.
11:51:35 It was stated failure to comply with this would
11:51:37 constitute a code enforceable issue.
11:51:41 I sit on the citizens advisory board for code
11:51:45 enforcement.
11:51:46 That is nonenforceable.
11:51:48 The City of Tampa cannot regulate a person telling
11:51:51 them where and where they cannot test drive a car.
11:51:54 So promises made on a piece of paper are just that,
11:51:57 promises made on a piece of paper.
11:52:01 As this council discussed earlier this morning, you
11:52:03 have a signage problem, and that also was a
11:52:06 nonenforceable issue.
11:52:07 Again on the site plan, no balloons, no banners.
11:52:12 On its current site, there are balloons.
11:52:14 There are banners.
11:52:15 So he is not going to enforce his own rules that he's
11:52:20 promising on the current site plan -- on the site that
11:52:23 he's out now, how is he going to enforce his own rules
11:52:27 on the proposal site?
11:52:29 This is just a matter of going from one thing to
11:52:32 another.

11:52:37 The petitioner stated previously how blighted the area
11:52:42 is, although he has a -- blighted the area is although
11:52:45 he has allowed it to come that way.
11:52:47 And this has been in the works for several years youth
11:52:50 yet he has allowed the property to become blighted
11:52:53 just so -- and now he's up here saying it's blighted,
11:52:57 let's change it.
11:52:58 It's just not working.
11:52:59 You don't buy a piece of property, hoping that it's
11:53:02 going to look better without doing to it.
11:53:05 Okay.
11:53:06 The petitioner has stated previously he has a good
11:53:08 relationship with open park.
11:53:11 That's find and dandy. The park is not in the
11:53:13 residence that he is in.
11:53:17 Where his current site is, north Bon Air is where the
11:53:21 proposed site is.
11:53:21 Neither of those two association versus a good
11:53:24 relationship with Kuhn.
11:53:26 There's previously documented proof of that.
11:53:29 I will be presenting to you in a few moments.
11:53:31 Mr. Dingfelder has stated on the first reading that

11:53:33 the only reason that you were approving this is
11:53:35 because it's already zoned CG.
11:53:38 The north Bon Air association would prefer anything
11:53:41 other than a car lot.
11:53:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
11:53:44 Ms. Saul-Sena has a question.
11:53:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for you.
11:53:47 I was not present at the first hearing and I did not
11:53:49 see a copy of the petition with the 200 names.
11:53:52 Could you share that with council?
11:53:54 >>> I have one for each council members as well as the
11:53:56 clerk.
11:53:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could I just respond?
11:54:01 I'll wait until he gets done.
11:54:07 I hear what you're saying and I read the e-mails, and
11:54:10 I don't think any of us wanted another Carlotta long
11:54:13 there.
11:54:14 But since it is commercial general, and it's such a
11:54:17 large parcel of land, an entire city block, you know,
11:54:22 that has the potential for two or three fast food
11:54:26 joints.
11:54:28 >>> The joint -- a fast food place --

11:54:30 >> Fast food place, drive-through windows.
11:54:33 >>> It would have to come back in front of council for
11:54:36 that, would it not?
11:54:39 I saw a list of types of things that could go in if
11:54:42 would you like to see that.
11:54:44 The CG rating that is there now houses a few -- has
11:54:49 Radio Shack, hair salons.
11:54:52 We would prefer CG.
11:54:54 We were before the council back in February asking for
11:54:58 various approvals a block away for a cell tower.
11:55:01 I'm sure all of you remember that.
11:55:04 The neighborhood association fought for approval of
11:55:06 this.
11:55:07 We received it.
11:55:08 It is now being remodeled.
11:55:10 We are going to have a nice dinener there, a little
11:55:12 restaurant, burgers and fries.
11:55:15 We are looking forward to this.
11:55:16 Our neighborhood is the type of neighborhood that if
11:55:20 there is something within walking distance to us, we
11:55:24 would utilize that facility.
11:55:28 >> Why don't you share the list with me and I'll look

11:55:31 at it again.
11:55:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
11:55:33 Next.
11:55:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I'll put it in the record.
11:55:36 >>CHAIRMAN: Next.
11:55:42 >>> I'm not sure how to do this.
11:55:45 Barbara Stack and I have been sworn.
11:55:47 And also --
11:55:53 >> Mr. Shelby?
11:55:57 >> Do you have a speaker waiver form?
11:56:03 Thank you.
11:56:04 One additional minute.
11:56:05 >>GWEN MILLER: You have four minutes.
11:56:26 >>> I'm here to ask you to do one of two things.
11:56:28 The first is to readdress this petition.
11:56:31 It's incompatible with the overlay plan, Gateway, that
11:56:35 this City Council laid out.
11:56:37 Does not provide a positive first impression that we
11:56:39 want visitors to have as they head towards downtown.
11:56:43 No mat a used car lot is still a used car lot and a
11:56:48 parking lot.
11:56:49 If you can't reject this petition outright today, I

11:56:52 believe those of you who care about our vision of
11:56:55 Tampa will do so.
11:56:56 Then I ask you to consider a second option and that is
11:56:59 to postpone.
11:57:00 Until.
11:57:01 Until you can take the time to thoroughly review this
11:57:03 proposal.
11:57:03 Right after the site, imagine what will happen if a
11:57:07 used car lot is built on a road that we all agree
11:57:10 needs beautification.
11:57:12 Postpone the decision till you can fully understand
11:57:14 the ramifications of the used car lot.
11:57:18 Intruding not only our neighborhood but your own.
11:57:21 If you look at exhibit 1, this is what the car lot
11:57:23 looks like today.
11:57:24 It looks like this.
11:57:26 It has been looking like this for quite awhile.
11:57:28 Huge yellow banners the width of six cars, lots of
11:57:32 cars out front, landscaping that is unremarkable and
11:57:35 does not cover them, duplicate this across the street.
11:57:40 I don't care what promises were made.
11:57:41 We all know how cars are sold, multicolored plastic,

11:57:46 balloons, anything that will stop and attract
11:57:48 motorists.
11:57:49 How long do you think before we see a car dangling
11:57:52 from on high?
11:57:53 Postpone until you can appreciate the positioner's
11:57:57 activities on the south side of Kennedy.
11:57:59 Look at exhibits 2, A, B and C, he purchased several
11:58:03 homes and turned them into vacant lots.
11:58:05 What does this do for neighbors living across the
11:58:07 street from these lots?
11:58:09 Would anyone like this view?
11:58:10 We fear this will happen on our side of the street as
11:58:13 well.
11:58:14 We want you to deny this petition so that our property
11:58:17 values do not go down.
11:58:18 And they most certainly will.
11:58:20 Would you buy a home next to a used car lot?
11:58:23 I bought with the CG categories and had reasonable
11:58:27 expectations it would not change.
11:58:31 Exhibit 3 shows a huge transport vehicle.
11:58:35 They said the structure would never come on the used
11:58:37 lot.

11:58:37 But here's one on Grady.
11:58:39 This is a picture that I took right on my street.
11:58:43 And before the lot was even approved.
11:58:46 Another one was on Kennedy last night at 8 p.m. where
11:58:50 they regularly load and unload.
11:58:52 Moving cars back and forth is going to be very
11:58:55 difficult and risky.
11:58:56 There are over 45,000 cars that go through there a
11:58:58 day.
11:58:59 No left turns, no barriers, three lanes into two
11:59:02 lanes, two lanes into three lanes, and major backups
11:59:05 with I-275 problems.
11:59:07 We ask you to deny this petition because it has been
11:59:11 zoned CG for over 30 years and it works great for us.
11:59:14 We love the CG businesses.
11:59:16 We want to keep what works.
11:59:18 Your own zoning ordinances say vehicle sales belong on
11:59:21 CI zoned property. This used car lot needs to find a
11:59:25 CI location.
11:59:26 This is not one of those.
11:59:27 The petitioner does not own the property.
11:59:31 He will buy it only if you do the wrong thing today.

11:59:34 It's not too late.
11:59:35 A used car lot is a parking lot and a visual eyesore.
11:59:39 It is contrary to everyone's idea of what
11:59:42 beautification is all about.
11:59:44 To quote Mr. Bentley, this is the first test of the
11:59:47 Westshore overlay plan.
11:59:49 It will set a precedent.
11:59:51 Do you really want that precedent to be for used car
11:59:55 lots on Kennedy?
11:59:56 No matter what, please keep in mind a used car lot is
12:00:02 a used car lot.
12:00:04 And they ain't pretty.
12:00:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to bring to council's
12:00:11 attention you are at the noon hour.
12:00:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move we continue until we
12:00:17 complete this decision.
12:00:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Continue through second reading.
12:00:21 So these people don't have to come back.
12:00:25 >> Was there a second?
12:00:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
12:00:32 >> My name is John Rearden, West Gray Street.
12:00:37 I have been sworn in.

12:00:41 As far as the Westshore overlay district, the
12:00:46 Westshore business alliance came out and spoke against
12:00:50 it.
12:00:52 That's specifically stated in their rules.
12:00:53 They consider it part of the signage.
12:00:55 In the section 1 on there, only signs that advertise
12:00:58 the business conducted services rendered, names,
12:01:03 primary goods sold on the site.
12:01:08 If you're a U-haul company wants to rent U-Haul
12:01:12 trucks.
12:01:13 So I guess under these rules along with the Kennedy
12:01:15 gateway as well as Westshore overlay, if you Ned to
12:01:22 have your product out there for signage.
12:01:24 It does not qualify.
12:01:25 We saw the pictures and you have seen the pictures.
12:01:28 The current location, which we are not looking to
12:01:30 close down, we just don't want to continue it, is
12:01:33 under the same section on the Westshore overlay, the
12:01:36 banners and inflatable signs are allowed on a
12:01:39 temporary basis only during a grand opening period,
12:01:41 i.e., 30 consecutive days beginning five days prior to
12:01:45 the initial opening.

12:01:48 They have got their banners.
12:01:50 They are in the Westshore overlay now and they don't
12:01:53 comply.
12:01:53 It's a red herring for the Westshore business alliance
12:01:56 to be in favor of it.
12:01:57 Because it is signage.
12:01:59 Once you let that in, if somebody wants jet skis,
12:02:04 boats, you name it, if you put it out there it's a
12:02:06 sign and it doesn't qualify.
12:02:07 Under those zoning codes, there's 2-44-J, 464, 450,
12:02:15 324, 321, sub-6, 269, 463, 322.
12:02:21 Now the neighborhood came out in favor of the -- we
12:02:27 would like to remodel.
12:02:28 There are three businesses there.
12:02:30 It's actually a large enough piece, big enough.
12:02:36 Under the Westshore Jove lay you can get credit for
12:02:40 parking overlay.
12:02:45 They are looking to remodel.
12:02:46 And it becomes signage.
12:02:49 There's all sorts of issues, particularly compatible.
12:02:52 Ferman is gone now thankfully.
12:02:54 But that's all part of being redeveloped.

12:02:57 Kuhn is the only one left.
12:02:58 We are not looking to close them down but don't put
12:03:00 another one across the street.
12:03:02 As far as a safety issue, right on Kennedy.
12:03:06 And if they are going to now start unloading the cars
12:03:09 over there, and continue to drag them back and forth,
12:03:12 it's not possible.
12:03:13 It's setting a precedent.
12:03:16 Anybody who wants jet skis, U-Hauls, car rentals they
12:03:20 should all be allowed in.
12:03:22 So please under these different codes.
12:03:26 Hopefully they'll adapt and remodel and the
12:03:28 neighborhood will come out and support it.
12:03:29 Thank you all.
12:03:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
12:03:31 Next.
12:03:36 >>> Cathy LOSTROM.
12:03:40 I have not been sworn in.
12:03:41 (Oath administered by Clerk)
12:03:50 I live at 3918 north "B" street which is about a block
12:03:53 adjacent to the proposed site where the -- for the new
12:03:57 car dealership.

12:03:58 The reason I am here today is to support my neighbors
12:04:00 and my investment in Tampa, really.
12:04:06 Three years ago my husband and I were expecting our
12:04:09 second daughter, and decided to purchase.
12:04:13 We have a 1924 home with a beautiful large porch on
12:04:15 the front.
12:04:16 It needed some work.
12:04:17 But we did not want to contribute to urban sprawl.
12:04:20 We believe -- I was living downtown at the time which
12:04:26 I still am.
12:04:27 It allowed me to come home and see my mother and
12:04:29 children at lunch.
12:04:30 And it allowed me more time to be with them so I could
12:04:33 get home in under 15 minutes.
12:04:35 When I heard about the proposed car lot, now the
12:04:44 potential, cars being be test driven by my house and
12:04:48 other large vehicles dropping off cars.
12:04:50 I'm here to give you my experience.
12:04:53 We have been very happy.
12:04:54 In the last two days.
12:04:55 I paid attention to how many of the homes in my made
12:04:58 area have had at least exterior renovations and I

12:05:01 counted ten in the four blocks closest to the proposed
12:05:04 site.
12:05:05 So we are working hard to bring the neighborhood up.
12:05:07 And I think it's part of the plan for the Westshore
12:05:09 overlay, which is beautiful, and what I envision for
12:05:13 the plan.
12:05:14 So I'm here to support my neighbors and the staff and
12:05:19 ask for your helping in bringing this to not allowing
12:05:22 this to move forward.
12:05:23 Thank you.
12:05:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Bentley?
12:05:24 >>MARK BENTLEY: Representing the applicant.
12:05:31 I would request a continuance to next Thursday morning
12:05:36 at 10:00.
12:05:37 As you are aware, the lack of first reading, there's a
12:05:40 5-2 vote in favor.
12:05:43 Two of your colleagues are not in attendance.
12:05:45 So that's our request at this point in time.
12:05:47 If you have any specific questions, I would gladly
12:05:49 attempt to answer them.
12:05:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, what is your concern?
12:06:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My concern is that a request for a

12:06:03 continuance would be more at the start of the public
12:06:06 hearing as opposed to the point in time now.
12:06:09 >>CHAIRMAN: Let Mr. Shelby finish.
12:06:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council can go two ways.
12:06:19 Council can entertain the continuance.
12:06:21 If there is any additional testimony, council can
12:06:24 close the public hearing, and vote.
12:06:27 And if it needs to continue it, county choose to do
12:06:29 that automatically to the next hearing -- excuse me,
12:06:33 to the next regular council day of unfin business with
12:06:37 the hearing closed just for vote and have the members
12:06:39 absent review the record based on what you heard
12:06:41 today.
12:06:42 Or you can entertain Mr. Bentley's request for
12:06:45 continuance, and approach the next meeting with an
12:06:48 open public hearing to allow for additional testimony.
12:06:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was not able to be here at the
12:06:55 first hearing.
12:06:56 But I was here at the last one.
12:06:58 And I have to say, I heard some things today that I
12:07:00 haven't had heard previously, and I'm hoping that what
12:07:03 we heard from the neighborhood will influence some of

12:07:06 my colleagues.
12:07:07 And imworried about the colleagues who weren't here
12:07:09 today to hear this additional testimony.
12:07:12 I'm inclined to move for denial today.
12:07:16 But I don't know if my colleagues will.
12:07:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it sets a bad precedent
12:07:25 regardless how I feel about this project and I voted
12:07:29 with this project last time and I'm inclined to do so
12:07:32 again but I think it sets a bad precedent.
12:07:35 Basically what it says is that anybody standing at
12:07:37 that podium, no matter who it is, can look up here and
12:07:42 say, well, you know, I like the five that are up here,
12:07:46 I don't like the four that are up here, I have it, I
12:07:48 don't have it.
12:07:49 I think it's a bad precedent.
12:07:50 We have traditionally, if we fall short we continue it
12:07:56 on and I think that's a good process.
12:07:57 We have heard plenty of testimony on this.
12:08:01 So frankly, Mr. Bentley, I think what I prefer to do
12:08:05 is hear your rebuttal, put it on the record and let's
12:08:09 move forward with the vote.
12:08:10 Because that's the way we do things.

12:08:12 9 we did have one gentleman, he asked it be continued
12:08:17 and give them another chance to work with them.
12:08:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know that there were -- I
12:08:23 don't know if that was really Mr. Bentley's intent
12:08:26 that he wanted to go back to the neighborhood.
12:08:28 They have been working with the neighborhood for a
12:08:30 long time and they said that on the record.
12:08:32 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bentley, rebuttal.
12:08:34 >>MARK BENTLEY: Obviously when I was walking in the
12:08:38 door today I knew two of your colleagues weren't here.
12:08:42 So I was prepared to press on and someone suggested a
12:08:45 continuance.
12:08:46 In deference to the citizens, they got up before I
12:08:48 did.
12:08:48 Otherwise, I would clearly ask you immediately, okay?
12:08:53 Any any event, they are entitled to speak at the
12:08:55 second public hearing.
12:08:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be clear, council,
12:08:59 just so that you know, there have been instances in
12:09:04 the past when during public hearing that a full
12:09:08 council is not present, there are members present that
12:09:12 council has granted continuances.

12:09:15 So I just didn't want you to be unclear the disparity
12:09:20 of treatment that Mr. Bentley's request is not out of
12:09:23 line, and if he does wish to have a continuance, that
12:09:28 council could properly consider it, or council can
12:09:31 make a decision based on the testimony -- I guess
12:09:36 rebuttal to that, council can make a decision.
12:09:38 But just to be clear for the record, where there has
12:09:42 not been council present, this council does not have a
12:09:45 specific rule.
12:09:46 Some jurisdictions say there has to be -- or people do
12:09:48 have the right to a full council to be able to make a
12:09:51 decision.
12:09:51 But this council can either choose to entertain or
12:09:53 not.
12:09:53 I just want to be clear, there is really not a
12:09:57 precedent here.
12:09:58 Thank you.
12:09:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, let me see if I can put this to
12:10:02 rest.
12:10:04 I've heard more testimony from the neighborhood.
12:10:09 And frankly, I did have a little problem with the idea
12:10:12 that the test driving wasn't going to be happening in

12:10:17 the neighborhood.
12:10:21 And that kind much concerns me.
12:10:22 Because you can't put a stop to that.
12:10:26 People that are test driving a car will go through the
12:10:29 neighborhood just to see if there's any maybe speed
12:10:32 tables or something that the car would look for and so
12:10:35 on.
12:10:36 And I've heard enough.
12:10:39 These pictures that the young lady showed me about the
12:10:43 auto transports, that kind of put it into perspective
12:10:48 for me.
12:10:49 And I think Mr. Kuhn has got a wonderful car lot on
12:10:53 the south side of this street.
12:10:55 And I applaud him for trying to put a used car lot on
12:11:00 the other side of the street.
12:11:01 But don't think that I am going to be able to support
12:11:03 it based on what I heard, and the neighborhood just
12:11:07 doesn't want it.
12:11:08 And I can respect that.
12:11:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Procedurally we need to figure out
12:11:14 where we are going to go.
12:11:15 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to say I am not going to

12:11:17 support it so maybe that will help you make up your
12:11:20 mind.
12:11:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt.
12:11:26 And I understand that that's Ms. Alvarez's position at
12:11:31 this point and that's a very valid position.
12:11:33 I want to be clear for the record that Mr. Bentley
12:11:36 hasn't had an opportunity to be able to rebut the
12:11:38 testimony that's been made thus far and my suggestion
12:11:41 would be that council members keep an open mind to be
12:11:43 able to hear the complete record before rendering a
12:11:45 decision.
12:11:47 >>CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, Mr. Bentley.
12:11:48 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much.
12:11:50 With respect to some of the comments made, I think
12:11:52 here again there has been some misinformation.
12:11:54 First of all the existing change located on the south
12:11:57 side of Kennedy, that is -- even though it's in the
12:11:59 Westshore overlay, the code clearly says that only new
12:12:03 projects or redevelopment projects are subject to
12:12:06 those regulations.
12:12:07 I want to point that out that it's essentially a
12:12:10 grandfather facility.

12:12:11 And your code is real clear on that.
12:12:13 Secondarily, with respect to the transports, I thought
12:12:16 I made it clear at the first hearing we designed the
12:12:18 project, the driveway connections, that transport
12:12:21 couldn't even get in the facility.
12:12:23 And I'll show you that on the site plan in a second.
12:12:27 So the mode of operation was to be that cars would be
12:12:29 delivered and driven across the street.
12:12:35 When we talk about car sales and the magnitude, maybe
12:12:38 own or two a week, I think here again, this facility
12:12:41 would only hold about 0 to 0 cars.
12:12:45 What I have got on the Elmo here is the existing
12:12:49 facilities, 22,000 square feet is built SIR CA 1906,
12:12:56 has over a thousand foot of signage, five driveway
12:12:59 connections, 99% impervious surface.
12:13:04 So, anyhow, kind of a bad condition here.
12:13:08 There's no buffering.
12:13:10 The dumpsters are not concealed, et cetera.
12:13:13 And with respect to this allegation that Mr. Kuhn
12:13:16 somehow let this become a blighted property here
12:13:19 again, I just told you it's six years old and he got a
12:13:24 lease option about two years ago and he's done nothing

12:13:27 but improve the property, painted it, fixed it up.
12:13:30 So we take issue with that.
12:13:31 In any event, on the list here in terms of
12:13:34 improvements, first of all the Westshore design
12:13:36 overlay does not preclude these auto sales.
12:13:40 I think I made it clear at the first hearing
12:13:43 concerning precedent on the north side of Kennedy, the
12:13:45 way the land use plan is developed from Westshore to
12:13:48 Dale Mabry, actually from Trask to the west to Dale
12:13:51 Mabry to the east, it's virtually impossible to have a
12:13:54 car sales facility because of the comprehensive plan
12:13:57 and urban mixed use for one half of the block and
12:14:00 there's no other commercial zoning in the north half
12:14:03 of the block as there is hours.
12:14:04 So our property is very unique with respect to that.
12:14:07 And what we want to do is knock down 19 that you
12:14:11 square feet of building and keep -- keeping part of
12:14:14 the building.
12:14:14 It's not new construction.
12:14:18 A couple weeks ago you saw the elevations.
12:14:21 Very pretty architecture, Key West type styles,
12:14:24 heavily buffered.

12:14:25 So here again with respect to traffic, we would reduce
12:14:29 the driveway connections from five to two.
12:14:33 The trip generation per your city's transportation
12:14:35 standard, the ITE, trip generation rate, the existing
12:14:39 facility, if it was all leased out would generate 950
12:14:43 trips a day versus the 100 trips for this facility.
12:14:48 That's a 90% reduction in traffic.
12:14:50 With respect to people don't test drive in residential
12:14:54 neighborhoods.
12:14:55 That's not to say they can't.
12:14:56 We design the facility that when you go out on Hale
12:15:00 you have to go south onto Kennedy and there's a test
12:15:03 drive route going over to Westshore, Boy Scout, and
12:15:08 circle around.
12:15:09 So people aren't going to test drive in the
12:15:11 neighborhood. That does happen occasionally
12:15:12 obviously.
12:15:12 We put a note on the plan.
12:15:14 Here again the proposed development, we are going to
12:15:17 enclose the dumpsters.
12:15:18 But there is no dumpster.
12:15:19 We are going to have trash side pickup.

12:15:22 No banners.
12:15:22 No speakers.
12:15:23 There's going to be 36 shade trees. The wall is going
12:15:26 to match the building.
12:15:29 Very important, three of five property owners directly
12:15:31 north of the subject property that reside on property
12:15:34 on North "A" Street are in support.
12:15:36 That's 60% of the property owners who would be
12:15:39 directly affected by this petition.
12:15:41 Okay.
12:15:41 The ones who have to look at it every day.
12:15:43 I don't know if it got in the record but Mr. Joshua
12:15:46 sent a letter and he couldn't make it, he had surgery
12:15:49 this morning, but sent a letter in support.
12:15:52 Hope there's that's in the record that's provided at
12:15:55 this point in time.
12:16:04 Here again say what you want, but if you have been out
12:16:06 to that area there, there are two massage parlors,
12:16:09 surrounded by strip centers, clearly a blighted area.
12:16:12 This is going to be an oasis in the middle of Kennedy
12:16:15 Boulevard.
12:16:16 Some people have is the stigma because of a car lot,

12:16:20 undesirable use, but these not true.
12:16:22 This can ab very beautiful project.
12:16:23 And let me show you.
12:16:28 You see here, it looks like a small park.
12:16:30 Okay.
12:16:30 The way we design it, one-third of the property is all
12:16:33 green space.
12:16:34 There's a 6-foot wall.
12:16:36 We are going to enter it in the mayor's beautification
12:16:39 program.
12:16:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How much more are you got?
12:16:43 >> Two minutes, tops.
12:16:45 >>CHAIRMAN: How much time did you get him?
12:16:47 Five minutes?
12:16:48 I believe rebuttal is ten.
12:16:52 >>> Obviously heavily landscaped.
12:16:55 The neighbors want to us plant some vegetation.
12:16:57 Outside our property line.
12:16:58 We intend to enter the mayor's beautification program
12:17:00 so we can put vegetation on north "A" street, put in a
12:17:05 walk.
12:17:05 Even though the Kennedy design standard, they end at

12:17:09 Himes Avenue.
12:17:09 We have agreed voluntarily to design our sidewalk,
12:17:13 okay, with a view towards the future that when those
12:17:16 design standards with respect to Kennedy relate to
12:17:18 Westshore, which apparently is on the radar screen at
12:17:21 this point in time, our sidewalk is going to meet the
12:17:23 Kennedy standards.
12:17:24 We are talking about a ten-foot sidewalk with pavers,
12:17:29 et cetera, et cetera.
12:17:32 So all things considered, it's a substantial
12:17:36 improvement over what-a significant improvement for
12:17:39 that neighborhood.
12:17:40 I think when you drive down, when someone comes in the
12:17:43 City of Tampa from west chauffeur, some business
12:17:45 person or tourist or what have you, they are going to
12:17:47 take a look at that and be very impressed with City of
12:17:49 Tampa standards, going from to 100 square feet with
12:17:56 two monument signs, ten foot tall on the corners.
12:17:58 Okay?
12:17:59 This is a textbook classic example of adherence to
12:18:02 design standards.
12:18:03 I just think the stigma that people have more or less

12:18:07 a problem with.
12:18:11 So what we are suggesting here is -- and one final
12:18:16 thing, too, quite candidly, our client has been
12:18:19 contacted by some fast food chains, and this isn't we
12:18:23 are threatening to do that type thing.
12:18:25 But we don't have to go through any approval for that,
12:18:27 the fast food chain.
12:18:29 Maybe a drive-through with whatever is 150 feet might
12:18:33 have to come back to council and get special use
12:18:36 permit but we could do myriad things.
12:18:38 We do could do the massage par loss, strip center, on
12:18:42 and on.
12:18:43 This is a really beautiful project.
12:18:45 And not withstanding the fact that people just have an
12:18:47 issue with car sales, okay?
12:18:49 I think I made it clear and your staff made it clear,
12:18:53 that another car sales facility could not be allowed
12:18:56 with the exception of amending the comprehensive plan.
12:18:58 And I don't think the City Council -- as I understand
12:19:01 it, and through my experience, in the comprehensive
12:19:04 plan to accommodate some kind of sales facility there.
12:19:07 So we would respectfully request that you approve the

12:19:10 rezoning.
12:19:10 Thank you very much.
12:19:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
12:19:14 Mr. Dingfelder.
12:19:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
12:19:18 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second to close the public
12:19:20 hearing.
12:19:20 (Motion carried).
12:19:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
12:19:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am going to go ahead and move to
12:19:26 approve.
12:19:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you read number 79?
12:19:37 >> I think this is the lesser of many potential evils.
12:19:40 The gentleman gave me a list, possible CG uses.
12:19:43 I am going to read some of them to you real quick.
12:19:45 Congregate living facility, large.
12:19:47 A club.
12:19:47 A college, daycare and nursery facility.
12:19:51 Hotel or motel.
12:19:52 Rooming house.
12:19:53 Appliance and equipment repair.
12:19:54 Bank.

12:19:55 Bank drive-in.
12:19:56 These are all available right now today under than the
12:19:58 CG use.
12:19:59 Bar and lounge.
12:20:01 Bottle club.
12:20:02 Dry cleaning plant, small.
12:20:05 Interim parking.
12:20:06 Not sure what that means.
12:20:07 A restaurant.
12:20:08 Retail sales, distilled beverages.
12:20:11 Sounds like an ABC liquor to me.
12:20:13 Retail sales gasoline.
12:20:19 Vehicle repair minor.
12:20:20 Pest control and related services.
12:20:22 Warehouse and wholesale trade.
12:20:24 Those are all available uses under the existing zoning
12:20:27 today.
12:20:27 I think that this neighborhood, with all due respect,
12:20:30 is taking a great risk by denying this, because if Mr.
12:20:36 King in fact has -- Mr. Kuhn has an option, he might
12:20:39 still tear it down and allow somebody to come in with
12:20:42 CG uses.

12:20:43 That scare it is heck out of me.
12:20:45 And I think that we have a PD project right now that
12:20:47 is not wonderful because it is a car lot.
12:20:50 But it's well landscaped and it's well buffered.
12:20:52 And I think it's the lesser of many evils.
12:20:55 So I am going to move it.
12:21:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a second to the motion?
12:21:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
12:21:07 >> He has to read it first and then make a second.
12:21:09 >> An ordinance rezoning property in the general
12:21:11 vicinity -- move to adopt upon second reading an
12:21:16 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
12:21:19 4001 West Kennedy Boulevard, in the city of Tampa,
12:21:22 Florida and more particularly described in section 1
12:21:24 from zoning district classifications CG commercial
12:21:26 general to PD planned development.
12:21:28 The other reason is the traffic generated by any of
12:21:31 these type of uses including the existing use is far,
12:21:34 far greater than the traffic that would be generated
12:21:38 by people who are coming in, you know, 10, 15
12:21:42 customers a day who are coming in for, you know, a
12:21:46 used car lot.

12:21:48 Anyway, that's my motion.
12:21:50 >> Is there a second?
12:21:51 >> Just make a comment to his motion.
12:21:56 >> After all that it dies for lack of a second.
12:21:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I make a motion to deny.
12:22:01 >>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
12:22:02 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to deny.
12:22:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
12:22:06 Mr. Shelby, I do need to reiterate a number of
12:22:08 reasons?
12:22:12 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I was talking with council member
12:22:14 Alvarez and I was distracted.
12:22:15 Was there a motion made to approve that failed for
12:22:19 lack of a second?
12:22:20 And now there is a motion to deny that you made that
12:22:23 was seconded by Ferlita.
12:22:26 >>> I would like to move to continue to next week,
12:22:28 once again, reiterate that.
12:22:32 Thank you.
12:22:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to deny.
12:22:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
12:22:37 Do I put the reasons on the record?

12:22:38 >>CHAIRMAN: Okay.
12:22:41 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
12:22:42 First I want to make sure that it is clear.
12:22:45 They obviously have to utilize the reasons for this
12:22:49 denial.
12:22:49 The other thing I want to site, while there is no
12:22:53 legal requirement that you continue this to allow him
12:22:55 to have a full council, you may want to consider that.
12:22:58 And I just want to make that statement for the record.
12:23:00 In all fairness to petitioner so he can have a full
12:23:03 council.
12:23:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
12:23:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move to deny this
12:23:13 petition for the following reasons.
12:23:21 I need you to pay attention because I need to you help
12:23:24 me.
12:23:24 And it's very complicated to the non-lawyers among us
12:23:27 to help me word this properly.
12:23:30 So I'm using, Mr. Shelby --
12:23:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, council.
12:23:37 Council, if the public -- here's the concern that I
12:23:41 have.

12:23:43 The concern is that if it appears to be four votes to
12:23:48 deny, and there are two council members absent --
12:23:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 4-3.
12:23:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's true, I'm assuming.
12:24:00 I don't know.
12:24:00 But I do know this.
12:24:02 I do know that Mr. Bentley has requested a continuance
12:24:04 for -- to have a full council.
12:24:07 And I believe that he has made that request.
12:24:11 And that may or may not be a basis, mind you, that
12:24:17 council does not have the ability any more to act on a
12:24:21 reconsideration of quasi-judicial hearing.
12:24:24 So if Mr. Bentley has an issue with that, his request
12:24:28 is not to come back to a full council because that has
12:24:30 been removed.
12:24:31 His only access to to to go to circuit court. That is
12:24:34 one of his options ultimately.
12:24:36 And as with any petitioner.
12:24:39 So I'm just letting you know that Mr. Bentley has
12:24:42 raised that issue as a concern for you.
12:24:45 If council wishes to have this go forward, Ms. Cole
12:24:49 and I are prepared to have the record for the basis of

12:24:53 your motion to be able to be legally sustainable as
12:24:57 best as we can in order to give you the parameters
12:24:59 upon which you must base your decision based on
12:25:01 evidence in the record.
12:25:02 So I'm just letting now the legal parameters, whatever
12:25:06 council's decision is, it has the ability to do
12:25:07 whatever it wishes, whether it is to grant a
12:25:09 continuance, obviously if it wishes to go forward, a
12:25:12 motion and a second.
12:25:13 A motion for a continuance is not an appropriate-oh
12:25:16 inappropriate at this point, can always be entertained
12:25:19 as a motion on the floor, but if council wishes to go
12:25:22 forward, Ms. Saul-Sena, you are the maker of the
12:25:24 motion, Ms. Cole and I prepared to assist you.
12:25:27 Ms. Cole.
12:25:28 >> My concern is I believe this is the third -- This is
12:25:34 the third time this has come before us and I feel the
12:25:36 neighborhood in particular has come down many times and
12:25:38 I would like to make a motion to deny based on the
12:25:44 following reasons, including the staff objections
12:25:46 raised by the City Council staff.
12:25:49 For example, chapter 27-4 3-F-7.

12:25:57 I think that's been addressed.
12:25:59 Chapter 27-4 3-F-9, I don't know about that.
12:26:11 Thank you.
12:26:12 Could you -- okay.
12:26:13 Okay, I'm sorry.
12:26:20 >>JULIA COLE: If I can assist you.
12:26:23 The only objection that is in the staff report is an
12:26:26 objection to the parking.
12:26:27 There's a request for parking waiver.
12:26:30 And staff has objected to that parking waiver.
12:26:36 >> Also access to a local road.
12:26:45 There are two waivers requested, specifically 80% of
12:26:48 parking in front of the parcel.
12:26:49 And --
12:26:54 >> There are two waivers being requested.
12:26:56 So I would recommend to you when you're looking at the
12:26:58 appropriate standards under which you can deny this
12:27:03 petition, you can look at the waiver requirements that
12:27:06 are in essence hardship requirements.
12:27:09 And that would be something that you can look it.
12:27:15 >> If I can follow up with regard to Ms. Cole did
12:27:18 provide for you several weeks ago code sections,

12:27:23 rezoning reviews, and section 27-321 sub-6 does state
12:27:31 that its purpose is to promote and encourage
12:27:34 development where appropriate and compatibility with
12:27:36 the surrounding impacted neighborhoods, built
12:27:40 environments and existing geography.
12:27:41 If there are things within the record that lead to you
12:27:44 believe one way or the other, it would be my
12:27:47 recommendation to address those.
12:27:51 >> I'll give this a whirl.
12:27:52 So my motion is to deny this based on the section
12:27:57 27-464-G-4 where the petitioner is asking for a waiver
12:28:03 that 80% of parking is located in the front of the
12:28:06 parcel, which I believe is not come compatible with
12:28:08 the character -- with our existing code which doesn't
12:28:12 want 0% of the parking in front of the parcel.
12:28:16 Section 27-244-J to allow access to a local road, hill
12:28:22 Avenue, which is a local residential street.
12:28:24 And section 27-321-6, which requires that PDs
12:28:33 promote and encourage development that is compatible
12:28:36 in location, character, of a surrounding and passive
12:28:40 neighborhood environment and existing geography.
12:28:43 We have testimony from a number of adjacent residents

12:28:47 to the proposed -- that the proposed development would
12:28:48 not be compatible, would not encourage, support the
12:28:55 character of the area.
12:28:55 And based on these and other testimony in the record
12:28:59 from a number of representatives who live nearby from
12:29:04 city staff, I recommend this approval.
12:29:06 >> Second.
12:29:07 >> Motion and second.
12:29:11 >> I also second that motion, it's an incompatibility
12:29:15 issue and also for chapter 27-G-4.
12:29:21 9 also in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:29:25 Opposed, Nay.
12:29:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
12:29:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Come back next week.
12:29:34 >>> As the -- the public hearing is closed.
12:29:37 Come back under unfinished business for the vote.
12:29:42 I will notify Council member White and council member
12:29:45 Harrison's office to allow them the opportunity to
12:29:49 review the record.
12:29:53 >>MARK BENTLEY: What time would that be?
12:29:55 >>GWEN MILLER: That would be after nine, under
12:29:58 unfinished business.

12:30:01 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
12:30:03 item 80?
12:30:09 Go ahead.
12:30:12 >> Janell Hanson, 101 south 12th street regarding
12:30:16 item 80.
12:30:17 We understand that it's been moved to next week.
12:30:21 Channel District?
12:30:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Next week?
12:30:27 No.
12:30:27 >> Okay.
12:30:30 Clarification.
12:30:36 Again, it's pretty much the same issues.
12:30:38 We want to ensure that there are no developers
12:30:43 agreements in the neighborhood.
12:30:44 Again the only developer agreement is for one
12:30:46 development.
12:30:47 They are using public streets as private parking.
12:30:53 4, thank you.
12:30:55 Again if you can ensure the fact that there are no
12:30:58 developers agreements, and there are developer
12:31:02 conditions on the plans, the codes can be looked at by
12:31:04 different departments and advise you correctly.

12:31:06 Okay?
12:31:07 Also, number 0 as well.
12:31:11 The park they are proposing in the area, you can
12:31:14 ensure that the maintenance of that park is going to
12:31:15 be taken care of, because the parks department is
12:31:19 defined anything under an achier is going to cost an
12:31:21 awful lot of money to maintain and the second issue
12:31:23 that they also brought up is it does bring in
12:31:29 character people that the public generally doesn't
12:31:31 like and going to be held to the develop theory handed
12:31:33 over to the home association.
12:31:36 The home association is going to worry about their
12:31:38 insurance.
12:31:38 So money is going to go to the insurance and not the
12:31:41 maintenance of that pocket park.
12:31:43 Then it's going to look blighted.
12:31:45 Then it's going to cost money.
12:31:46 This will be handed over not to the community but in
12:31:49 30 years handed over to the entire city.
12:31:51 So if we can ensure that the maintenance of the park
12:31:53 is going to be taken care of, if the city feels is
12:31:59 appropriate, that would be very helpful.

12:32:01 A third issue also is, when buildings are demolished,
12:32:05 to build any buildings, fences are put up, can we
12:32:08 maintain the area?
12:32:09 One perfect example is Ybor scare, when Roger gatewood
12:32:16 had the property he mowed the lawn behind the fences.
12:32:20 That was kept clean.
12:32:22 It's now been sold to Sembler.
12:32:24 Fences are falling down.
12:32:25 Lawns are not being mowed behind fences and it is we
12:32:30 already live in a blighted area.
12:32:32 It is looking worse now.
12:32:34 And these codes that they are supposed to up hold --
12:32:40 we need to have them upheld.
12:32:41 So if we can address those three issues it would be
12:32:44 very helpful.
12:32:51 We have reported to code enforcement.
12:33:14 >>DAVID MECHANIK: She maven speaking to another
12:33:16 petition.
12:33:17 There is no development agreement other than those
12:33:22 recommended by the staff on the site plan, and there
12:33:24 were no concerns or objections regarding those.
12:33:30 >>

12:33:36 >> I thought we included that as part of the bonus
12:33:38 criteria.
12:33:39 >> We did not ask for a bonus.
12:33:41 But we are required to under the zoning to maintain
12:33:44 the park.
12:33:44 But we did not.
12:33:48 Ask for a bonus credit.
12:33:49 >> Is there going to be a development agreement with
12:33:50 this one?
12:33:51 >> No.
12:33:51 The staff has determined, legal department has
12:33:53 determined that the conditions would be on the site
12:33:56 plan, and not through a separate development
12:33:59 agreement.
12:34:00 We're fine with that.
12:34:03 >> So I guess that leaves the question outstanding
12:34:06 that she raised which is to what standard would the
12:34:08 parks be maintained, to what level?
12:34:12 And how does one enforce that?
12:34:23 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
12:34:29 >> The question of development agreements, unless you
12:34:32 are going to do a development agreement which is a

12:34:36 whole process, those are just separate, you know,
12:34:39 agreements between the city and developer which run
12:34:46 with the people who are making them.
12:34:47 So really all of these styles, conditions, should
12:34:50 really be on the site plan.
12:34:52 Now, when you are talking about some kind of
12:34:54 maintenance determination there is an opportunity to
12:34:58 do a separate maintenance agreement which I would not
12:35:01 file as a development agreement.
12:35:05 Something like a maintenance agreement.
12:35:07 And that is something that can be separately done or
12:35:11 recorded in the same way we are recording.
12:35:13 And maintenance or something of that nature.
12:35:21 >> Well, since the whole -- this is all structured
12:35:25 about these types of facilities being available and
12:35:30 accessible to the public.
12:35:31 And so -- if that's the case, and it does seem like at
12:35:35 some point, it might not be today, that we should
12:35:38 address that for all of these types of projects and
12:35:41 amenities that are going to be public, open to the
12:35:45 public.
12:35:45 Because if they are not maintained up to a certain

12:35:48 standard, then they are not worth having.
12:35:52 >> I hear what you are saying.
12:35:54 I believe we are going to talk about this in the
12:35:57 afternoon, and it may -- the periphery in the
12:36:01 afternoon.
12:36:01 We may want to codify that in some form or fashion or
12:36:04 at least provide that when these are approved by
12:36:08 separate maintenance agreement, it's also required to
12:36:11 be approved.
12:36:17 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, we actually have a note on the
12:36:19 site plan that says we would enter into a maintenance
12:36:22 agreement for the open space, if the city deemed that
12:36:25 to be appropriate, and we are stating for the record
12:36:28 that we are willing to do that.
12:36:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to close the public hearing.
12:36:33 >> So moved.
12:36:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
12:36:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion A and second.
12:36:36 (Motion carried)
12:36:39 Mr. Dingfelder, would you read that number 80.
12:36:43 >> Move to adopt an ordinance upon second reading, an
12:36:46 ordinance re zoning property in the general vicinity

12:36:48 of 222 north 12th Street and 217 eleventh street in
12:36:52 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
12:36:53 described in section 1 from zoning district
12:36:56 classifications CD-1 Channel District to
12:36:59 CD-approximate Channel District, retail, office,
12:37:01 multifamily, residential, hotel, providing an
12:37:03 effective date.
12:37:04 >>CHAIRMAN: roll call vote.
12:37:10 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried by four votes, Saul-Sena
12:37:16 absent at vote, and Harrison and white absent.
12:37:20 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone in the public that wants
12:37:22 to speak on item 1?
12:37:24 >> Move to close.
12:37:24 >> I have a motion and second to close.
12:37:32 Mrs. Ferlita, 1.
12:37:33 >> Move to adopt the following ordinance on second
12:37:35 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
12:37:37 vicinity of 1015 and 1017 east robson street in the
12:37:41 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
12:37:42 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
12:37:45 RS-60 residential single-family to RS-50 residential
12:37:48 single-family, providing an effective date.

12:37:50 >> I have a motion and second.
12:37:51 Voice roll call.
12:37:56 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
12:38:05 absent.
12:38:07 >>CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone anyone in the public that
12:38:09 wants to speak on item 82?
12:38:11 >> Move to close.
12:38:12 >> Second.
12:38:12 (Motion carried).
12:38:14 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
12:38:20 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning
12:38:22 property in the general vicinity of 3613 South MacDill
12:38:25 Avenue and 3101 and 3103 west Euclid Avenue in the
12:38:29 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
12:38:31 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
12:38:34 RS-60 residential single-family to PD, planned
12:38:37 development, single-family attached, providing an
12:38:39 effective date.
12:38:40 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
12:38:42 Voice roll call.
12:38:52 >>THE CLERK: Motion failed.
12:38:59 >>GWEN MILLER: It comes back next week.

12:39:02 Under unfinished business.
12:39:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
12:39:06 Under 4-C, not getting the requisite four gets at the
12:39:13 close of public hearing.
12:39:14 >>GWEN MILLER: We will now recess for lunch until
12:39:16 1:45.
12:39:17 (City Council recess)

Tampa City Council
Thursday, November 9, 2006
1:45 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.

[Sounding gavel]
>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
order.
Roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.

>>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
We are now on item number 83.
It's a continued public hearing.
>> Madam Chair, these are continued first readings
because the next two -- I don't believe the witnesses
are sworn on will 3, 84 or 85.
>> Is there anyone in the public that's going to speak
on 83 through 85?
Would you please stand an raise your right hand?
(Oath administered by Clerk).
>>MARTIN SHELBY: A remainder, ladies and gentlemen,
when you state your name, please reaffirm for the for
the record that you have been sworn.
Thank you.
>>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Land development.
I have been sworn.
Before you, council, you will see a rezoning that
first came before you in a night meeting, October
25th, '06.
Petitioner did have some things on the site plans to
take care of and it was continued, first reading was

continued.
I was not the planner on the case so I will do my best
to go through it with you to refresh your memory but
you will help me out.
You probably remember it better than I do.
The area, to show you where the project is located,
it's located on Dale Mabry and Columbus.
We are having a map info glitch. That was Dale Mabry
and Columbus.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could I tighten this up a little?
What was changed from last hearing until now?
I think we are all relatively familiar.
>>> Okay.
They needed to clear up their waivers, the waivers
that they needed to ask for were not on the site plan.
They needed to address solid waste concerns,
landscaping concern, and a stormwater concern.
They submitted a revised site plan and it removed all
of those objections.
So there are no objections now on the staff report.
And I know the Planning Commission was in favor of.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I have a complaint, goes back to

the landscaping portion especially around the
Dale Mabry area.
I understand if you want to put some type of tree in
there, then you would have to put a six-foot hole in
there or six-foot diameter.
I don't think you need that with a palm tree.
I think they call it lady palm.
I'm not sure.
>> Petitioner has gotten with Mary Daniels and they
were going to let you know what conclusion they came
up with.
>> I haven't heard from anybody.
>>> I know.
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: 501 East Kennedy on behalf of Jerry
Ulm dodge and I will jump right to the issue.
Ms. Alvarez, you asked whether we could find a way to
put some small palms around Dale Mabry and our concern
was that your code requires a six-foot protective
radius around the recommended trees.
What we have been able to determine with Mary is we
have been able to identify some short shrub type palms
that are not actually trees.

So they don't require the six-foot radius.
And Mr. Ulm has agreed that our site plan now shows we
are going to put the hedge in the front and the hedge
in the landscape island.
We will replace some of the existing hedge with those
short palms, like four species that are again not
trees and they don't require that six-foot radius.
So they will just become part of the hedge that is now
shown on the site plan.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think that will really enhance the
appearance of the Dale Mabry side.
If they want to put it on the Columbus side, fine with
me.
>> That was already shown, some trees along there.
>> But I think they are called lady palms and they are
really cute.
They don't grow very tall.
And they don't take a lot of circumference around it.
They look right pretty.
Got them at my house, too.
>> Yes.
I think four species.

>> Do you want to talk to me about it?
>> Mary Daniels, Land Development Coordination, tree
and landscaping.
I have been sworn.
I identified four or five species that don't need the
elaborate protective radius.
We recommended a palm which is related to the sable.
But we have identified several palms that will work in
that area, that will give you the effect that you are
desiring, as well as --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Good.
I'll leave that up to you.
Thank you.
>>CHAIRMAN: Anything else, Ms. Zelman?
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: That's it.
We would like to ask that you go forward today.
Again, unlike the previous car dealership that you had
this morning, we had no opposition.
We are not encroaching into a neighborhood.
We are just building on a site that is a car lot now.
We are trying to keep everything within the confines
of our site.

We would like to move forward.
And we ask for your support.
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public like to
speak on item 83?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait.
Staff.
So the site plan before us, the petition before us,
reflect the change to incorporate these not quite
trees?
>>> It does not.
>> What do we do to make it?
>>> Well, I don't know if Julie is here or if they
went on record, it would take it back to a continued
first reading.
I don't know if it would be sufficient to have it on
the record that they are committing to working with
Mary and doing that.
>> Well, we need to make it legal.
Because, frankly, if it isn't on the record, and we
don't have enough votes today, it's going to come back
next week anyway.

>>> I do know that they are asking, right now, an
actual waiver from the trees from the front, and they
are proposing to do these palms as if it were a hedge.
That is what -- they have asked for a waiver from the
trees but they are not doing trees.
It's a hedge.
So it just doesn't spell it out what they are doing.
>> So what recourse do we have to ensure that they do
it?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If it doesn't require a graphical
change on the site plan, what's being requested is not
required in a graphic --
>>> I think what Ms. Saul-Sena would like is there to
be some kind of note on the site plan and that would
require to the come back to a first reading, continued
first reading.
If council wants to do that.
>> Changes to remove that issue but council is
conflicted with requiring to change the site plan.
Do you have, Ms. Wysong, any problem with any
representation on the record that would reflect that?
Would it be appropriate to put that in the notes for

the landscaping, for the recreation department?
>>> Is this a continued first reading?
>> Yes, it is.
>>> So it has to come back for second reading.
And so what resolution do you have?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I guess the question would be, would
it be appropriate to move forward with the
representation on the record --
>> If by second reading petitioner would write down --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: What the new changes in the code say.
This is one of the reasons why we are confronted with
it.
>>> The change to the code doesn't allow any adding of
notes to the site plan in between first and second
reading.
It would have to come back for first reading.
>>ROSE FERLITA: But, however, Mr. Shelby, or whoever
wants to listen to this position, it is simply stating
more specifically what they are going to do, based on
what the category encompassed within terms of a hedge.
Excuse me, Andrea.
So we already are saying hedge.

Now she's talking more specifically about what they
are going to put in as a hedge.
Since the palm we are talking about is categorized as
a hedge of your choice, of her choice, and she's
putting it on the record, why can we not feel
confident that that's what they are going to do?
It's part of the hedge.
It's not an additional notation on the site plan.
I think given what the petitioner has already
committed to, it's their choice, hedge, but hedge
nonetheless, it's a palm, makes Mrs. Alvarez happy,
makes them happy, because it's not something that
meets a bigger radius.
I don't understand why we can't go forward with this.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As you stated, council member, if you
will state on the record, Ms. Zelman, what it is your
intention is to do and that petitioner agrees to be
bound by that, and would make note of that.
>>ANDREA ZELMAN: Yes.
Again, as Ms. Ferlita so correctly said, our site plan
already does say that we are going to have a hedge
along Dale Mabry, within the 3-foot boundary.

So what we are committing to is that that hedge will
include palms of the following species.
Cardboard palm, roebellenii palm, pygmy palm, Coontie
palm.
[ Laughter ]
>> Mrs. Zelman, you have been sworn in, and that's
your representation?
>>> Yes.
>> And besides that, doesn't spell out anything that
has to do with landscaping, just tells what you the PD
is and so on.
Just so long as you commit to the, Ms. Zelman.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree with Rose.
We already have a tree fund.
Now we can have a hedge fund.
[ Laughter ]
>>GWEN MILLER: We need to close the public hearing.
>>: So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance rezoning property in
the general vicinity of 29 6 and 2730 North Dale

Mabry highway, in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more
particularly described in section 1 from zoning
district classifications PD, planned development,
vehicle sales, and leasing vehicle repair to PD,
planned development, vehicle sales and leasing/vehicle
repairs, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Question on the motion, Mrs. Saul-Sena.
>> I am going to support this motion because you are
going to have some additional foliage.
I thank you, Ms. Zelman, for working with your client.
Maybe they will get enlightened and put in some real
trees but the palms will give it enough.
>> All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion Carried)
Item 4 is a continued public hearing.
>>MARTY BOYLE McDONALD: Did you just open number 4?
>> Yes.
>>> Land development.
Z 06-114.
Petitioner needs to continue for one week.

They did not get their revised site plan in on time.
I know the petitioner is here to speak to the
situation.
>> Truett Gardner, 101 South Franklin.
We had to have the revised site plan in by 10 a.m.
Monday.
Transportation didn't decide what they actually wanted
until 11:30 on Monday.
We did submit our site plans 30 minutes later but two
hours past our deadline.
So that resulted in the need for one more week
continuance.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think you were here earlier for
the discussion with Mr. Mechanik about the -- what do
we call it?
The construction --
>> Staging.
>> The staging issue and that there might be a plan
for that.
>> We are in a fortunate position with this site with
it being so large.
And .6 of an achier is going to be the park.

The way we are contemplating that is staging will
occur in what will be the park area.
That allows us to construct, the construction vehicles
to move and the park be created.
>> So you don't anticipate any side agreement for that
with the city?
>>> No.
>> As long as you are on first reading maybe you could
put a condition.
>>> You are going to delay us again.
>> Why are we delaying it?
It's already in?
>>> The new rules state you must have your site plan
in ten days prior.
>> So you are trying to get that?
>>> Even one week, he won't be able to get it in.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure?
>> If I see the road close add round that project.
>>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?
Need to continue.
Need a motion.
>> So moved.

>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: One week.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 10 a.m.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion to continue until next week at 10
a.m.
All in favor of the motion.
>> I'm sorry.
Just to see if there's anybody here to speak to that
continuance.
789 all right.
Come on up again.
>> Janell Hanson, again was asked to come by the
community with the exact same issue again.
Developer's agreement was the word we heard with all
three developers, a week, two weeks ago.
We were told only the developer's condition.
If we can make.
-- there will be respect for the codes, the parking,
getting people in and out.
Again, the park issue as with the previous develop
mentioned the maintenance of this park is of concern,
the level and grade of the maintenance.

So as with addressed by the previous developer and he
said that would be addressed, the same thing needs to
be addressed by this developer to make sure it is to a
standard for the community and already be in the site
plan.
If you could just validate that we will be he
internally grateful so we can get the Republican
convention here eventually here.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right.
Are you opposed to a continuance?
>>> Unfortunately, with how I represent the community,
I stepped back from directly answering that but I will
tell you having worked with the community up to this
point it's been excellent, exceptional there. Has
been clear communication.
They have helped support other communities also, as
Truett knows, we worked together just with other
developers.
This has not happened in the future because we don't
want the developers to disappear because --
>> Are you telling me you don't mind the continuance
then?

>>> Well, if you can verify these things, the city,
the taxpayer and yourself to do this.
Networking back here with other people.
It's breaking communities, and Ms. Saul-Sena will say
when we are talking about the Wilson Miller study and
the bonus, twice they notified the community, the
community was never notified, but like a 3 and a
5-partner turnout.
And we are wanting to know if what they asks even then
independent e-mails to the independent neighbors
because it really needs to stop.
And we la for you for direction and help.
>>GWEN MILLER: We will.
>>> Thank you all for walking the community and you as
well.
>>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
(Motion carried) item number 85.
>> So moved to open.
>> Second.
(Motion Carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone in the public want to

speak on item 85?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move the following ordinance upon
second reading.
Is this second reading?
Move to adopt the following ordinance upon second
reading.
An ordinance providing for an area-wide rezoning the
general location of which is 1202 north governor
street, south of Kay street, west of Nebraska Avenue,
north of Cass Street and east of Central Avenue, in
the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
described in section 1 from zoning district
classifications RM-24 residential multifamily to PD,
planned development, mixed use, residential commercial
school, providing an effective date.
>> I have a motion and second.
Voice roll call.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: Resounding yes.
>>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Yes.
>>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Harrison and white
absent.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is anyone here going to speak on item
86?
Anyone that's going to speak on 86, please stand and
raise your right hand.
Everybody has been sworn in?
You have not been sworn?
Okay.
(Oath administered by Clerk).
>>MARTIN SHELBY: If I could begin very briefly.
This is an appeal hearing, a matter that was
previously heard by City Council on appeal, pursuant
to council's present rules on the appellate process,
was returned to the Variance Review Board, the
Variance Review Board rendered their decision,
affirming their previous decision, and now it's back
to council on appeal again.
And pursuant to council's rule, it does not have to

remand at this point, but it can decide how it wishes
to make its decision.
>> Mr. Shelby, can I ask?
Remind us of the standard by which we are judging it.
So we are going back to square one, original evidence?
Or just looking at the appropriateness of the hearing?
Where are we?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: The exact language in making this
determination, the City Council shall not take any new
evidence or testimony but shall only review the record
established during the public hearing
By the board of commission and hear arguments.
And my suggestion to speed this process along -- and
if the appellant wishes to briefly allow council to
refresh its recollection, as to his situation, I'm
sure council will recall unusually, it wasn't too long
ago, and then what you can do is to speed things
along, look at what happened at the last time it was
remanded back and then council can make its own
determination.
>>GWEN MILLER: Go ahead.
>>> I'm Don Smith.

Petitioner in this matter.
1910 Ardsley street in Tampa.
Here today with me is my wife Cheryl.
We are petitioners and appellant.
These are the matters that came before you before,
remanded back to VRB, now before you again.
This matter involves a requested variance from a rear
setback of 20 feet to 11.5.
From 20 feet to 11.5 for a proposed addition to my
home, which is 15 feet by 17 feet, the 17 feet being
the -- this was in the setback area.
So we would be requesting a variance for 17 feet along
the rear of my home to within 11.5 feet of the
property line.
The addition is a 255-foot square foot addition to one
side of my house, limited variance request.
This is the fourth time the matter has been heard
either by VRB or this council.
There has never been any opposition to the surrounding
property owners, or neighbors previously appearing,
persons in support of this matter, and available to be
here today however, so there is no record of any

opposition from the neighbors, surrounding property
owners in any nature.
This property is in the rear of my home, which is also
in the rear of all adjoining homes.
It has a limited variance.
We believe that we have established through the record
evidence all of the criteria required for this, and
suggest to you that when VRB reconsider this, upon
remand, I would suggest to you the record evidence,
the fact that they were saved with -- satisfied with
the matters with which you remanded them back to
consider.
However, they still did not approve this, and
therefore it comes before you again.
The record evidence indicates to you that the VRB had
simply failed to understand or appreciate the hardship
and practical difficult difficulty.
There is no alternative for this limited edition to my
home.
It's been explored in multiple alternatives.
There is no reasonable alternative to this.
There's no adverse effect upon any of the adjoining

property owners, or the community.
There is a similar variance to the property south,
which in fact comes within 3.5 of the rear setback.
That's been explored on the record.
Several times.
So our request here today is that City Council do what
you are now authorized to do, which is to grant this
variance.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's all come back to me.
The last tame council considered your presentation
favorably, and having reviewed the evidence, having
listened to the argument, you came to us today, I
think what you are asking for is a reasonable
variance.
So I would be willing to close the public hearing.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close the public
hearing.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nobody oh to speak against?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be anybody who spoke at the
previous VRB hearing.
I don't believe there was any.

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to grant this
variance.
>>ROSE FERLITA: Second.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
>>CHAIRMAN: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And congratulations.
I'm sorry it took so long.
The only point I wanted to make in the broader picture
is, I really do respect the variance board, because
they are operating under the limited criteria that we
have.
Ms. Wysong and I and other people are working on that
criteria, and we brought it back to council for your
consideration.
One of the things we are going to change hopefully
with council's approval is to be able to take into
consideration not just the dirt, not just the
property, but, you know, the unusual nature of the

property, but also the house or structures that are
already on the property.
And I think with that information, perhaps the VRB
might have been able to be a little more lenient or
considerate of that.
In the absence of that, I'm sorry you were bounce add
round a little.
Thank you.
>>> I appreciate council.
>>ROSE FERLITA: I think your frustration and our
frustration was equally shared because of the process
and hopefully it will change.
We were supportive of the reasons you stated for your
hardship.
And sorry you had to go back and come back, and here
we are.
So good luck to you.
>>> Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Cathy Coyle, where is she?
Where is Cathy Coyle?
She's outside in the lobby?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: While we are waiting, can I -- I

brought this up earlier.
I move the administration appear and provide a report
on the city and City Council's role in the future use
of Centro Espanol, next Thursday, November 16, under
unfinished business.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The city and city attorney's
office?
>> I move the administration, whoever they want to
send, appear and provide a report on the city
administration and City Council's role in the future
use --
>>> I will make a friendly amendment.
I think we need a legal opinion on that because
apparently this is rather complex legal issue as well.
>> Okay.
>>CHAIRMAN: I have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second that.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
Last week I delivered the copies dated October
31st of the draft that you have before you.
I am transmitting to you a revised date of today.

I was able to meet with councilman Dingfelder and
councilwoman Alvarez yesterday and there were some
minor tweaks to some of the language, some typos and
some labeling errors that Ms. Alvarez -- God thing
she, did so I made those corrections and that's why
the date is updated.
The general content and everything is the same as last
week's revision.
The revisions that you have before you really are
based on the strategic action plan.
That plan came before the CRA 9-4-2006 and was
approved.
Subsequent to that, within a few weeks, you had made a
motion to request Tony Garcia and I to come before to
explain what F.A.R. ratio and reported to you, and
then following that, within the next couple of weeks,
there was a report from Thom Snelling and myself and
Mr. Chen on a schedule laid out for when these
regulations were going to come before you through this
process.
We are finally here today.
These regulations are based on the action plan, as I

said, and that action plan went through numerous
public workshops starting back in November of 2005.
The following strategic action plans from June 2006,
and it does represent all the council change requests
from that last executive summary that was transmitted
to you by Mr. Chen.
I believe it showed a cap height of 175 through the
area, the base F.A.R. 3.5, maximum of 7.0, and then
all the entitlement issues and strategies that we have
before you today.
The 19 Channel District, the 9-11 draft you have, it
is 24 pages.
I did not give you the underline and strike-through
version because it gets a little confusing.
Not the bulk but probably 50% of what you have before
you is already in the code today.
And they will be tweaked to what's in here.
As you may recognize some of the zonings you have
before you today were from CD 1 or CD-2 to PD-3, which
is the site plan for that area.
We are condensing that to just the one and the two.
The one is a basic zoning for the area, and the two

will be the site plan option that comes before you.
The schedule of permitted uses is essentially the
same.
Some of the uses that were removed were drive-through
facilities, and some of them uses that were called out
in the plan, hazardous waste, storage of materials.
There's stuff in here that they are for port-related
activities only.
If you go to page 6, you will see the new chart for
dimensional criteria.
>> Excuse me, mine isn't numbered.
>>> The bottom right.
You will note in the chart at the top of the page,
certain streets are called out, 11th street,
12th, Channelside, Kennedy.
Those streets were specified in the action plan assert
gateways and certain corridors where various
streetscaping requirements are required.
And with those, established setbacks and ranges needed
to be set in code, and what we have done is also
adopted brackets which are part of the action plan
which are coming up in the next few pages.

The parking requirements are at the bought -- bottom
of page 6.
Those are the numbers that are in the code for that.
Mr. Chen did bring up a couple items to me.
One in particular performing arts studio which shows
3.6 per thousand square feet.
And he did note that potentially that should be
lowered.
Looking at the fact that we are trying to encourage
more artist space and galleries and outdoor and indoor
performance areas.
The bottom on page 7.
That number is currently in code today.
And we certainly can look at adjusting that.
We haven't done it yet.
Did not adjust any of the parking ratios.
That is a discussion obviously that I would have to
have with transportation and go through some of the
current rates that are out there in engineering
standards.
But it was a good point for Mr. Chen, especially an
item that we are trying to encourage.

And looking at more trends in the area, too.
Going to page 9, B, C and D, those are all current
code provisions, alternative compliance for paving,
surface parking lots, in lieu parking payments of
various procedures.
These are all items in the code today.
Page 10 is where the design approval starts, section
27.455.
That is our standard language today in the
regulations.
This just spells out when you are required to go
through design approval, who reviews it and how many
plans you submit and what the information is to be
provided on the plans.
Process will remain the same.
If it's a rezoning it will come through land
development.
Wilson Stair will review for design criteria.
If it doesn't come through rezoning it will be
approved still by Wilson Stair for design.
Page 11, designation of corridors.
This is where we really start to pull in the items

from the action plan.
The action plan called out hierarchy of corridors,
major gateways, secondary gateways.
On page 12 you can see the maps that identify major
streets, minor streets, and on figure 19-1-B on the
right shows you the gateway areas.
Standard streetscapes noted at the top of page 12,
ten-foot sidewalks as a standard minimum.
Street trees, shade variety, 30-foot interval.
Inclusion of on-street parking, 9 by 24-foot stalls
which are standard parallel space anywhere in the
city.
Trash receptacles, benches, decorative streetlighting.
For those developments proposed streetscape above
minimum.
They shall adhere to the design palate of the action
plan which as you recall was a high tech palate.
I can show you that graphically if would you like to
see it.
You remember it?
Okay.
Following the figures 19-1, A and B, bottom of page

12, that's when we start to get into the hierarchy of
streets, calling out Channelside Drive.
On page 13 you see the planned view and the cross
section.
This is where you see the introduction of the 100-foot
right-of-way for Channelside at the Promenade that is
being proposed.
The eastern side of the street, that's where the
larger Promenade is, where the rail is, streetcar
line.
The bottom of page 13 is where we designate Kennedy.
14, continuing with the plan view.
And the cross section.
Twiggs Street is noted on the bottom of page 14.
On to page 15 with our planned view and cross section.
As you see with each street that's being designated,
they get narrower.
And finally, on 15, the interior streets, which are
really considered the residential streets.
They are the narrowest.
60-foot right-of-way.
Two lanes of traffic with on-street parking.

And the wider ten-foot to 20-foot sidewalks with the
outdoor cafe. This is really the pedestrian-scale
street.
Development site and building design standards.
Through page 17.
This is where we start to list the criteria.
The basic criteria for new building, vending
conditions -- vending machines, parking along the
street, vehicular access and circulation, weather
protection, canopies, general shade and cover for
pedestrians, undergrounding of utilities.
A lot of these are basic criteria in the code today.
If you remember, previous to all this discussion, the
Channel District regulations that exist today are
numbered 1 through 8.
Then you hit number 9 in the code today.
And it says that these items are considered for
design -- we essentially can't deny if you don't do
them.
We took that language out because it was pretty loose.
And now we basically have stated that these minimum
basic design criteria, you need to meet.

On page 18, the general on-site landscaping standards
are four criteria requiring a variation of design and
species and colors and locations.
D is general design standards.
And E is waterfront access.
All standard in the code today.
Page 19 is encroachment.
At the bottom of page 19, public open spaces, design
concepts.
This is the next piece from the action plan which is
where they actually designated the four sub areas.
If you recall, it was A through D, waterfront, north,
central, and south.
And what the plan identified was which area needed a
certain size public open space.
In A, the waterfront sub area is identified, but a
community scale of public open space, neighborhood
scale, and pocket scale were needed to serve that
area.
And then in B, C and D, they were in need of one
neighborhood scale and two pocket scale.
If you go to page 21, these were the general design

concepts that were shown in the action plan.
And what it says, within the body of these
regulations, is that whatever the developer brings
forward, the Parks Department needs to sign off on the
final design.
This is just a general schematic from the plan.
The community scale, public open space, two acres, the
neighborhood scales, a minimum of half an acre which
is approximately 21,000 square fate, and the pocket
scale on page 22 is essentially 10% of an acre, which
is 4300 square fate. The pocket scale is what you
would see between buildings of the plaza area, that
they put in their water feature, tables, and chairs.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question on page 20.
I thought there was a statement made to us, perhaps
two weeks ago when we had -- when you had the three
projects that were in front of us, the Channelside.
Was that a week ago or two weeks ago?
Two weeks ago.
We have basically approved virtually all the available
land in areas B, C and D.
Not every square foot.

But what percentage?
Like 90%, 95%?
>> Off the top of my head I tell you the percentage.
I can say I met with someone yesterday in the sub area
and he was looking at a substantial size open space on
his property.
Which would meet the -- I believe it would meet the
neighborhood scale.
So there is some land out there now depending on the
way they develop the property.
I can certainly get that number for you on what you
have approved and what's been permitted.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a sense of that how
much we have already approved, and/or is already being
developed in B, C and D?
>>MICHAEL CHEN: I have heard people use numbers of
approximately 80% being committed.
I think that number, I personally feel it's probably a
little bit overstated.
But also, we have to realize that we have approved
zoning on projects that over the course of time will
come back to you with a change, too.

So I don't know in terms of what will actually occur,
what percentage of land that commits.
>> And my point being, I think our focus -- not our
total focus but maybe 0% of our focus should be in
this waterfront sub area A, you know.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: It certainly has the largest
percentage of potential development.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
That we haven't addressed yet really, on the rezoning
fashion.
All right.
>>MICHAEL CHEN: May I mention something with
observation?
As part of the planning, the findings of the plan, the
recommendations, the identification as an appropriate
area for a larger park, for the entire district, this
is all in recognition that the bulk of that waterfront
land area is controlled by the city or the port, and
between us, we should be able to figure out how land
allocation can occur to where these larger spaces can
be realized.
It was also the place, for instance, where they said

this is the perfect place for a district-wide
stormwater basin.
So things of structure that kind of are occurring in
that waterfront area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: Just to clarify, when we talk about
community neighborhood and pocket leaving off with
what Mike said, community scale is a large piece that
was identified for the waterfront sub area.
But back to the pocket scale, the 4300 square feet,
this is a little niche taken out of a building, or
where buildings join on properties.
A lot of the developments that you are seeing before
you, half an acre, three quarters of an acre, you are
not going to see too many Seaboard square Sembler
properties out there that have assembled four blocks.
There just aren't that many blocks.
What you are going to probably see more of are the
pocket scale which are actually the highest
percentage.
People building in those public areas, people walk and
sit down.

>>MARY ALVAREZ: The pocket parks, Cathy, if the
developers are the ones, they are the ones that are
doing it.
This is part of their bonus?
So they would be taking care of the maintenance of
these parks?
Or would it be the city?
>>> No, they are assuming the maintenance.
We only give them credit for the first 20 years.
As part of the -- as part of the calculation which
we'll go into next.
It's on their property, though
If you would note, the map on the Elmo, what I am
going to be moving into now is the second handout
which is section 27-329.
This is -- unless you have some questions.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this the time to have questions
or do you want her to go through all the presentation?
>>> You can certainly ask questions.
They are two separate documents.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what I thought.
I want to start off by asking legal a question, which

is, Cathy said that we approved this, the strategic
action plan was approved?
>>> By the CRA.
>> Now, my question for legal, does that have any
legal standing in terms of the code?
Isn't what we are doing today potentially adopting
into our code, a thing that has legality, that we
should view the approved plan as a guideline or
something like that?
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
Your question is with respect to the plan that you
passed, and what its efficacy is in this process?
There is a guideline.
>> In other words, we can change it.
I mean, it's just a guideline.
It isn't like we have to hone directly to what --
>> I assume.
I am not as conversant with the plan as, say, Mike is
but I assume your plan is very general and wouldn't be
as restrictive. The point obviously that you are
trying to find some guidance to live and develop.
I assume it does that but doesn't restrict you with

respect to these issues.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then this is a question -- a
comment for Cathy Coyle.
As I look at the list of community enhancement
amenities, I really feel that this is a ridiculously
long list, in that some -- and everybody knows Janell
out there -- a number of these things I heard from the
residents of Channel District are things that just
should take place as part of the market forces and
part of the evolution in the area.
And as part of the person developing a project and
having pride in the project.
For example, enhanced landscaping.
If you're spending $50 million on the building you are
going to wanted to put in nice landscaping.
I think the market should take care of that.
And I want to share with you all that I talked with
Christine Burdick about a number of these things in
terms of what downtown requires and what the Channel
District requires.
And I asked her, don't you think that these amenities
are things that people would just do to make their

project attractive and marketable for the public?
And she said, absolutely.
And furthermore, if we say, oh, we have to -- downtown
you are just required to do a bunch of retail.
If we say, we just expect retail in the Channel
District, that's different than giving them bonuses
for providing lower rents and subsidies for retail.
And in a sense it gives the Channel District an
unequal competitive edge over Ybor City and downtown
and everyplace else in Tampa.
And my feeling is, if retail is something that we
think is important, we should just require it.
We should say that a certain percentage of the ground
floor has to be -- and I don't think we should say
retail.
I think we have to say active uses.
Because frankly pediatrician's office, dance studio,
portrait -- poetry reading corner.
I think what we are really after is activity.
>>> If I could I did alter name, the neighborhood
serving commercial/retail floor area.
The small drop-off, drycleaning.

>> And I appreciate that.
I want us to think differently about this list.
I think this list is everything good that we want.
I don't think that we should necessarily give people
additional density and hate for this.
I think a lot of these things we should just expect
them to do because they are grownups,
Two things
I'm looking at page 23, item 1, A through ---and then
number 2, I just think that's a huge laundry list.
Most of which we should just expect.
A couple of things that I personally think I have
heard from the community are most important to them
are public open space, which is really -- easily
measurable, and is an obvious amenity, and that's
really important.
And the other thing that I have heard in the past is I
think has always been part of the conversation about
making the Channel District special is item G, artist
studio display, indoor, outdoor performance space.
Again the arts being part of the culture of the
Channel District.

Those are the only two things that I think you
should -- I think transit should be there any way.
I think the people -- transit by having --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: But this is more than that.
This is actually a contribution, a financial
contribution.
>> I think you should be making up the financial
contribution as part of your transportation.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are now.
>>> Yes, we are.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But enhanced landscaping, give me a
break.
You shouldn't get another score because you are going
to put in better landscaping.
You should put in better landscaping anyway.
It's too broad and inclusive of a list.
I think we are being way too nice.
I think we can be much more modest in what we trade
off for additional storage.
And I would like you to note the public nodding madly
out there.
She's representative of the neighborhood organization

and she's been to all the meetings.
There have been all these meetings that we have
scheduled at 1:30 when everybody works.
If we really want to have public input, we need to
have this in the evening.
>>> I think you're correct in bringing up these items
right now.
That's where we are.
We are in the workshop setting.
The list that you have before you is the full list
from the action plan.
And that's what's being proposed to council from what
the CRA looked at, adopted.
And you certainly have discretion at removing some of
these items or adding items.
The question that you need to ask yourself is, some of
these things maybe should be mandated.
And I can't say which one at this point without full
discussion and consensus from council.
Some of these things may or may not be required.
The question you need to ask yourself, that you should
ask yourself, is whether or not the city should help

in supporting those services.
If you notice on page 17, number 1 at the top,
neighborhood serving commercial uses including general
retail, restaurant, and/or personal services should be
located on the ground floor, and first and second and
third floor.
The ground floor, assist in pedestrian action,
connectivity to the public right-of-way.
This is essentially a mandate that should be located
on the ground floor.
>> If they exist.
>> If they exist.
That's where they are located.
If you want to mandate a certain percentage you
certainly could.
But the question we have to ask ourselves and answer
ultimately will be involved in whether or not we
helped support that use for a certain time period.
And that's what we propose in the periphery, based on
the economists working on action plan.
And I went to Atlanta on vacation and I have some
photos to show you of the Publix that was built up

there.
I do have the photos to show.
But this particular development, and maybe that will
be similar.
You see the high-rise above it.
But one thing you will note is the opposite corner,
the entire bottom floor is retail.
But three quarters of the block is empty.
All the way around the other two and a half sides that
say, please come rent me.
And two blocks from Tech surround by brand new
high-rises and restaurants, other developments.
The section of midtown actually reminded me a lot of
Tampa.
There's no set pattern to streetscape, lay out, with
each block kind of developed kind of on its own
merits. What you see here, the population of 470,000
people is that you have empty retail.
So we want to encourage it, certainly.
But we also don't want these people to fail.
So how do we encourage it and balance that need that
we are trying to mandate?

And that's a question that you need to ask yourself.
Part of the discussion in the workshop.
How do you handle it?
The recommendation in the action plan is, make sure
that in the long-term, as the entire area begins to
develop, and people start to live down there and use
these retail shops -- that's what the action plan
stated and that's what we put on the periphery as
well.
Ultimately, you need to make the decision of whether
or not to subsidize, whether or not to give credit,
and if you do, how many years do we --
>> How many years did you advertise?
>>> We did it on a ten-year projection.
I have -- came up with a methodology.
And we battled with exactly how to calculate it.
And the majority of the questions that you see
recently, we hit a mark where around the 7 to 8th
year, it dropped off.
It basically zeros out.
What we showed in this calculation is a ten-year
projection with a discount rate, to help them

stabilize that over a ten-year period.
To ensure that hopefully they'll be able to have
renters in there, you know, that can actually survive.
The next section, if you would like to talk about
it --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Excuse me.
Not all of these developments are going to have or
want retail.
So this is just a list of what could be done there if
they wanted it, right?
>>> That's correct.
You could have a building that's all residential.
Actually adopted as all residential, but it was all
residential.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is my point about the -- what
part of the Channel District we are really focusing on
at this point.
Because what we are really focusing on is the area
"A," which is along Ybor channel.
>>> In the entire area.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes and no.
The majority of what's left in terms of acreage is in

area "A" along Ybor channel.
No?
Yes?
>>MICHAEL CHEN: That is where your acreage is.
But the chances of much retail, along that waterfront
strip, is somewhat unlikely.
>> That's my point.
And I don't even know if it's credible.
Not just unlikely.
Because that's the main Channelside people.
Are they going to cross over, you know, channel drive,
and going over there, to shop or what have you?
I think they will have a better tendency to be
apartment buildings or condos, but no great
opportunity -- if that's the case then we could push
the park space over there, if we limit some of these
other issues.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we develop a list and people
come to us, developers come to us and say, well, I
provided you X, then we have to give them the
additional space and we may not want to do that.
I want council to give a response to what the

residents want and to give them what they want.
And the thing that I heard most clearly is they want
public open space.
I think if you look at the Channel District, that is
the key thing that he would want.
And I would be really happy to say that, and even so,
if I had to choose between money for transit and open
space, you can always come up with more money.
You can't come up with more open space.
I think more open space is what we heard from
constituents the public wants.
>>MARY ALVAREZ:
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mary, what I heard anecdotally,
even though it's -- the city and port have begun
something else.
-- right now eventually it's going to be private
partnership land.
And it will be developed out and that's what -- so
right now, yeah, it's a big parking lot.
>> One other thing is we were talking about -- you
know what?
If I want to walk over there.

Now what I mean?
It's not that close.
Not everything is close.
We only got a little playground.
But it's not big.
You have to be fair about this stuff.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Smith.
>>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, city attorney.
From the discussion I hear, it raises the question
that Mr. Shelby and I were talking about and that is
how you can see the application of these criteria.
And it seems to me the intent originally was to
provide this council an opportunity to deal with bonus
density credits by obtaining from those who seek to
develop amenities that are important to and needed in
the community.
Not necessarily is going to change over time.
So it seems to me what you want to have is the
ability, the discretion, if you will, to grant density
credits of various types of factors which in any given
point in time may be pretty clear what the real need
S.for example, you can have discretion as long as it's

reasonably guided.
If for example you give bonus density credits for
child care centers and you have five projects to put
in child care centers.
You don't need any more child care centers.
>> Who is going to --
>>> With that's been going on.
My view was, it was going to be council.
Now if you want this a staff driven processor council
driven process?
>> The three projects we had the developer came in and
said here's my list, it was already calculated and it
was 11:00 at night.
>>> And approved by staff and we were told we have no
discretion.
>>> That's why we are looking at the ordinance to
determine --
>> That's my question.
How much discretion are we seeking to put in the
ordinance?
And then if we want to have discretion that allows
those kinds of determinations to be made, we need to

have some indicia of what your performance standard
is.
Depending upon the needs of the community at the time
of the application request, the that council has the
ability to grant additional bonus density credits for
uses and needs that are then in fact needed.
Now, that allows you to evaluate what the proposal is
and determine, for example, is this landscaping really
of such a tremendous nature that you want to give a
bonus density credit for it?
Or is the need more for transit or more for child care
or more for art or more for public space?
You are going to have an annual process in which you
are going to meat with the community, and you are
going to determine a priority of community needs --
semiannual, sorry.
So you will have this give and take that will help
inform your analysis as to how -- if that's what you
are trying to do.
>> My question, and what I shared with Mr. Smith, the
question is the level to which council has discretion,
then it would use the individual site plan.

My other concern --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Now the timing, we get it at the
eleventh hour.
And if we even try to tweak it, you know, the whole
world hates us for doing that.
And that's the reality of it.
So if we can get plugged in in a different part of the
timing, of that, then that would be helpful.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the way, Mr. Smith, City
Council has repeatedly been put in a position, two
weeks ago, with three different -- where Cathy and
make negotiated with the developer, came up with
something that was presented to us fait accompli.
The public isn't involved in it.
We are not involved.
And presented fait accompli.
And we are told by legal staff that it's too late to
go back and look at this, that it's in the plan, and
therefore they get it.
They get the additional height if they produce
something on this laundry list of which the last one
is "or anything else that may be deemed desirable."

We are put in an impossible situation.
>> The question you are asking today and that you are
seeking to answer is, do you want to change that
process?
>>> Yes.
>> And if you want to change that process, what is the
most effective way to change it?
And what I am suggesting is that we craft the
ordinance in a way that does allow you discretion,
within reason, that does allow a process by which you
can make that assessment.
Probably irritating staff so I better let them have a
say.
But it seems to me the point is to give council -- you
said density.
You said zoning guidelines.
If you are going to choose to be more generous than
that, then you should have a say in what it is that
motivates you to be more generous.
>> I have a suggestion.
Created for this particular district, create a novel
approach would be a third public hearing.

A first public hearing.
A first public hearing would just deal with that one
question.
Before they come in for the second and third public
hearing, which would be the traditional site plan,
et cetera.
The first public hearing is in advance of everything
else, come in and chat about what type of amenities
you think you want.
>>> To anything that awe reply, not just the Channel
District.
>>DAVID SMITH: I know Mike has an idea.
So let me let the people that have to deal with the
process address that issue.
But I wanted to find out what I think you're trying to
accomplish.
And I think I know what that is now.
Thank you.
>>MICHAEL CHEN: The way that the plan was written, and
the attempt to codify the zoning, it actually provides
a method for you to have a great deal of control over
the list of amenities and enhancements that can be

qualified for the bonus.
In fact, it is the zoning is being written so that on
a semiannual basis, meaning twice a year, you can
review the list of amenities.
And the plan acknowledges that you have this long
shopping list of amenities, and at any time through
this semiannual review, you can either designate a
priority for any number of that list, or you can
remove items from the list at that time.
>> But I think the interest T point here, though, is
maybe it needs to differ on a project by project
basis.
You're saying every six months we can modify the list.
But what we need, let's say, down by the entertainment
area, might be very different than what we need all
the way up at the north end.
And so, therefore, I think council would be looking
for a little more input on a project by project basis
as to the broad base you are talking about.
>> And I understand your thoughts on that.
I would take the structure of the plan was done in
such fashion that a developer can identify with some

reliability what is out there on the table, design his
projects so he is in a position to bring something to
you for a zoning hearing, without having to throw away
his plans because with no notice you decide you want a
bigger space than a daycare center.
>> That's why I'm suggesting maybe a third public
hearing.
>>> This is just a list as I see it project by
project.
And they are going to pick and choose what they want
and they are going to come to us, and I'm sure they
have gone to the public, or to the public hearing
dozens of times to get the input from the neighbors
living in there.
Yes, they D.don't tell me they didn't.
You know?
And I mean they were all there.
So I'm sure that everybody knew what their amenities
were.
So this is just a list.
And they can pick and choose.
And if we don't agree, or the council, then it's a

different story.
But I don't think we need to have a third public
hearing.
I think it's just, you know, it's just ad nauseam at
that point.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I just have a question.
I'm just concerned that the 11-9 draft, there's
something called maintenance of bonus shall be given
for expenditures of maintenance.
Is that still in here under 27.329?
>>> It is.
But I would like to have the other items addressed.
>> But it just caught my eye because I remember
counseling say that's a concern that ended up in the
list.
From my perspective, from what I am listening, to have
that discussion, and what I shared with Ms. Cole and
Mr. Smith is the position when you find yourself where
you don't want to be, that buy what you create, it
becomes a matter of right for the developer.
And let's just say for the sake of argument that the
issue is maintenance F.using their calculations, they

come in and say, according to your code, I am
providing X number of dollars for maintenance which
gives me a bonus F.A.R.
I don't know whether you want to find yourself in a
position as a matter of right.
But if you don't, you face a lawsuit saying we are
forced to have to give this person something.
So I'm just very concerned.
I'm willing to work with LDC and the legal department
to make sure that what it is you have does give you
that discretion.
And the other thing that I was also concerned about is
that once you grant an F.A.R. bonus to a PD, what sort
of life attached to that?
For instance, if the property is sold or perhaps it
comes into another PD and you have already previously
granted a bonus density.
So those are the issues that I am concerned about.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One of the other things that I am
very concerned about, one of the things I love about
public open space, I'm afraid if you provide the Peter
ability to go up another couple of stories, that you

provide, let's say, child care, they might say, well,
we couldn't find someone to provide it.
Or if there is some of these other things where they
can just say there wasn't really a need for it, and we
have no recourse after the fact, there is no existing
provision for monitoring what we trade off in making
sure that it really and truly happened.
And that's something that I know is a concern to the
residents.
And I think that some of the things that we have said
in here, this is one of council's few areas to really
micromanage on behalf of the public.
And I think it's our responsibility to be very careful
with that, and maintain the discretion so the people
don't consider these additional stories, additional
densities, a right, rather it is a very specific
privilege.
And they have to really make their case to the public
and the council before they get that.
And Ms. Alvarez, with all due respect to the
developers, they want the density, and they are going
to argue, we spent all this time with our planners and

architects coming up with this stuff.
They need to get very specific direction from us early
on.
And I think the smaller the list and the more
pre-development conversation there can be about what
the public really wants, the better they'll be able to
satisfy those public concerns.
So I want to be really specific and narrow and picky.
We can always get broader.
We have been wide open.
I think it's appropriate for council to be much more
focused on behalf of the public and say, this is what
we perceive the public wants in this area.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I would like to clarify one thing, as Ms. Wysong said
a couple weeks ago.
It is currently your discretion.
The problem is it comes to you as a fait accompli and
you can't renegotiate but it is currently legally
within your discretion.
Practically you have a problem because you are not
involved in negotiations.

I understand.
I just want to make sure you were clear, you have the
discretion to say no.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We get that.
So the question, can we get there today?
Or do you need to hear -- do we need to provide very
clear direction to you today?
>>DAVID SMITH: I think the colloquy is providing that
sort of direction.
And I know, I need to sit down with Cathy.
Cate needs additional direction.
But the biggest issue was the contained of things we
are talking about and making sure we avoid the only
consequences so that people come back and change their
daycare for something else that you really didn't want
to approve.
So we need to think about a time frame, because as you
know, some projects get rezoned, and then -- the need
for whatever you gave the bonus density credits for at
that point may no longer exist so you may need to look
at time frames so they can't get banked.
Anyway --

>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Try and get some consensus?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that's a good idea.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If I could respond to a couple of
items.
What David said is correct, you do have discretion.
You have discretion in every decision you make.
You really do.
>> It doesn't look that way at all.
>>> It's difficult to negotiate with council up front
before we get to the public hearing.
>> It's impossible --
>>> But what your discretion initially is, what you
say to me, is your discretion.
And every six months, I come back to you and say these
are the changes from all the stakeholders, I have
gotten consensus from the public and all the private
entities, this is what should be changed.
We are doing it on a semiannual basis to be able to
address development and market trend, to be able to
address what the public is desiring out of these
developments as well.
And also be able to hear from council what from what

they heard, that should be changed.
And every six months, really any of the numbers and
any of the items that are in here, the way we
calculate things, and what we calculate, what we get
bonus for.
We can certainly go through the list of items.
If you want to take a narrower approach.
I think it is your discretion.
I would like to have a discussion on each one, which
ones you would like and which ones you would not.
And if we are talking just Channel District at this
point, not the CBD periphery.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to hear from the --
I'll give at whirl.
Starting on page 23, item 1, the things that I think
we should keep -- I think we should take a different
approach.
We have had a wide open approach.
I think we should tray for the first six months a very
narrow approach, and then as you said, Ms. Coyle, we
can come back in six months and do it more.
But I think we should just include item B for public

open space, item G for artist studio, item H for
transit support -- that's what I would like to see.
>>> Items 1 and 2?
>> I think the other stuff just needs to be in there.
I think all these enhancements, the increased sidewalk
area, I think that's just an expectation that already
addressed and very well addressed earlier in the plan
with very attractive illustration.
I think that's already spoken for.
>>> Other council members?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Neighborhood serving retail.
I think they should just do that because 30% of your
ground floor space should be office space or 50%.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: A question.
What is the difference in the code between open space
and park land?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: The definition is different.
>> For council's edification what constitutes the
difference between public open space and park land?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: We saw it in the big project which
was between open space but it wasn't green.
It was concrete.

>>> Open to the sky.
Potentially we get an easement over public park land,
actually dedicated.
They are two different things.
That's why in this language it's not called park.
It's called public open space.
This is not park land.
It's a different scale, public open space areas.
I stayed away from the word park because that's not
what it is.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yeah, I want public park land.
Somebody else speak.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And you remember --
>>> Keep in mind that definition public park, which I
believe is two acres.
It's going to be difficult.
>> They talked about open space.
And I pointed out that was all concrete.
It was concrete with planters.
>>> Open doesn't mean green.
>> Right.
And I was trying to point that out that night and I

got nowhere with it.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's tough to be green.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: If you notice the super script at
the bottom, number 1, those are the ones that I
identified in this as the ones that were truly public,
in the public realm, so to speak, or some contained of
actual public benefit, public parking, Channelside
Drive Promenade, affordable, obtainable housing, and
access to waterfront, street design, and -- street
design itself is the roadway, the actual right-of-way.
And increased sidewalk area.
What they are getting with that, at least the way it's
written, you go through and negotiate what items
you're proposing.
If you happen to pick one of these items that are
prioritized, you get an extra 10% because you pick
something that's truly -- people can walk on it.
Physically experience it.
It's about the priorities also.
The priority I think is important if we have a list of
items.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Had you considered different levels

of priority?
If council wishes to say, things within that list, to
write them as bonuses, to give them different bonus
categories, in other words, different --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Isn't that project to project, though?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Right now, you're faced with a public
policy decision.
And your public policy decision is right now you have
a 3.5 floor area ratio maximum.
And you as the body are saying, in exchange for
certain public amenities, which council says should be
enforceable, and maintainable, you wish to grant some
bonus densities.
If the list is very loose and very easily fulfilled,
then from a public policy standpoint, you are assuring
that everything will be developed close to an F.A.R.
If, however, you are, as a public policy decision,
deciding that which you feel as representative of the
community are worthy of being incentivized by a bonus
density, then you choose that which you want to grant,
not as a matter of right but for public a pen Penn men
advertise, not that you want to grant increased bonus.

This is your opportunity to look at what is important
to you, unless -- and of course I don't take a
position -- unless your decision is, that's just
develop everything into 7.0 F.A.R. and give them this
mix of how they want to come up with it but ultimately
it's your decision of how you want this based on
public input, that's been provided to you, based on
community input, where you wish to go as a legislative
body to implement the plan that you have which until
very recently laid dormant in the comprehensive plan
and not even aware of the level awareness up until
recently.
>>CATHERINE COYLE: I would count her that, though.
If we established that you have discretion on what you
decide you approved, the more you limit your scope,
the less discretion you have.
You narrowed yourself to only a few items.
And you really can't go outside of that.
If it comes before you and you're saying, now I want
something else and it's not in the list, you don't
have that option.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would say we have that model

downstairs.
If we were to put in the last five projects we have
approved, there is very little open space.
And I feel like if sore westbound to come to Ybor and
ask for liquor zoning, frankly we are not desperate to
make something happen.
I think it would be more responsible and appropriate
for council to be picky, picky, picky in whether we
let people have additional F.A.R., to allow the
animals to all escape which is what we have done till
now and council has not been able to play a meaningful
role in the negotiation.
You and Mr. Chen negotiated it and it's come to us and
we have been told you can't negotiate it at the
eleventh hour vote it up or down, we have already
invested all of this, in F.A.R., based on the approved
plan that you would accept anything.
And I would I would rather for the next six months
we'll give it a whirl, be very, very particular.
I think it would well serve our community.
Because I don't think we served them well by approving
everything that's come before us.

It is not -- the neighborhood is not necessarily
getting what they want.
So I would like Ms. Alvarez's suggestions, mine, we
haven't heard from you but I think six months ton see
how it goes.
>> Mary, what was your suggestion?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I like the riverwalk and also the
transit support.
And the retail floor for at least six months and see
how that goes.
I really feel strong about that.
>> Do you think we should just mandate it or let them
have extra F.A.R.?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I think we should have them do extra
F.A.R.
I do.
It's just to help them out.
>> But it makes the Channel District -- downtown in
Ybor City.
>>MICHAEL CHEN: In downtown you have no F.A.R. limits
at all.
So downtown has an advantage already.

>> But they don't have any incentive for retail.
It's a requirement for downtown activity.
>> We essentially mandate policies but it's only
technically required along the Franklin Street
corridor.
That is the retail district.
>> And if I may, also in the plan, and I guess we need
to make sure that it did appear in the changed zoning
proposals, but the plan also has a base requirement
for rights.
It requires active first floors.
It's the inclusion of retail as part of that activity
that is the bonus.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me toss this one out, since my
last procedure fell flat.
I think that's what we are wrestling with.
We are wrestling with a procedure that didn't work
very well.
And I then I think we are trying to modify the code
accordingly, and doesn't have a pretty result.
Linda is our chair -- building, zoning, preservation,
but basically our plan group.

How much as a matter of course, hopefully when they
will be here after March, hopefully you and Cathy will
be here after March for a long time, as a matter of
course that as the chair of that, that she be plugged
into that process sort of as council's representative?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I can't because --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, she can.
She just can't disclose it.
It's a common fallacy.
Mr. Shelby confirm that and Julia can confirm that.
>>> I missed it.
I'm sorry.
>> We have a procedural problem and I am trying to
come up with a solution.
Council feels like we are out of that loop until 11:00
on a Thursday night.
So what I am saying is if we plug Linda, since she's
chair of planning, building, zoning committee, if we
plugged her into that on these projects, then she, as
our representative, could work with Mike and Cathy and
the developer and the community to make sure that
whatever, you know, amenity is appropriate for that

project, and the place where we are putting it.
In other words, we can leave a long laundry list but
on a case-by-case basis at least they would have two
of our eyeballs on it, and they would have two of the
eyeballs on it early on.
Linda said she has concerns about quasi-judicial.
My response would be, A, I know Linda is going to work
hand in hand with the neighborhood and the developers,
so that takes away a little of the ex parte.
She's going to be working with those guys.
B, all she has to do is disclose that she was involved
in those meetings pursuant to our rule, and once she
discloses then it erase it is ex parte problem.
>>> I don't even know she has to disclose.
I was talking to Julia about it.
There's no reason in four months we couldn't have a
building and zoning discussion, a scheduled discussion
in the Mascotte room, so that whatever input I receive
--
>> But it's about a specific project.
I'm not talking about generally.
I'm talking about each project, the first time you

hear about it then she needs to be plugged in and hear
about it.
If you're comfortable with it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would be more than happy to do
it.
If we can accomplish that, I think that would be very
productive.
Whenever people talk about things in advance.
>>CHAIRMAN: We'll do that and leave all these in?
>> I would be comfortable leaving them all in because
at least on a case-by-case basis, then Linda can cut
them off at the pass, and say -- if there's something
that's really just wrong, then fine, we take them out.
But I don't know.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: It's because it's on a case basis and
they are not going to use all these amenities.
And that's a good idea.
I'll vote with that, let Linda do it.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want to bring to council's
attention?
>>CATHERINE COYLE: My other problem.
I think what I hear you saying is almost creating like

an enhanced DRC, a person identified on council
sitting at that enhanced DRC for Channelside project
to make comments.
I will tell you, I think the ex parte communication
issue may be resolved.
I think what wouldn't be resolvable is, I think Ms.
Saul-Sena could identify things that she personally
didn't agree with or personally had a problem with.
I don't know that she's in a position of saying
council would disagree with that, first of all.
And second of all, I would want to make it very clear
that that doesn't prohibit somebody from coming
forward because everybody has that right.
So I would like a chance to think about that and maybe
do a little talk with Marty about it to see how that
works.
I know that ---one of the changes we are looking at
will allow some changes and a lot more flexible
between first reading and second reading and I think
that may give the ability, where I think the
frustration is now, and it's just gotten worse, is you
hear a project, you say, well, what about this?

What about this?
What about this?
And you have the developer saying -- don't send me
back to first reading.
And so kind of put you in a position of not wanting to
string the process out any further to be continued,
another two-week continuance.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I am talking about is Linda as
our chair of that group is, "A," I think it's very
workable, okay?
"B," I don't think we have to codify it at all.
I think that it's I think she already has as chair of
that group.
I think that this board would give her great credence
when she comes back and says, I told them this wasn't
good I hope my board supports me.
At the end of the day, we would all have to make that
decision ourselves.
We know that.
>>> I would say first of all whether or not we codify
or not, let's think about it.
I think Marty and I need to look and the presence of

council wouldn't kick into in fact -- professional
opinions that -- I think we need to make that clear as
well.
If I could just make one other statement.
And when I was hearing the conversation about
attempting to narrow.
I do have a concern by narrowing the list.
We have to ultimately take it back that why we are
here, which is there is a provision in the
comprehensive plan that -- 10, 11, 12 items.
>> We are changing our comp plan.
>>> What I'm saying is under the current comp plan,
what it says, in the CBD periphery, you can request a
bonus request -- request a bonus, with these ten items
included on it, and, oh, by the way, we are supposed
to codify something that's a point system.
So at the very minimum there should be a point system.
I'm concerned if you have a list in your comprehensive
plan that you haven't codified -- we are not going to
be able to preclude people from coming forward and
still making the same request as they do under the
comprehensive plan.

So I think one of two things need to happen.
Either this entire list needs to SOP how be codified,
and you just deal with them on the point system that
you're required to put in place pursuant to the
comprehensive plan, and you may score the things that
you are not interested in seeing on a lower point
system, or the alternative is, you amend the
comprehensive plan and take it out.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Two weeks ago, council had tremendous
heartburn with those -- language within that plan.
>>> Six months or so.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that staff may be the way
to get going.
Is to look at amend willing the text in the comp plan.
So what I would like to do is make a motion --
>>> Before do you, would you like to hear what those
items are just to be clear so now what it is that
you're amending?
I want you to be as informed as can be.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me add something too because I
have been looking at this map.
And do we even want to allow F.A.R. bonuses in the

west and the north, and even parts of the northeast
that are close to Ybor City above 3.5?
>>> No.
>> That's a threshold question.
>>> It's not necessarily 3.5.
It's 100% of the minimum of maximum floor area ratio
of that district.
3.5 in the Channel District.
You have got some in the north area that are zoned CI
with an HP 24 land use category which is 1.5, you have
some that are a lot less.
You have some higher density residential, a .5 or .75.
And all you can do from that point is double that with
bonus items.
>> We don't know that we want to direct the density
here.
I think the conversation that needs to take place
before this is the conversation about where do we want
to see the density?
And then this is like an outgrowth of that decision.
I think that doing this prior to having that
understanding among council is where do you want to

see this great density is the conversation we need to
have first.
>> And I'm worried about the west because part of the
southern edge of the west is the northern edge of Hyde
Park and then the north -- the southern evenly of the
north zone is the south end of Tampa Heights.
And then part of that northeast zone is -- I just say
we have to be very, very cautious about what we are
doing.
>>> Could I point out landmarks so you can clearly see
what they are?
This little notch here is the Bayshore one project.
That was approved.
You have the bulk of university of Tampa, some of
Blake high school.
This is the Tampa Heights project that was approved
recently.
You have got Central Park Village.
Then you have Harbor Island which is all under one big
plan developmental alternative.
There's not much going on there outside the development
plan.

Then you have the Channel District, which is the other
identified special district.
And the thing is I want to remind you --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Neighborhoods in each of those
three areas I pointed out.
I just want to be very cautious about what we are
doing F.A.R.wise.
>>> Outside of what items, and what designs of the
Channel District, I would like to remind you that
there is a glitch with the comp plan currently.
You already have an identified ring a -- rim around
downtown called the periphery, been there a very long
time.
And we have a glitch in the code between the comp plan
and the code that it's things you are supposed to
score on a point system.
Part of this plan in the Channel District is to come
up with some kind of calculation, some kind of
methodology.
That's the second piece that I came to talk to you
today, 27.329.
This is just the periphery itself.

And how to calculate bonuses.
Without codifying something, you still have that
glitch.
And I know that makes the lawyers and it makes the
planners really nervous when we come before you with
projects, because we really -- not necessarily any
contained of way of scoring anything.
We have done it basically on the basic premise of this
comp plan provision that it meets the intent of those
items.
If you want to go through the process of changing
those items or eliminating pieces of periphery, I
think you can do that on a long-range view, six, nine
months a year, or through the plan update which is two
years from now.
But I think there's a real issue between the codes.
We have an unco codified portion of the comp plan
before you on a biweekly basis.
>> This is something that we should have addressed.
We recognize that two years ago, I'm willing to go
ahead with this, only if at the same time we look at
doing a text amendment to question the whole premise

of the bonus (we never really tuned into that.
So I'm willing to go ahead with one if we go ahead.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think -- I'm okay with
doing it in the Channel District.
Because it's an appropriate place.
It's always going to have, and then these other areas,
and maybe the better course of these other peripheral
areas is to revisit the comp plan.
>> The text amendment going on that.
>> And you haven't had any other projects recently in
the subdistricts.
The Channel District.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Along the Bayshore by 3, 4, 5.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Central Park Village.
>> So we are right around --
>> Bayshore 1 and the building is adjacent to Bayshore
1.
>> Yes, they got a 4.5.
F.A.R.
>> And then there's a lot of other opportunity up and
down Platt and Cleveland.
>> Where Publix is.

>>> I was actually agreeing with what you were saying.
>> You were saying deal with the Channel District now
and I assumed you were saying that because that's
where the development happened.
The periphery is somewhat slow.
You only had two to three over the last two years.
The pressure is in the Channel District right now.
>> That discussion certainly can happen.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Do you know how many more projects are
planning to come into the Channel District?
>> We have one that was just filed.
We have another one that I just met with somebody on.
There's always two, three or four in the hopper.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The port city property is really
the next big primary.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think
In terms of
>> We are giving staff direction.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My first motion would to be
recognize the dollar amount put into the Channel
District of $74.87.
>>> I think you're approving --

>> The 11-9 draft.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: 11-9 draft of what, 27-329?
>> 46.
Et cetera.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Et cetera, et cetera.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: My question for council then, just so
I'm clear, on page 23, the bonus amenities as they
are?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, the.
>>> The good thing is if you motion to look at the
comp plan and look at that language within the next
six months there may be a draft of some kind of change
before you, and within that same six-month period,
I'll be back before you with potential changes to the
draft that you have before you.
In the zoning.
It will all actually pretty much flow in line
together.
>> You don't need to be sworn.
>>> Janell: Just to get my focus on what's happening
right now.
Just so you know.

Every single thing that has been brought into the
Channel District is under the code that exists now
which means work with the community, and the F.A.R. is
actually 3.0.
If you accommodate so much of your parking for your
building within it, then it's 3.5.
Above 3.5, based on aviation, working with the
community, if the community only wants a daycare
center sky can be the limit and everything you have
done has been under that.
Look at all your old CD 1 to CD-3.
They started out saying that.
They inched in the wording.
But you are going to pull out the periphery for
everyone else and leaving us hanging going "but let's
give you the bad point system.
Let's not let you work with the community to feel as
things change.
Let's make it a rigid, system at Cal, guess who got
notified," and we all know how well our community gets
notified.
Look how many people are here.

It is not my job for me to tell all my neighbors,
groups have been told to bring them here.
Where is that notification, as was for the discussion
of all of this, and I think Linda for showing up and
trying to clarify that.
In the Channel District is the fact that due to the
3.0 F.A.R. land prices are dirt cheap.
So if you can work with the community, and go 35
stories plus, and you have the cheapest land in town,
that's your incentive.
And what gets built there?
Let's be honest.
Land is expensive.
Why?
Because you can go high.
Ybor.
That's where your honest incentive is.
And, also, right now we are talking sky is the limit
F.A.R., as was proposed here.
What does the community want?
We are talking 80% built-out.
You're tearing down buildings downtown to build

buildings.
We see seaboard square flip, Lafayette.
Who says 212 isn't going to disappear two stories?
EBB and flow.
Things change.
So look at it here and you are log at codes and
percentages.
Pick one thing.
You can -- I guess park land community.
Unite the open space could be used for indoor
performance enhancement.
Make that your one sky the limit.
And we all told you, unify as a group, that's
important to us.
Other things.
Move to the list but make it for the 3 to 3.5 issue
maybe or maybe a 4 F.A.R.
Give us the funk and feel.
We all stood before you and said we want funk and
feel.
We want to be with the res rest of the community,
complement downtown, complement Ybor.

There's a lot more than meets the eye because things
always change.
And ultimately to let you know.
If the plan went forward, there was only two options
published for the public when we showed up with
without banners even though you told Michael Chen.
When we showed up, beforehand, everything you approved
in the middle was going to be flat and low.
We wanted funk and feel.
We wanted fair.
Option 3 showed up on a board that day, and we wanted
to see the document so we could read and you voted
option 3.
It was never documented.
No one ever read it.
Cathy had to go by notes of conversations to create
three after you approved it and then reading it after
the fact.
We are chasing our tails as long as you are yours.
(Bell sounds).
>>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
Ms. Saul-Sena, do you want to make a motion?

>>MARY ALVAREZ: What was the motion?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm trying to remember.
You know what?
I'm not making comfort -- comfortable making the
motion until we hear back John's recommendation about
can I get involved in the negotiation ahead of time.
That would really affect my feeling about whether we
should have a laundry list of things, or a narrow list
of things.
We have a lot to digest.
I would also like Mr. Shelby to come and Chou on some
of this and Julia and everybody.
I would rather continue this for a week.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm just wondering whether you can do
it in a week's time realistically to have these
answers for you.
>> I have a great idea.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Why don't we work Thanksgiving day?
>> My thought is to have a special discussion meeting
on this maybe this coming week and see --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I have to point this out P.and I mean
no disrespect to anyone.

When you say to have council member Saul-Sena on that
committee, I should point out that whatever you decide
is going to not necessarily be tied to the person.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The chairman of the zoning,
building and preservation chair.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: As time changes, people change.
>>GWEN MILLER: She said bring it back to the council
and council will still --
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sort of an initial bite at it.
To respond to your concerns, if you all think she
shouldn't be part of that DRC meeting because of the
undue influence on staff or whatever, she could always
just meet with staff after they meet with the
developer so --
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I do that now.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pretty close to the zoning hearing.
I'm talking about doing it, you know, early on so it
has a meaningful impact.
>>> It still would have no influence on our opinion.
It would simply inform her.
>> How long are we going to need to continue this to?
>>> I think one week.

And I will attend the meeting prayer to next Thursday
with Mr. Shelby and Ms. Cole and Ms. Coyle and Mr.
Smith and Mr. Chen and see if we can come to some kind
of way of taking what we said today and forming it
into a motion.
I'll make a stab at that.
One week with the expectation, put it at the beginning
of the agenda, come back with something as a motion
that then council will --
>> Second.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just move this issue to unfinished
business?
>>GWEN MILLER: For one week.
We have a motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>> I encourage the public to provide input also on the
direction.
>> Thank you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Council members, information.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I can't remember.
Yes, I do have something.

In 30 days I would like to ask the administration for
a report on directing hybrid vehicles for replacing
vehicles in our fleet,.
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Remember we had a millage rate
reduction.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, stop it.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is a report to get a motion
back -- report back in 30 days.
(Motion carried)
Mr. Dingfelder?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want this on the agenda?
Or just bring back the motion?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mary, are you done?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: I can't wait.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I noticed that where Columbus drive
hits the interstate.
Hits I-275.
There is a new, large, expanse of grass that according
to records is owned by D.O.T. and I think it used to
be a school.
Washington school there.
Now it's a big, beautiful, expansive grass and fenced

off, a six-foot fence from the children and the
community.
I would just like staff to have a discussion with
D.O.T., park staff, to have a discussion with D.O.T.
about the possibility of some who opening that,
somehow letting the children play in that nice grassy
area.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Make it a park?
>> Make it a park, make it a playground.
I think we have a shortage of nice green space there.
So that's the motion.
And I'll give them a lot of time.
Give them three months.
(Motion Carried)
Get back with us with a report in three months.
>> Anything else?
>> Not today, thank you.
>>CHAIRMAN: Ms. Ferlita?
>>ROSE FERLITA: One more thing.
This will take care of some of that laundry list that
I said I was going to leave for whoever wants to pick

it up, put it on different categories.
This is a big important issue.
And Linda, I know that what we talked about today,
because you were so -- always been so in tune with
preservation issues, hopefully it will take care of
that situation along with Mary being very strongly
supportive of it on Willow.
This is another issue that I think Ms. Saul-Sena goes
right back to you, and I don't mean to be giving you
my, but you particularly have been concerned about
sidewalks, protection of sidewalks, installation of
sidewalks, the need, the importance of sidewalks.
This is coming awhile back and finally at the
beginning of September, Della CURY, my legislative
aide, put it out there to see what person and what
department and what category would give us some
clarification why this was done O or how it was done.
This is her message to the different departments:
Good morning, I just received several calls about work
which recently do D to their property and city right.
I want to know if F the work was permitted and allowed
to be done per the complaint.

The parking lot also restriped, and they resurfaced
the right-of-way, where sidewalks were previously.
The sidewalks are no longer, and there is no increased
parking.
I get calls frequently about sidewalk issues.
How is it a commercial business on Howard Avenue can
just blacktop over sidewalks and create new parking?
Please advise.
And that went out to a lot of people.
And I'll give you a sample of some.
Dennis waters, Jan Washington, to Melanie Calloway,
Wayne port, and we got e-mails from all of them or a
bunch of them, and I don't think that they were
prepared to answer this.
And so it was not necessarily tap dancing but for lack
of a better word, I guess it was modified tap dancing
because nobody knew how that happened, if it happened,
if it had been done without a permit.
And I'll give you a copy of all of this.
You know, Jan, please note that Paine park
right-of-way must approved and permitted,
transportation division even when connected to a

project located on private property.
In a, they cannot pave over existing sidewalks.
Sidewalks are stated in the technical manual are
required to be concrete.
Alternative materials would have to be approved by
transportation.
In her frustration, not getting any answer from
transportation, specifically Mr. LaMotte, in July --
I'm sorry, in later September, she said again, she
sent this out, said, Roy, my initial inquiry initiated
many e-mails with ended with a response from Al
Perrera, said there was a permit for the work done at
Antony's asked me to check the status that she was
concerned about precedent setting action taken by the
city.
She said that given the number of businesses on South
Howard, she assured they would all like to cover over
their sidewalks and add additional parking.
Rose would like to know why this permit was issued.
No response.
Again 11-06.
Roy, Rose would still like a response on this by

tomorrow.
Please give me a call and let me know when you can
speak to her about it.
Thanks so much.
So I just want to tell you, given all the increase in
traffic and everything else, and parking issues, and
overflow parking into neighborhoods, right smack
behind Antony's, nobody's has still fessed up about
who gave them the permit but we were assured that in
fa there was a permit given.
I think that's going to be a problem for you all as
you go forward.
And I think we need to get to the root of this and
find out why that was done and find out whatever
measures we need to take that it's not done again, and
if you haven't gone by there it's awful. The cars are
parked right on that small street.
You have got a house right across from it.
So when these people back out not from the parking
locality but from what used to be the sidewalk, it's
right smack up to them.
And they are having some problems, I'm sure.

I notice there's a for-sale sign.
And I wonder why.
So there you go.
Why are you laughing?
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Linda.
>>ROSE FERLITA: And if you will give me this, I'll
make sure you have copies.
And what I do next week is everything that's
outstanding, of importance that we can't finish in the
amount of time that I'm here -- I will give you -- I
will give you the undone list as well as the person
that takes my place for that interim time.
Then I'll give them a copy, too.
So collectively, hopefully you can answer.
And the also things -- big, big issue.
If you look at it you will be surprised.
I thought, no, they are exaggerating but I went and
there is no exaggeration.
I'll bring it all back to you next week.
And I know that Mr. LaMotte may not get this because
of the prop sees, because of the holiday.
I will make sure that I personally send him a note,

and I am going to make this a motion, that he will
notice that -- know that we are expecting him to join
us next week, not a written report, but he appears.
That's my motion.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
>>ROSE FERLITA: That's it for now.
>> Rose just reminded me of something very similar
that I think someone brought up awhile back but I
wanted to find out where we were.
TP can Choi at the corner of Howard and Platt.
There was right-of-way on the side of the restaurant
but they have now subsumed that under an awning, and
they blocked it off with a concrete wall, and it's
right-of-way.
It has to be city right-of-way.
So we want him to look at that issue.
I'll make a separate motion.
I want him to look at TC Choi and the status of the
right-of-way along Platt at that intersection of Platt
and Howard, and between the awning, they have tables
out there, and don't use it.

>>ROSE FERLITA: When you finish your motion, go ahead.
And I'll make a motion we get that communication.
Next week?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll give him longer.
This one has been around for awhile.
I'll give him a month, the first week in December.
79 motion and second.
All in favor say Aye.
(Motion carried).
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
Council, with regard to the request last week by
council member Ferlita, council member, we have been
or I have been working with Ms. Foxx-Knowles and Cindy
Miller and Rebecca Kert about the issues that we have
to address.
I just want to bring to your attention that there are
no written policies or procedures that govern
council's appointments to boards.
And council may want to contemplate doing that or
having that set forth.
With regards to the issues of how the mayoral
appointments are handled differently than council

appointments, because obviously -- what we need to do
is we need to firm up the process, and council member
Saul-Sena, to bring back your issue that you raised.
What you had requested was there be a process put in
place that council can rely, that would be filed
consistently, that would bring four appointments that
will be expiring, sufficiently in advance, to inform
council of that, allow an opportunity and a deadline
to be created, perhaps, to have those accounts, and
based on that the council decide whether it wishes to
advertise.
And one of the concerns that I have generally -- and I
have had this discussion -- is that the way that the
board structure is amazingly complex, and I was
seriously contemplating council afford me the services
of somebody from MESA to be able to -- because it's
very difficult.
And, you know, arborists or architects and certain
numbers, it's very complicated and some of the
appointments are mayoral, and some of those
appointments are council, and when an application
comes in, and it's one application, who gets it and

who acts on it first, and there's a lot of issues that
really need to be worked out.
But be that as it may, I know that the process is
being worked out.
If council wishes to have written policies and
procedures put in place, I would be more than happy to
assist in drafting those and working with the city
clerk to be able to create a system that at least now
works.
With regard to Mr. Roberts specifically, Keith
Roberts, there are several things in process, again
with regard to mayoral appointments, there were
several to the administration that appears on the
consent docket.
Ms. Costantino was added on today.
But there are several others that need to be -- I am
in the process of working with Ms. Fox Knolls and sin
tidy Miller.
She has not been available this entire week.
I know she's coming back Monday.
I know she's --
>>ROSE FERLITA: And it's okay, Marty, so long as I

just make sure that everything gets done, you know,
upon my exit.
So if somehow, if you wouldn't mind taking on the
responsibility of letting Mr. Roberts know where he
lives, what's going on, I think he talked to
Del Acosta and I don't know that he got a clear
understanding.
So if you would make sure that somebody explains to
him where he is, that's fine.
Because you have a lot of homework.
Excuse me for interrupting you, but I know that Linda
was concerned about this from the standpoint of
reasonable notice, so we know what we can do instead
of one person jumping on because of somebody else.
In his absence in, all fairness, I think Mr. Harrison
was concerned not about how we followed through on the
process.
So it's fair, so the interview is there and we don't
automatically reappoint.
I think you just have to have better definition about
the procedure.
So all that being said, that's fine.

I'm happy that we are addressing it.
We need to.
If you will just let Mr. Roberts know, that's my
concern.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: When we had the discussion this
morning, Shirley, with all due respect, when we had
this discussion this morning, immediately I thought to
myself that in the county, maybe they can help us on
this, in the county, I remember that it was a big
responsibility of the clerk, the clerk's office, to
control this issue, to totally be in charge of this
issue, they kept track of what appointments were
coming, they made lists of people who applied, they
controlled this and they did it.
And I think it's an appropriate place whether or not
it's a mayoral appointment or a council appointment.
And that's my recollection from the county.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But as far as the City Council
process for selecting, Mr. Shelby is correct, we don't
really have -- I would love it if you could research
that and come back to us with some recommendations so
that we don't have to redo it every time we have a

vacancy.
It would make council members more comfortable if we
could say this is our process.
>> Did we do something like that with the Planning
Commission where we had them come over?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, but not for the DRC or the --
>>MARY ALVAREZ: If we did it for one board we should
have done it --
>>MARTIN SHELBY: By the way, that was the point I was
initially going to have.
It may go beyond just posting it on the city web site
because you don't have arborists perusing city web
site.
It may require some sort of process to be able to
notify, or solicit.
And the question has come up of whether it's the staff
member's position the size of the particular board,
whether it's their duty to solicit numbers for
presentation to City Council, or maybe it should be
removed and more independent of the staff person.
And that was one of the issues that I think ultimately
are going to be worked.

I'm working with Cindy Miller about that.
So would you wish me to come back next week with a
report with regard, Ms. Ferlita?
>>CHAIRMAN: Before Mrs. Ferlita leaves us.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to put this policy back on the
agenda.
You're the one who gave the report.
Can you get it together by Thursday?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: I will talk to Ms. Miller as soon as
she gets back.
And a direction that I will request of council.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
Move to put this on our agenda under unfinished
business for next Thursday.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: And I hate to say this, ladies and
gentlemen, but she's going to be very disappointed.
>> All in favor of the motion say Aye.
(Motion carried).
Clerk, do you have anything?Saul-Sena
>>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to receive and file all
documents.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.

>>CHAIRMAN: Anything else to come before council?
We now go to our audience portion.
(Meeting adjourned.)