Tampa City Council
Thursday, November 16, 2006
5:01 p.m. Session
(Meeting reconvened at approximately 7:45 p.m.)
The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
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
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the
proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
19:48:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
19:48:45 order. The chair will yield to Rose Ferlita.
19:48:49 >> Madam Chairman, thank you.
19:48:51 With all the festivities and thank-yous and goodbyes
19:48:54 today, my friend and legislative aide Della Cury
19:49:00 thought it would be very appropriate for her to give
19:49:03 our final prayer.
19:49:04 Please stand and remain standing for the pledge of
19:49:07 Thank you.
19:49:08 >> Della Cury: Five years ago after I became to work
19:49:13 with Rose I was asked at the last minute to give the
19:49:15 invocation, and I was very nervous, and at that time I
19:49:20 was worried about saying all the right words.
19:49:22 As I chose this wonderful -- close this wonderful
19:49:25 chapter of my life and so thankful for all the things
19:49:28 I have learned and all the people I have come to know
19:49:31 and love and I will miss my City Council family.
19:49:33 Last night I decided to use a prayer today that my
19:49:36 mother and father said to me when I was a child.
19:49:39 Each night when they put me to bed they said this is
19:49:42 your prayer.
19:49:43 And I say this in memory of all those who have come
19:49:47 before us to make our lives better.
19:50:00 Please stand for the prayer and the pledge.
19:50:03 Let the words of my our mouths and the medications of
19:50:06 my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, my
19:50:10 strength and my redeemer.
19:50:14 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
19:50:28 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you, Della.
19:50:33 >>CHAIRMAN: Roll call.
19:50:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
19:50:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
19:50:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
19:50:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
19:50:37 >>ROSE FERLITA: Here.
19:50:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
19:50:42 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we are going to start our
19:50:44 agenda for this afternoon.
19:50:46 You have number 1, a continued public hearing.
19:50:51 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
19:50:52 As you may recall, I appeared before you last Thursday
19:50:55 under department heads to acknowledge that we will be
19:50:59 reflect ago continuance from the meeting tonight.
19:51:03 You acknowledged probably the appropriateness of that
19:51:05 continuance, and following that meeting I mailed 3123
19:51:12 There are 3266 parcels in the area.
19:51:14 The reason for the reduction in the number is many
19:51:17 parcels are owned by the same people.
19:51:20 Those letters were -- the mailing was pulled from the
19:51:24 tax rolls, from the property appraiser.
19:51:28 Even since the meeting in October I received numerous
19:51:30 e-mails, and a few today, and I am committed to
19:51:36 working with the neighborhood association.
19:51:38 That is the reason for the continuance.
19:51:41 I addressed many of the people in the audience -- or
19:51:45 out in the hallway earlier this evening.
19:51:46 And I engaged a couple of them individually and spoke
19:51:50 at length about some of the regulations that we are
19:51:54 talking about.
19:52:01 I did have a letter from Gene Wells.
19:52:04 He is supporting the continuance request, does have
19:52:07 various conditions on the continuation.
19:52:10 One of them being that I do submit into the record the
19:52:13 Ballast Point neighborhood plan that I spoke to
19:52:19 earlier, last week, and his alternative, the Ballast
19:52:22 Point homeowners alternative.
19:52:25 And I did have another person ask that couldn't attend
19:52:27 tonight who is out of town to put their comments into
19:52:31 the record as well.
19:52:32 As I say this last week and I'll restate, they are
19:52:35 asking for January 25th at 5:01 p.m.
19:52:38 The people that I addressed out in the hallway that
19:52:41 did show up tonight, in the first two weeks of
19:52:47 December I'm hoping to set up a networking committee
19:52:50 with city staff, MacDill and residents and make
19:52:59 sure we hear those ideas and concerns and are able to
19:53:02 utilize them, the language that we have.
19:53:08 >>ROSE FERLITA: Madam Chairman, before we go forward
19:53:11 with that if you would allow me one last opportunity
19:53:13 to put something on the record.
19:53:14 Awhile back I did attend the associations meeting that
19:53:21 Cathy Coyle had organized.
19:53:22 There were a lot of people there.
19:53:24 Like 300 people or so.
19:53:26 And we all had the opportunity to weigh in on the
19:53:29 situation, and like sometimes we don't plan to speak
19:53:32 but then I did.
19:53:33 And at that time, I think I -- not think, I made some
19:53:37 comments, because I thought at that point there were
19:53:39 some issues that still bothered the neighborhood or
19:53:42 neighborhoods and civic associations.
19:53:44 And I certainly meant to give the impression that if I
19:53:47 had to vote at sometime soon thereafter I wouldn't be
19:53:53 supportive because of some of the things, not that the
19:53:56 task force hadn't done their job or the military
19:53:59 hadn't cooperated -- Tony, you are certainly included
19:54:01 in that -- but in terms of the terminology and whether
19:54:05 or not it would have been a result in some
19:54:08 depreciation of the property, and so I very much, in
19:54:11 full audience, said that I would like to weigh in on
19:54:14 this, I would like to vote on it, and given that I was
19:54:18 leaving tonight, I was hopeful that that would happen
19:54:21 I received an e-mail that was very, very disturbing to
19:54:24 me and I wouldn't feel good about this if I didn't
19:54:27 clear it on the record, on the air.
19:54:29 It was not a nice e-mail.
19:54:31 It was a very nasty e-mail and alluded to the fact
19:54:35 that as a legislative or I had attempted to make the
19:54:37 neighborhood believe that I would weigh in on this and
19:54:40 support their issues, and now that I had gotten
19:54:43 elected, then they could see that my real intent was
19:54:46 to push it along.
19:54:47 I said something on the record last time we discussed
19:54:49 this that I agreed with Mr. Dingfelder, only from the
19:54:52 standpoint that if we continued it for awhile, some of
19:54:56 the same issues that that same group was concerned
19:54:59 about would get resolved.
19:55:01 I'm very sorry that this person thought that it was
19:55:04 her obligation to doubt my integrity and my ethics.
19:55:07 But it's not at all what it was about.
19:55:10 And if it came to this evening in its configuration as
19:55:15 stands now I wouldn't spore it.
19:55:17 But I thought the main thing for us and the
19:55:19 neighborhoods and MacDill and everybody to work
19:55:21 on, and a continuance sometimes is not pleasant.
19:55:23 But I think given that amount of time that we will
19:55:26 come to something that will accomplish what we need
19:55:28 But, at the same time, not depreciate your properties,
19:55:32 and not avoid your concerns.
19:55:35 So I would still be involved as a county commission
19:55:39 theory represents that district, I will be at those
19:55:41 meetings and I will continue to weigh in on it.
19:55:43 And I am very sorry, I don't know the lady's name.
19:55:46 It doesn't matter at this point.
19:55:48 But I am very sorry she felt that way.
19:55:50 Because that's not what Rose Ferlita is going away
19:55:53 I care for your concerns and that's the reason I was
19:55:57 It's one of those things you have to put up with and
19:55:59 have a tough job with somebody to say something that's
19:56:02 not true.
19:56:03 And it's absolutely not true.
19:56:04 Thank you.
19:56:05 I'm sorry.
19:56:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
19:56:07 wants to speak on the continuance of number 1?
19:56:11 On the continuance?
19:56:13 If you agree with the continuance, or you disagree.
19:56:16 That's the only thing to speak on.
19:56:18 Just the continuance.
19:56:19 >>> Good evening.
19:56:20 I haven't been sworn.
19:56:21 >> You don't have to be.
19:56:23 >>> Okay.
19:56:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just to speak whether you support.
19:56:29 >> To bring to council's attention, the most part with
19:56:34 the exception, I believe, of the last item.
19:56:36 These are all legislative matters.
19:56:39 Which means they are not quasi-judicial which means
19:56:43 your standard of review generally is debatable, which
19:56:46 must meet the standard, so you should know that
19:56:48 normally when I ask the chair whether she wants to ask
19:56:51 anybody if they object to a continuance, it's usually
19:56:54 from preserving the record of a quasi-judicial matter.
19:57:00 So it's council's discretion to find out
19:57:06 >>> Good evening.
19:57:06 My name is Jorge Gartel, south court drive in the
19:57:12 affected area.
19:57:14 Thank you, Ms. Ferlita.
19:57:16 We appreciate your kind words and thank you for the
19:57:19 At this time, I'm president of the inner bay
19:57:21 neighborhood association.
19:57:22 We don't have an issue with the continuance.
19:57:27 We do have an issue, though, with I guess the wording
19:57:30 on the letter that went out to us because it was to
19:57:34 integrate the Ballast Point homeowners --
19:57:37 comprehensive plan.
19:57:38 Now that is specific to Ballast Point and not to
19:57:43 On page 3 of the comprehensive plan, it has the map of
19:57:46 their boundaries and did not include Interbay.
19:57:50 So we have a very big concern about integrating
19:57:52 Ballast Point, where it doesn't include Interbay. The
19:57:55 only portion that it includes is a mention of the
19:57:57 Gazden park.
19:58:01 The other thing I would like to say I have spoken to
19:58:04 Ms. Cathy Coyle and she is going to get with us and
19:58:06 some members of the community and, because we haven't
19:58:10 been involved in the planning process, and I guess the
19:58:12 concern is, January 25th may be too soon.
19:58:15 I would like to actively extend it out, because if
19:58:18 there's going to be modifications to what's going to
19:58:21 be presented, then we just have another public
19:58:23 workshop like the one that you attended.
19:58:25 And if we are going to meet December 4th and try
19:58:29 to get a public workshop right before January 26th
19:58:34 it's not going to work and I think it's clear we have
19:58:36 a public workshop.
19:58:37 If we are going to make modifications to your
19:58:39 presentation, then the plan amendment or transmittal,
19:58:42 we need to have another public workshop and everyone
19:58:45 needs to be notified again with the changes.
19:58:48 And I don't think it can be presented in a timely
19:58:50 fashion by January 25th.
19:58:51 So it might be February.
19:58:53 It might be March.
19:58:54 But at this time we don't have an issue with you the
19:58:57 I just don't think January 25th is going to be
19:59:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:59:07 >>> Michael Wait, resident.
19:59:10 I sent you all about a 12-page letter describing all
19:59:13 the problems with this.
19:59:14 I just want to keep it brief.
19:59:16 For the continuance, I agree with a continuance.
19:59:19 I also agree that through this speaker we do need many
19:59:23 additional workshops.
19:59:24 Many people in the area, this letter was sent out.
19:59:27 The first notification to resident, of this project.
19:59:36 I support additional workshop February, March, April,
19:59:39 whatever it takes to continue this till all of these
19:59:42 situations or questions are resolved.
19:59:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:59:55 >>> William hayman.
19:59:59 First off, I would like to repeat what was said
20:00:06 I would also like to ask, this seems to be pushed down
20:00:09 the road several times.
20:00:13 Is there some point where the state is just going to
20:00:16 go away?
20:00:16 >>GWEN MILLER: This is a continuance.
20:00:19 We are not in the plan.
20:00:20 Do you object to continuing it?
20:00:22 >> No, ma'am.
20:00:23 I'm all for it.
20:00:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:00:32 >> Halle Baker, part of Interbay neighborhood
20:00:37 And I head up the crime watch and I'm for the
20:00:40 continuance and I'm for more public workshops and more
20:00:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:00:48 >>> I'm Jo lean Barney, 3321 west Napoleon Avenue in
20:00:54 the affected area.
20:00:59 I am for the continuance.
20:01:00 And I'm for anything that will help the people in our
20:01:03 community understand what we're doing.
20:01:08 I talked with Cathy tonight and I feel like I know
20:01:12 quite a bit more than I learned in the other two or
20:01:14 three meetings, all of that.
20:01:16 I'm for the continuance.
20:01:18 And congratulations.
20:01:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you so very much.
20:01:20 I appreciate it.
20:01:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:01:25 >>> My name is Christine Henry.
20:01:27 I live at 3603 west Anderson in the immediate affected
20:01:36 I also agree with the continuance and anything with
20:01:38 the Interbay residents that are in that very close
20:01:44 We didn't know enough about the project.
20:01:47 And I did also talk with Cathy earlier tonight and
20:01:50 feel that I learned more this evening than I had known
20:01:53 about the study in general.
20:01:54 So we need more information.
20:01:56 And I agree with the continuance.
20:01:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:02:02 >>> I'm Kay Nixon, 6703 South Gate rail right under
20:02:07 the flight zone.
20:02:08 And I've lived in that house for 31 years.
20:02:11 And I just think that it would be in the best interest
20:02:14 for our neighborhood that it be continued, the
20:02:19 workshop, and more study.
20:02:22 I think a lot of bugs need to be worked out.
20:02:24 A lot of things that hadn't been studied.
20:02:28 And I just feel like a lot of things need to be
20:02:31 addressed that you haven't looked at.
20:02:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:02:40 >> I'm Tom Nixon.
20:02:43 I live at 6703 south Gabrielle will.
20:02:47 You just heard my better half.
20:02:49 I'm in agreement with carrying on -- I believe that we
20:02:56 really need to have a better study, economic impacts
20:03:04 to focus on whether we are actually going to lose
20:03:06 money on this deal, or, you know, all the things that
20:03:09 are involved.
20:03:10 And just forgive me for being a little nervous.
20:03:16 Rose, I want to thank you for coming out and showing
20:03:19 your support.
20:03:19 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thank you for your help, by the way.
20:03:22 I appreciate that as well.
20:03:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
20:03:30 >> My name is Susan Ray, 3118 west Hartnet.
20:03:35 Anymore agreement with the continuance and we
20:03:37 definitely need more workshops to work this out.
20:03:40 And I want to thank you for coming -- rose for coming
20:03:45 to our workshops and listening.
20:03:47 I would like to see more information getting out to
20:03:49 the public.
20:03:49 I think a lot of people, I know I have talked to my
20:03:52 neighbors personally.
20:03:54 They haven't received hardly anything.
20:03:55 So that needs to be addressed.
20:03:58 Thank you.
20:03:59 >> Thank you.
20:04:02 You had your hand up?
20:04:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just asked my assistant to get my
20:04:06 It sounds like everybody who spoke has spoken in favor
20:04:09 of more information, more conversation, perhaps
20:04:13 changing the proposal that would address the
20:04:16 neighborhood's concerns.
20:04:18 So I asked Rhonda to see what the second Thursday in
20:04:26 April is.
20:04:31 >> The last Thursday in March.
20:04:33 What about the last Thursday in March?
20:04:35 >> I don't think so.
20:04:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My recommendation is we --
20:04:44 >> Sorry to interrupt.
20:04:46 Catherine Coyle, land development.
20:04:48 For a question.
20:04:50 Some of these policies, there are some things required
20:04:53 by state statute that we have to adopt.
20:04:58 He was researching the time constraint.
20:05:01 >> I just wanted to double check with him.
20:05:23 The only thing you are up against, the expiration of
20:05:25 the abatement which I will address later on.
20:05:32 The temporary abatement, February 5th.
20:05:42 >> I'm looking at April 12th when we have a night
20:05:44 meeting so we could put this on our agenda like at
20:05:49 67 make a motion?
20:05:51 >> Second.
20:05:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to schedule -- a
20:05:56 lot of people want to come out and speak at 6:00 on
20:06:01 April 12th.
20:06:01 >>GWEN MILLER: 5:01.
20:06:07 >>: It's hard for a lot of people to get here at 5.
20:06:10 >> They were here today.
20:06:11 >> Okay.
20:06:12 I'll schedule this for five.
20:06:14 I move we continue this until 5:01 on April 12th.
20:06:18 >> I have a motion and second.
20:06:19 (Motion carried)
20:06:29 >> There are continuances or withdrawals.
20:06:31 >> On your agenda, there are two other amendments that
20:06:47 there is a need for some continuances.
20:06:49 Agenda item number 3 is plan amendment 06-10.
20:06:53 The petitioner has asked for a continuation of this
20:06:57 particular amendment.
20:07:00 They are going to be looking at incorporating
20:07:02 additional land area into an amendment.
20:07:06 So to continue this particular amendment until May
20:07:12 24th, 2007 at 5:01 p.m.
20:07:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
20:07:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:07:19 wants to speak on the continuance of item number 3?
20:07:24 We need to open number 3.
20:07:26 >> So moved.
20:07:27 >> Second.
20:07:27 (Motion carried)
20:07:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we need a motion.
20:07:31 Do you want to speak on the continuance?
20:07:32 Yes, come up.
20:07:33 >> My name is Joe Schwartz.
20:07:36 I am the petitioner.
20:07:37 And I would like to have it continued.
20:07:40 To the May date.
20:07:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a question with regard to the
20:07:45 fact that we are in November, and it's continued to
20:07:48 Just a clarification with regard to notice and how
20:07:50 that is handled in a plan amendment.
20:07:53 >>> For this particular amendment they are looking at
20:07:55 adding additional land area to the amendment.
20:07:59 We will be doing a new sign post thing, new individual
20:08:05 notice as well as new advertisement for the public
20:08:08 But the May 24th, 07, at 5:01 and June 2nd at
20:08:14 9:30 a.m. for the second.
20:08:15 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to continue
20:08:19 item 3 to May 24th.
20:08:21 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:08:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You also have a second date, that you
20:08:25 have asked for the second public hearing.
20:08:26 That has to be in the motion as well?
20:08:28 The June 2nd or --
20:08:31 >>> June 2nd, 2007 would be the second public
20:08:35 I believe it's June 2nd at 9:30 a.m.
20:08:41 >> That would be my motion.
20:08:45 >>THE CLERK: I believe that combining this into
20:08:47 another plan amendment is going to require a
20:08:49 resolution be prepared to set the two public hearings
20:08:53 at that time.
20:08:55 >> Do we have to wait till May?
20:08:57 >> Can we ask legal?
20:09:03 >>THE CLERK: He will be bringing that resolution to
20:09:05 set the public hearing.
20:09:06 >>GWEN MILLER: We don't need a motion.
20:09:08 Thank you.
20:09:14 >> I'm sorry, I'm not clear.
20:09:21 >> Date and time certain.
20:09:21 >>THE CLERK: I believe what they are suggesting is
20:09:24 he's going to be combining this into another map
20:09:28 amendment or area?
20:09:29 >>> The request is toe continue this amendment because
20:09:31 they have another amendment designing.
20:09:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was this motion to continue it
20:09:43 Okay, thank you.
20:09:44 Thank you.
20:09:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Next one?
20:09:53 >>> Agenda item 5, plan amendment 06-12.
20:09:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open the public hearing.
20:09:58 >> So moved.
20:09:58 >> Second.
20:09:59 (Motion carried).
20:09:59 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The advertising on this particular
20:10:04 amendment was misnoticed.
20:10:05 And so the request is to continue this public hearing
20:10:09 to January 11th, 2007, at 5:01 p.m., and January
20:10:15 25th, 2007, at 9:30 a.m.
20:10:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question.
20:10:20 If it's a misnotice, is it not a continued public
20:10:26 >>> It will be readvertised.
20:10:27 >>THE CLERK: A new resolution to set the public
20:10:34 >> So it's a motion to set the hearing --
20:10:38 >> January 11th at 5:01 and January 25th at
20:10:42 9:30 a.m.
20:10:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We already have seven so far.
20:10:50 >> So moved.
20:10:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:10:52 wants to speak on item number 5 on the continuance?
20:10:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think set it for a time certain
20:11:02 in the morning.
20:11:05 >> Till January 11th.
20:11:06 >> Actually, it wouldn't be to continue.
20:11:08 >>THE CLERK: To reset the public hearing.
20:11:12 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:11:13 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:11:15 Opposed, Nay.
20:11:18 Any other ones? We go back to item number 2.
20:11:21 >> Agenda item number 2 is plan amendment --
20:11:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open.
20:11:25 >> So moved.
20:11:25 >> Second.
20:11:25 (Motion carried).
20:11:29 >>> Plan amendment 06-30.
20:11:30 I'm rose Petrucha, Planning Commission.
20:11:33 This particular amendment is an amendment to the
20:11:36 capital improvements element of the Tampa
20:11:39 comprehensive plan.
20:11:40 It is an update to the schedule of projects for fiscal
20:11:43 year 2007 through fiscal year -- 201-2012.
20:11:48 Something in passing with the state in previous years,
20:11:51 these will be sent up for review with the state, as
20:11:56 transmittal hearing and then returned for adoption.
20:11:58 The new rule for this particular amendment allows for
20:12:01 the city to consider the adoption of this, and forward
20:12:06 it out.
20:12:06 So at this point in time the Planning Commission did
20:12:08 hold a public hearing on November 13th regarding
20:12:13 this amendment and found it to be consistent.
20:12:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:12:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that this was very
20:12:27 ambitious that we are setting our capital improvements
20:12:30 for the year 2012 given the fact that I know we
20:12:34 changed them.
20:12:34 And I just wanted to know what kind of annual
20:12:37 evaluation for the city, that if we are going to
20:12:41 change something we need to have notice.
20:12:45 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: The intent of this is when you are
20:12:48 developing your capital improvement program, there
20:12:50 should be a piece that is the capital improvement
20:12:54 element, and the state allows for the annual update of
20:12:59 In the future, there will be some new rules that will
20:13:01 be initiated.
20:13:02 And beginning next year, along with this, there will
20:13:05 have to be a review of the levels of service as well
20:13:08 as the fiscal financial feasibility analysis along
20:13:17 Edgewood as well. This is our trial run for this.
20:13:19 Again it's just kind of like to match your capital
20:13:23 improvement program.
20:13:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Are these projects the ones that we
20:13:29 have already --
20:13:31 >>> That's correct.
20:13:33 >> So that's why we are doing it.
20:13:34 >>> That's why you are doing it.
20:13:35 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak
20:13:37 on item number 2?
20:13:38 >>> Move to close.
20:13:39 >> Second.
20:13:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
20:13:45 There's a comment here, Rose.
20:13:48 It appears it's from your staff, on the second page of
20:13:52 your staff report.
20:13:54 It says this amendment appears not to comply with all
20:13:57 the new requirements, guide to annual update of the
20:14:02 >> That's correct.
20:14:03 This is a new trial run, but those new requirements
20:14:07 will kick in next year in 2007.
20:14:12 The levels of service will be a requirement.
20:14:15 The city staff are working on the process and the
20:14:19 procedures to get that accomplished.
20:14:20 And that will be part of the submittal for the next
20:14:23 year's capital improvement element amendment.
20:14:26 >> Okay.
20:14:27 Thank you.
20:14:27 >> Motion and second to close.
20:14:28 (Motion carried)
20:14:31 Mr. Dingfelder, would you read the ordinance?
20:14:37 >> Capital improvement element by updating the
20:14:43 schedule of projects for fiscal year 2007 through
20:14:45 fiscal year 2012 providing for repeal of all
20:14:49 ordinances in conflict providing for severability,
20:14:51 providing an effective date.
20:14:52 >> I have a motion and second.
20:14:53 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:14:54 Opposed, Nay.
20:14:55 (Motion carried).
20:14:57 Need to open item number 4.
20:14:58 >>: So moved.
20:15:00 >> Second.
20:15:00 (Motion carried).
20:15:00 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
20:15:04 Agenda item 4 is plan amendment 06-11.
20:15:09 This particular amendment is located at the northwest
20:15:12 corner of Swann and Tampania Avenues, in the Soho
20:15:18 The site is approximately a half acre of land.
20:15:21 And it is currently a parking lot in the area,
20:15:29 existing land use.
20:15:34 >> Do you have a photograph of it?
20:15:36 >> Photograph, sure.
20:15:37 I will be happy to do that.
20:15:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Memorial Hospital.
20:15:46 >>> This is the site.
20:15:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is the parking lot for miners
20:15:55 >> The plan designation is heavy commercial 24.
20:16:02 Heavy commercial 24 is a category that does promote
20:16:10 again heavier commercial to allow for consideration of
20:16:12 auto dealership and things of that nature.
20:16:17 The area has been changing to mixed use residential
20:16:21 development, community mixed use 35.
20:16:25 The request for the area is to change the community
20:16:28 mixed use 35.
20:16:37 >> The amendment to community mixed use 35 would
20:16:40 provide the opportunity for redevelopment of this
20:16:42 parcel for garage uses including residential office
20:16:45 and neighborhoods serving uses.
20:16:47 The area does line proximity to Memorial Hospital, Old
20:16:50 Hyde Park Village and Soho area of South Tampa.
20:16:54 Again the current designation of heavy commercial 24
20:16:57 does designate areas suitable for heavy and intensive
20:17:00 commercial uses and encourages residential uses does
20:17:03 not readily permit a mixture of uses.
20:17:06 This category to community mixed use 35 would more
20:17:10 accurately reflect the character of this area, which
20:17:12 has been transitioning to alive-work environment over
20:17:15 the past several years.
20:17:18 If approved then a rezoning would be required where
20:17:20 compatibility issues and the conditions of the
20:17:23 particular site would be reviewed.
20:17:25 The Planning Commission did review this particular
20:17:28 amendment request on October 9th and found it
20:17:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
20:17:36 Currently, this use is for surface parking which is
20:17:40 not the most inspired use but it is serving a
20:17:43 particular function in the neighborhood context.
20:17:47 If we approve this change, and a rezoning request
20:17:53 comes from which is usually the pattern, what do we do
20:17:56 to ensure that the parking that this has been
20:18:01 committed to serve continues to be incorporated into
20:18:03 whatever is done there?
20:18:05 >> I think that would be done at the rezoning
20:18:11 The parking lot could still serve under the new plan
20:18:15 But the question as to the parking needs, you would
20:18:17 address that at the time.
20:18:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
20:18:23 on item number 4?
20:18:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can reserve your time for
20:18:37 >> Allen Jones.
20:18:38 Thank you for your consideration.
20:18:39 And if you have any questions.
20:18:40 And that's all I have to say.
20:18:41 Thank you.
20:18:41 >>GWEN MILLER: No one else wants to speak?
20:18:44 Move to close?
20:18:46 >> Second.
20:18:46 (Motion carried).
20:18:47 >>SHAWN HARRISON: move an ordinance future land use
20:18:57 element future land use map in the property located in
20:18:59 the general vicinity of the northwest corner of south
20:19:02 Tampania Avenue and West Swann Avenue from heavy
20:19:05 commercial 24 to community mixed use 35, providing for
20:19:08 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
20:19:11 severability, providing an effective date.
20:19:12 >> I have a motion and a second.
20:19:13 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:19:15 Opposed, Nay.
20:19:16 We need to open number 6.
20:19:18 >> So moved.
20:19:19 >> Second.
20:19:19 (Motion carried).
20:19:23 >> Good evening members of council.
20:19:24 Tony Garcia, Planning Commission staff.
20:19:26 Actually, what I request of council is if it would be
20:19:30 so inclined to indulge me.
20:19:32 What I am going to do for you, the next throw plan
20:19:34 amendment I will present to you all in fairly close
20:19:36 proximity to the Ybor City area.
20:19:38 So I make a request of council that you simultaneously
20:19:41 open items 6, 7, 10.
20:19:44 >> So moved.
20:19:45 >> Second.
20:19:46 (Motion carried)
20:20:02 Items 6, 7 and 10 consist of the following properties.
20:20:05 Plan amendment 06-13 located between 2nd Avenue
20:20:13 and 13th Avenue.
20:20:14 These three parcels here that you can see in red.
20:20:21 Pa-06-14 and PA-06-22.
20:20:29 It serves as an east-west Gateway to an from several
20:20:32 activities centers.
20:20:36 One can see that these parcels are contained within
20:20:39 Ybor City, or in close proximity as I have already
20:20:44 The Channel District, neighborhood of Palmetto Beach,
20:20:49 of course the neighborhood of Ybor City and to the
20:20:50 west we have a central business district.
20:20:54 What I will do is I will tell you very briefly about
20:20:57 each plan amendment itself.
20:20:59 Plan amendment 06-13, which is located right here on
20:21:05 the eastern side of 17th street, in between
20:21:10 2nd and 3rd Avenue.
20:21:12 The site consists of .48 acres and the change of land
20:21:16 use it is request has been general mixed use 24 to
20:21:19 community mixed use 35.
20:21:20 The change allows consideration of mixed use with
20:21:22 residential potential.
20:21:23 The site is currently vacant, part of it is, and the
20:21:26 remainder of the site, I have a couple of photographs
20:21:30 depicting the site.
20:21:31 Let me show you the future land use map first of all
20:21:33 to show you the general mixed use category based on
20:21:37 the future land use map.
20:21:39 And it will be going to actually this photo over here,
20:21:44 There are some photographs of the site.
20:21:45 This is the northern parcel.
20:21:50 This is the southern parcel which is the warehouse,
20:21:53 the larger parcel directly to the south off of
20:21:58 The second plan amendment that I will be showing you
20:22:00 this evening is plan amendment 06-14.
20:22:04 Then going back to the overall map, right here.
20:22:11 This site is .47 acres in size.
20:22:14 The requested change is also from general mixed use 24
20:22:17 to community mixed use 35.
20:22:19 The change allows a consideration of mixed uses with
20:22:21 the residential potential.
20:22:23 Currently it is vacant industrial.
20:22:26 Here is how the site is depicted on the future land
20:22:28 use map.
20:22:29 We will have the site in question that we were talking
20:22:32 about is actually right here and right here.
20:22:35 PA-06-13 that was previously described to you,
20:22:41 directly above the proposed site.
20:22:42 Here's a photograph depicting that.
20:22:45 What is significant about this picture and the way I
20:22:47 took in the context, you can see you already have some
20:22:49 significant redevelopment going on in this section of
20:22:52 Ybor City.
20:22:52 As depicted by this, located on the north side of
20:22:58 3rd Avenue and 17th.
20:22:59 The final plan amendment in the Ybor City area that I
20:23:01 will be describing to you this evening is PA-06-22.
20:23:05 This site consists of 1.05 acres in the heavy 24 to
20:23:11 mixed use 35.
20:23:12 The change allows consideration of the mixed use with
20:23:14 residential uses.
20:23:16 It is also currently vacant.
20:23:19 Here's why where the site is located at.
20:23:23 On the future land use map.
20:23:24 It shows a land use designation with heavy commercial
20:23:28 And here is the site in question.
20:23:29 Here's our sign -- here's a site for this parcel
20:23:36 adjacent to the.
20:23:36 Again I took it from the perspective so you can see
20:23:39 again the new residential in the area.
20:23:45 Here are all the parcels in question.
20:23:47 This one is the one that was misnoticed and is not
20:23:50 going to be before you this evening.
20:23:54 This is 22 and 13 and 14 are right here.
20:23:58 Community mixed use 35.
20:23:59 Some additional points we need to take into
20:24:03 This would actually entail PA-06-12.
20:24:07 So really, three of the four plan amendments are in
20:24:11 local historic boundaries, and would therefore be
20:24:13 under the jurisdiction of the Barrio Latino
20:24:16 All of these amendments are privately initiated and
20:24:18 all of the amendments are requesting land use
20:24:21 designation of mixed use 35.
20:24:24 All meet transportation requirements.
20:24:27 Regarding planned consistencies, it is consistent
20:24:31 within proximate of several activity centers, and
20:24:35 supports mixed use development in proximity to major
20:24:38 importance specifically with urban core.
20:24:41 Consistent with policy 7.1 B-4.4.
20:24:46 So in summary Planning Commission staff and Planning
20:24:48 Commission found the proposed plan amendments
20:24:51 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:24:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just a request that you take
20:24:57 public comment and address each individually.
20:24:59 Just so that the record is clear.
20:25:02 >>> Thank you, Mr. Shelby.
20:25:05 Your action would be to adopt each one individually.
20:25:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In the course of the plan amendment.
20:25:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 6.
20:25:13 Does anyone in the public want to speak on item number
20:25:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
20:25:17 >> Second.
20:25:17 (Motion carried).
20:25:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa
20:25:29 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future
20:25:32 land use map, for the property located in the general
20:25:34 vicinity of north 17th street, east 3rd Avenue
20:25:37 and east 2nd Avenue in Ybor City from general
20:25:41 mixed use 24 to community mixed use 35 providing for
20:25:46 repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for
20:25:48 severability, providing an effective date.
20:25:50 >> I have a motion and second.
20:25:51 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:25:53 Opposed, Nay.
20:25:54 Anyone in the public that wants to speak on item 7?
20:25:56 >> Move to close.
20:25:57 >> Second.
20:25:57 (Motion carried).
20:25:59 >>ROSE FERLITA: Move an ordinance amending the Tampa
20:26:06 comprehensive plan, future land use element, future
20:26:08 land use map, for the property located in the general
20:26:10 vicinity of north 16th street, north 17th
20:26:13 street and east 3rd Avenue in Ybor City from
20:26:15 general mixed use-24 to community mixed use 35,
20:26:19 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
20:26:22 providing for severability, providing an effective
20:26:25 >> I have a motion and second.
20:26:26 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:26:28 Opposed, Nay.
20:26:28 (Motion carried).
20:26:30 Anyone in the public want to speak on item 10?
20:26:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
20:26:35 >> Second.
20:26:35 (Motion carried).
20:26:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move an ordinance amending the
20:26:46 Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use element,
20:26:48 future land use map, for the property located in the
20:26:51 general vicinity of east 5th street, east 5th
20:26:57 Avenue and north Avenid republic a de Cuba in Ybor
20:27:06 City from heavy commercial 24 to community mixed use
20:27:09 35, providing for severability, providing an effective
20:27:12 (Motion carried).
20:27:13 >> Need to open number 8.
20:27:15 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:27:17 Opposed, Nay.
20:27:18 >>ROSE PETRUCHA: Planning Commission staff.
20:27:22 Agenda item number 8 is plan amendment 06-13 located
20:27:29 in the general vicinity of U.S. 41 radar the river.
20:27:43 It is currently vacant.
20:27:44 I have a picture of the site.
20:27:55 The requested site is located north of the Palm River.
20:27:58 It has access to the Palm River area.
20:28:01 It's south of Adamo drive and the Crosstown
20:28:04 And in this particular area the Crosstown expressway
20:28:07 is elevated.
20:28:08 So there is a clear difference in location in relation
20:28:14 to where this site is and in relation to areas to the
20:28:30 I show this to you as well.
20:28:32 The location of the amendment is located east of 41
20:28:35 and 50th street, north of Palm River, the bypass
20:28:39 canal, generally located south of the Crosstown, Adamo
20:28:46 The current designation of the area on the future land
20:28:50 use plan is transitional use 24, and you can see from
20:28:57 its locational relation to the north of an industrial
20:28:59 area to the south is residential in unincorporated
20:29:04 Hillsborough County.
20:29:08 The request is to change the area to community mixed
20:29:13 use 35 to allow for the consideration in the future
20:29:19 for residential development with possible dock and
20:29:24 possibly a restaurant, mixed use project.
20:29:27 Again, the site from the southeastern edge of the city
20:29:30 limits is physically severed by the elevated Crosstown
20:29:39 The site because of its location to the Palm River and
20:29:42 Tampa bypass canal has a very close relationship to
20:29:45 the surrounding Palm River community line to the
20:29:50 And to provide you information, the Palm River
20:29:53 community is undertaking a community plan at this
20:29:56 point in time, so they have a very strong interest in
20:30:00 this particular area.
20:30:03 And it is their intent as part of their plan to
20:30:06 designate a gateway to their community along the river
20:30:11 in this particular area.
20:30:16 Lands in the city are mostly vacant, although there is
20:30:19 some residential development.
20:30:20 There is a gasoline station that was recently
20:30:22 constructed adjacent to the subject site and there is
20:30:25 an auto auction yard on the west side of 50th
20:30:28 street in this particular area.
20:30:32 The community mixed use 35 would provide an
20:30:34 opportunity for the development to sit vacant
20:30:37 underutilized land area within the city to support and
20:30:40 promote the efforts of the Palm River community.
20:30:43 This area, because of its location in the city, could
20:30:46 serve as a gateway to the City of Tampa.
20:30:50 It could provide the opportunity to create a sense of
20:30:53 place, and provide the city and the Palm River
20:30:57 community opportunities for recreational amenities,
20:30:59 including linkages for trails and greenways.
20:31:02 And way wanted to show you also is this particular
20:31:13 It doesn't show too well on here.
20:31:15 The City of Tampa adopted in February of 2001 a
20:31:18 greenway trails system, and the intent is to provide
20:31:22 linkages across through Palmetto Beach along 22nd
20:31:27 street causeway, up into areas adjoining city limits,
20:31:32 and to the Palm River community up 50th street,
20:31:36 U.S. 301 and connecting trail system ultimately, even
20:31:40 including a portion of land area that might be -- that
20:31:44 is adjacent to the petitioned amendment.
20:31:48 Again, the aspect of the potential for this project to
20:31:53 possibly incorporate some aspects of the Greenway
20:31:55 Trails system would be provided if this amendment were
20:32:00 to be considered for adoption to community mixed use
20:32:05 So I just wanted to state that to you, because it is
20:32:10 an opportunity.
20:32:12 The Planning Commission reviewed this plan amendment
20:32:17 and did find consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:32:21 That concludes my presentation.
20:32:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:32:30 >> Bill Martinez for the record, suite 2700
20:32:33 representing USG development, the applicant for the
20:32:37 I just want to compliment staff who worked very hard
20:32:39 with us to come to this point in time.
20:32:41 Planning Commission unanimously approved the
20:32:43 recommendation to you for consistency of the
20:32:45 comprehensive plan.
20:32:46 And also, I want to mention the Palm River civic
20:32:49 association that actually attended the last public
20:32:51 hearing and came out in support of our petition as
20:32:54 Also, I should mention that certainly this is an
20:32:57 opportunity for the city, sort of a unique
20:32:59 opportunity, if you will, case of first point here, we
20:33:03 have light industrial areas, surrounding this
20:33:05 particular property.
20:33:06 It's really a chance for the city to embrace the
20:33:08 concept that we are going to promote in the future and
20:33:11 the gateway to Palm River and the city to the east as
20:33:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Marchetti, thank you.
20:33:19 I think the plan amendment is fine.
20:33:20 I would just -- when your client comes up with a
20:33:24 rezoning plan or PD or whatever just make sure they go
20:33:30 get -- the activity across the river.
20:33:36 Even though that activity is in the county we still
20:33:38 want to be sensitive to that especially when it comes
20:33:41 to light and noise and height and other things like
20:33:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:33:47 wants to speak on item number 8?
20:33:49 >> Move to close.
20:33:49 >> Second.
20:33:50 (Motion carried).
20:33:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
20:33:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
20:34:04 ordinance upon first reading, ordinance amending the
20:34:06 Tampa comprehensive plan future land use element,
20:34:09 future land use map for property in the general
20:34:12 vicinity of property located in the general vicinity
20:34:14 of 50th street, east Washington, street and the
20:34:17 Palm River Tampa bypass canal from transitional use 24
20:34:21 to community mix mixed use 35, providing an effective
20:34:27 (Motion Carried).
20:34:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 9.
20:34:30 >> So moved.
20:34:30 >> Second.
20:34:31 (Motion carried)
20:34:43 Jake, Planning Commission staff.
20:34:45 Next on your amendment is Planning Commission 06 oh,
20:34:55 heavy commercial 24 and residential 10, to community
20:34:58 mixed use 35.
20:35:03 It's split between heavy commercial 24 and the
20:35:05 residential to heavy commercial 24.
20:35:07 It's a quarter of an acre to residential 10, one and a
20:35:11 quarter acres for one and a half acres.
20:35:13 You can see on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
20:35:17 the commercial 24 on 34th street.
20:35:21 There's a predominant community mixed use 35, the
20:35:25 proposed applicant designation, as well as heavy
20:35:28 commercial 24, and then a couple of other different
20:35:31 uses once we go further south on 34th street.
20:35:35 The uses that we found in the area primarily low
20:35:38 intensity commercial uses, as well as single-family
20:35:43 detached housing, as well as some duplexes and
20:35:46 multifamily dwellings, small multifamily dwellings.
20:35:51 On October 9th, Planning Commission met, and they
20:35:54 found that to be consistent with the Tampa
20:35:57 comprehensive plan -- excuse me, that concludes my
20:36:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have a picture of that?
20:36:06 >>> A picture of it?
20:36:19 >> Comparing three small apartment buildings.
20:36:24 >> The single-family homes?
20:36:27 >>> These are actually in front.
20:36:30 Because this parcel actually fronts Dr. Martin Luther
20:36:33 King Jr. Boulevard.
20:36:34 The heavy commercial 24 is actually this grass area
20:36:39 and then it goes back.
20:36:41 >> And how do they go in and out thereof?
20:36:45 >>> This road that you see right here.
20:36:47 >> One way in and one way out?
20:36:51 >>> To my knowledge.
20:36:52 >> To my knowledge, yes, one way in and one way out,
20:36:56 that single-family home over to my right.
20:37:00 And that's all day and all nature.
20:37:02 I don't think that family has peace and quiet with all
20:37:06 that noise with a duplex behind there.
20:37:09 I can't see putting something else back there with no
20:37:12 roads going east or west or north or south, just a
20:37:15 dirt road for them going in and out and I can't go
20:37:18 along with that.
20:37:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask you this, Ms. Miller,
20:37:25 because I read that letter.
20:37:25 The folks on the other side of that wall.
20:37:29 >>> Right.
20:37:29 On the right-hand side.
20:37:30 >> If and when it came back in for rezoning, if we
20:37:33 were very careful to make sure that the egress road
20:37:38 was on the other side away --
20:37:43 >>GWEN MILLER: The building to the left of that.
20:37:46 The building over there.
20:37:47 >> What I'm saying is, if they built -- if they built
20:37:53 on top of where the dirt road is, whatever it is they
20:37:57 want to build.
20:38:00 >>> The duplex.
20:38:02 And that's not a road.
20:38:03 That's a dirt road, not a paved road does the property
20:38:08 include this green area?
20:38:11 And the yellow buildings behind it?
20:38:14 >>> Yes, sir.
20:38:16 >> So my point is, when they build whatever it is they
20:38:18 want to builds on the front area, we could have them
20:38:22 build it over to the right next to the wall, letting
20:38:25 the egress and ingress be on the left side where that
20:38:29 car is.
20:38:30 And then that way, we could shift some of that traffic
20:38:35 >> Probably put a paved road there.
20:38:37 >> Well, put a driveway, I guess.
20:38:39 >>> I'm sorry to interrupt.
20:38:40 I believe the applicant is here.
20:38:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We'll hear from petitioner.
20:38:44 Let's hear from the petitioner.
20:38:59 >> 199155, Tampa, Florida and the petitioner for this
20:39:05 plan amendment.
20:39:06 And our plan does incorporate most of the -- right now
20:39:15 only one parcel from off of Belgium street.
20:39:23 So we do have an egress off of MLK and one off of bay.
20:39:33 >> Can you get to north bay if you don't own it?
20:39:35 >>> Well, there is -- we have contracts on some of
20:39:45 those properties at the moment.
20:39:46 >> But you can't get there with nothing back there.
20:39:49 With those duplex houses, driveway east and west when
20:39:53 you come out south on that dirt road.
20:39:55 You can't even go through back to north bay.
20:39:59 >> There is a road.
20:40:00 There is a feeder road back there.
20:40:02 >> A dirt road.
20:40:04 Trees and shrubs.
20:40:05 >>> But our plan, what we are putting in there,
20:40:10 whatever is there now, a whole brand new development.
20:40:16 That includes Bay Road and everything else.
20:40:19 >> You are still not going to have one way in and one
20:40:21 way out.
20:40:23 Because that road doesn't belong to you.
20:40:26 You say you can go through north bay.
20:40:28 >>> It is a city road.
20:40:29 >> But it's not a paved road.
20:40:31 >>> No.
20:40:33 Our plan doesn't include that.
20:40:34 >> That's what I know.
20:40:36 >>> Okay.
20:40:37 Well, the plan is to -- we are going to come out with
20:40:40 the property we are going to be acquiring off of MLK
20:40:43 allows us to do a multiple different things.
20:40:47 Right now, we are just in the planning stage.
20:40:49 And we don't want to get to some of this before --
20:40:53 >> Do you plan on tearing down those duplexes?
20:40:56 >>> Yes.
20:40:56 >> What the are you going to put there?
20:40:58 >>> Condominiums.
20:40:59 >> How many?
20:41:01 >>> We haven't decided yet.
20:41:02 We were looking somewhere between 24 and maybe 28
20:41:06 depending on how much -- we also want to do some
20:41:12 We are putting in some commercial that's and depending
20:41:16 on what happens there, we will decide on what, you
20:41:21 >> You say 24 condominiums back there?
20:41:23 >>> Yes.
20:41:23 >> How many stories?
20:41:25 >>> Three.
20:41:30 >> Too congested back there already with those
20:41:32 duplexes that's already back there.
20:41:36 >>> That's the way the property is now.
20:41:39 You know, whatever is there now is just, you know, --
20:41:46 >> If you had a road that would go east-west of
20:41:49 34th street and go out that way, and I could see
20:41:53 You have got the dirt road -- you can't even go west
20:41:58 out of that property.
20:41:59 You can't even go east out of that property.
20:42:01 You can't even go east or west on that property.
20:42:05 >> That's what I'm trying to tell you, that the plan
20:42:08 does include property that's off of MLK.
20:42:13 That's one of the reasons we come for 35.
20:42:17 That's the property we are acquiring off of 34th.
20:42:24 >> We need to go east or west.
20:42:27 Go west and get out on 34th street, it wouldn't be
20:42:30 a problem.
20:42:30 You can't.
20:42:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair, maybe I could suggest
20:42:36 How quickly -- how soon before you acquire these other
20:42:41 parcels that you're talking about? Because what I'm
20:42:48 thinking of, if we continued another one of these till
20:42:52 January it's possible we could continue this till
20:42:54 Then could you come back and show us that you acquired
20:42:57 some of these surrounding parcels.
20:42:58 And maybe Madam Chair might be more amenable to it as
20:43:01 acquiring some of these other parcels and get them out
20:43:03 on 34th street.
20:43:09 >> Get ow at 34th street.
20:43:11 >>: They can't get out because another apartment is
20:43:13 down there and you can't get out.
20:43:19 >> If he buys those parcels on 34th --
20:43:29 >> Doesn't own those apartments.
20:43:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It seems what we are supposed to be
20:43:33 looking at here is the underlying land use, not the
20:43:37 zoning, but whether RM 35 is better.
20:43:41 Community mixed use 35 is better than heavy commercial
20:43:44 And it seems to me given that this is adjacent to
20:43:47 residential, the heavy commercial, the proposed change
20:43:53 is better than what's there now.
20:43:56 I mean, should we see if there's anybody else?
20:44:01 67 does anyone in the public want to speak on item 9?
20:44:17 >>> Alvin Hancock, Sr.
20:44:19 This is my wife JANELLA.
20:44:25 I can understand -- we live directly behind this
20:44:29 proposed property.
20:44:31 On north bay.
20:44:34 Now, the only exit they do have is on Martin Luther
20:44:39 King at present.
20:44:40 And for them to put multifamily units in that area
20:44:45 will congest that area to the extent that it would be
20:44:49 bad on the neighborhood.
20:44:50 I don't think it would be coherent for the
20:44:55 What I am saying is we have been there for 23 years.
20:44:57 And with the few that are back there now we have
20:45:00 always had trouble because of the people in that area
20:45:03 coming through our property trying to connect with
20:45:09 Also there's a vacant lot over there but they built a
20:45:11 home there.
20:45:13 They can't go out.
20:45:14 Finally, the owners that owns it now built the fence
20:45:17 but they still come across the fence onto our
20:45:21 And we have raised three children there.
20:45:24 We have been trying to keep that area in good shape.
20:45:26 As a matter of fact, we have enhanced it.
20:45:28 And we don't mind anybody coming in there to enhance
20:45:31 the neighborhood because we enjoy living there.
20:45:33 It's quite a little street where we are living right
20:45:36 Thank God for it.
20:45:39 And our ministry and some of our other city officials
20:45:42 that were helping us get rid of some of the activities
20:45:45 that was involved in that area.
20:45:46 But the peoples that are trying to put in this
20:45:49 development now didn't show us any respect to come and
20:45:52 talk to us or tell us anything about the development
20:45:55 they are trying to do.
20:45:56 And when you have got the Planning Commission, the
20:46:01 chairman told them that they would think it would be
20:46:04 despicable for them come talk to us because we stayed
20:46:07 directly behind it.
20:46:08 They never called us.
20:46:09 They never gave us any contact or anything.
20:46:12 So you can't say one thing and do another.
20:46:21 But we would like to work with them.
20:46:25 If you think that multifamily unit would be good for
20:46:30 that area, it's your decision.
20:46:32 But you can understand that commissioner Miller is
20:46:37 familiar with that area, and it's not going to do
20:46:41 anything but congest with duplexes or condominiums in
20:46:46 that area.
20:46:50 I don't know if they are in that area for a long time
20:46:54 or not but they can buy that whole property, exit in
20:46:57 and exit it out and still be a congestion for the
20:46:59 We have been living in it, like I said, for 23 years
20:47:03 or 22.
20:47:04 And it's quiet now.
20:47:05 And that was true.
20:47:09 And I'm pretty sure all the people that comb in, not
20:47:13 only will it be a traffic congestion but the people
20:47:16 that come in also make congestion.
20:47:19 So like I say, we are not against or opposed to
20:47:25 anything that would enhance the neighborhood.
20:47:27 We invite it.
20:47:28 But in reality, I don't seem to understand.
20:47:33 Thank you.
20:47:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
20:47:36 Sir, ma'am, what I was thinking about was, if in fact
20:47:42 what they are saying is true, that they would like to
20:47:47 tear down the duplexes and build some town homes that
20:47:51 hopefully would just be owned by responsible people --
20:47:56 I'm going to --it's probably been rental forever.
20:48:01 But been around duplexes that can build town homes or
20:48:05 homes that would be owned by people.
20:48:07 Then if egress and ingress was only in and out of, was
20:48:11 it, LMK, then it wouldn't go back into the
20:48:15 To me, that might be something that you all might be
20:48:18 interested in?
20:48:20 Compared to the existing duplexes?
20:48:22 But I'm just asking.
20:48:23 >>> In reality, because of the fact that there's only
20:48:30 way in and one way out.
20:48:32 Now wife talked to them.
20:48:33 They said something to my wife about dived up.
20:48:41 If they do then they have assets, front or back,
20:48:44 because we are directly behind that property.
20:48:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
20:49:01 >>> Gary UDELL, and I would like to speak to how we
20:49:07 are going to -- excuse me, I live in Brandon.
20:49:18 We would like to make it so we will have an entrance
20:49:23 from MLK and opening towards 34th street.
20:49:27 And that's why we are acquiring the properties that
20:49:31 are on 34th street on the corner of 34th and
20:49:36 So we could include all that corner into the plan that
20:49:42 we are proposing.
20:49:45 I believe we would take into consideration what the
20:49:52 gentleman that speak before us would say, and the plan
20:49:57 that we are proposing, we are really trying to live up
20:50:04 and make it also so it's possible for the properties
20:50:09 that have been living there for 34 years would
20:50:12 definitely see over what we are going to put in there.
20:50:20 So I would like to say thanks for listening to us,
20:50:25 what we are trying to put something there, and take
20:50:29 into account what the gentleman says.
20:50:33 Thank you.
20:50:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
20:50:37 You may rebut, yes.
20:50:39 >>> I would just like to show you something of what we
20:50:41 are doing there.
20:50:45 I have been working on this project for about a year
20:50:56 That project is what was going to go there last year.
20:50:58 We didn't do that project because we have two grown
20:51:02 oaks on the property that we couldn't remove, we
20:51:04 couldn't get back in there.
20:51:07 So the project we are doing over there is nothing like
20:51:09 what's there now.
20:51:10 And I have been working very closely with the
20:51:12 community association, and I'm surprised -- I have
20:51:23 been to quite a few of the hearings.
20:51:27 And we have -- as a matter of fact, a budget that I am
20:51:34 doing now, direct suggestions that the community
20:51:38 association, or they are encouraging us to put in some
20:51:42 There's nothing -- there's no restaurants, there's
20:51:46 If you want something to eat, you have to go to
20:51:48 another neighborhood.
20:51:55 You can't get coffee on the corner or anything.
20:51:58 You have to go somewhere else to get it.
20:51:59 Those are some of the things we want to do there.
20:52:05 But in order to make it feasible, we couldn't do this
20:52:08 And, you know, we have to get the zoning change in
20:52:14 order for it to be possible.
20:52:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
20:52:21 It sounds like you need some more time in order to
20:52:25 acquire the additional property, to address the access
20:52:27 questions that have been raised.
20:52:30 And you need to meet with the folks who live on north
20:52:33 If we were to continue this till mid January, which is
20:52:37 about two months from now, do you think that would
20:52:39 give you enough time to see about acquiring the
20:52:43 additional property and having a greater sense of what
20:52:46 you are going to do?
20:52:47 >>> Well, some of that is contingent upon the rezoning
20:52:52 on this piece of property.
20:52:56 It is not enough for us to use that.
20:53:00 We wanted to give the zoning so that we can make a
20:53:05 plan, you know, something concrete produced, and
20:53:10 invite the whole neighborhood to be part of it.
20:53:12 And that's what we have done.
20:53:16 Last year, August.
20:53:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Some of what you are saying is the
20:53:26 land use is not necessarily objectionable, it's what
20:53:29 this intensity is on that land use that -- this is
20:53:33 only a land use change.
20:53:34 This is not in the rezoning.
20:53:36 You are a long way from that stage of the game.
20:53:40 >>> Yes.
20:53:41 >> But I'm willing to give you till January to see if
20:53:43 you can come up with something that's a little bit
20:53:46 less intense.
20:53:48 I like the idea of the restaurants and the commercial
20:53:50 and that sort of thing.
20:53:51 But three-story condos right there doesn't sound like
20:53:56 it's going to fit.
20:54:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Where would you put the restaurant?
20:54:04 >>> It's going to be on 34th.
20:54:06 >> Off duplex right there.
20:54:08 >>> No, that isn't going to be there.
20:54:10 >> You bought it already?
20:54:12 >>> We have it under contract.
20:54:14 >> You do?
20:54:15 >>> Yes.
20:54:17 >> Do you have the contract?
20:54:18 >>> Not with me, no.
20:54:19 But Mr. Johnson owns a restaurant.
20:54:35 >> Madam Chair, currently, this property that he has
20:54:38 zoned heavy commercial, which obviously doesn't
20:54:40 really -- is not compatible, that's single-family
20:54:44 So maybe we should give him till January to show up on
20:54:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Show the whole picture.
20:54:57 >> Yes.
20:54:58 I'm not sure what date to continue this.
20:55:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question is if he wishes a con
20:55:09 He also has the right to an up or down question.
20:55:12 I guess the question would be, sir, is it your request
20:55:15 to have a continuance until January?
20:55:17 Do you wish to have a vote today?
20:55:19 >>> I would rather not.
20:55:20 But if that's what it takes.
20:55:21 We really want to do something from the community.
20:55:25 Like I said, we are working very closely with the
20:55:34 The community association.
20:56:02 >> 5:01.
20:56:02 January 11th, 5:01.
20:56:05 Saul-Sena Saul second.
20:56:08 >>THE CLERK: Miller, Alvarez, no.
20:56:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Continued.
20:56:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would also suggest that you meet
20:56:22 with Mr. and Mrs. White who are at --
20:56:28 >>> we have met with Mr. White.
20:56:29 >> They are objecting that they are objecting to your
20:56:35 >> Moving along.
20:56:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We are on item number 11.
20:56:38 Need to open number 11.
20:56:40 >> So moved.
20:56:40 >> Second.
20:56:40 (Motion carried)
20:56:41 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: The Planning Commission reviewed
20:57:09 this amendment in September 11th at the public
20:57:13 hearing, at which time the request would be consistent
20:57:16 to the comprehensive plan policy that addressed public
20:57:19 health and safety, Planning Commission staff did
20:57:22 transmit -- has transmitted a finding of consistency
20:57:26 for your consideration.
20:57:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:57:39 >>> I have nothing to add.
20:57:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
20:57:42 on item 11?
20:57:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Have Mrs. Saul-Sena read it.
20:57:48 It's her puppy.
20:57:51 >> Motion and second.
20:57:52 Need a second.
20:57:56 Motion to close.
20:57:57 (Motion carried)
20:58:07 >>ROSE FERLITA: Thanks, Linda.
20:58:09 An ordinance creating section 27-152, to be entitled
20:58:13 "dog friendly restaurants," of the City of Tampa, code
20:58:17 of ordinances providing for exemption from state law
20:58:20 to allow dogs in outdoor areas of public food service
20:58:23 establishments during operating hours, providing for
20:58:25 regulations, providing for application and permit
20:58:27 procedures, providing for a complaint procedure,
20:58:30 providing for revocation, amending section 27-523,
20:58:34 definitions, by adding a definition for "public food
20:58:37 service establishment" and "employee" and providing an
20:58:41 effective date.
20:58:43 >> Second.
20:58:43 >>CHAIRMAN: All in favor of the motion.
20:58:50 >> Roll call.
20:58:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
20:58:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WOOF.
20:59:02 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with white being absent.
20:59:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have a motion.
20:59:15 >> Yes.
20:59:16 >> Second.
20:59:16 (Motion carried).
20:59:17 >> Number 12.
20:59:19 Move to open.
20:59:20 >> Second.
20:59:20 (Motion carried).
20:59:21 >> This is quasi-judicial, council.
20:59:24 >> Would anyone like to speak on 12?
20:59:25 Raise your right hand.
20:59:36 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:59:45 >> Thank you, Mr. Harrison.
20:59:47 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation on item 12
20:59:52 which is a recommendation from the Historic
20:59:53 Preservation Commission for the local landmark
20:59:58 designation of 522 north Howard Avenue known as the
21:00:02 fort Homer Hesterly armory.
21:00:06 Do you want a full presentation or just orient you
21:00:09 once again?
21:00:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We know where it is.
21:00:16 >> Here's a picture of the subject property.
21:00:18 Property was built between 1938 and 1941 as part of
21:00:22 the works progress administration program under
21:00:26 Franklin Dell nor Roosevelt.
21:00:29 See the area?
21:00:30 The designation we are seeking this evening applies
21:00:34 solely to the south parcel which is Howard, Armenia,
21:00:39 and Gray Street, not to the part parcel which is still
21:00:43 occupied by the Florida National Guard.
21:00:47 You see the Sanborn maps on this slide.
21:00:50 Essentially from 1931 to 1951.
21:00:53 You see the boundary.
21:01:00 Then in 1951 you see the existence of the armory
21:01:07 Some photos from 1955 showing 2 building virtually in
21:01:14 identical design, and condition.
21:01:16 And there is a current picture.
21:01:18 You are very familiar to everyone, I think, who is
21:01:21 familiar with that area.
21:01:25 >> Inside the building, officer clubs and offices.
21:01:31 The property has been a site of attention since the
21:01:36 was known as megeman field served as encampment for
21:01:42 Roosevelt's Rough Riders and while they prepared for
21:01:44 departure for the Spanish American war in 1998.
21:01:48 The site also hosted a number of prominent
21:01:51 individuals, such as president Kennedy, shortly before
21:01:54 his death, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Elvis Presley,
21:02:00 and heard a number of others such as the Doors and Tom
21:02:04 Jones and so on and so forth.
21:02:08 >> Holiday on ice.
21:02:13 >> Under the preservation code the property qualifies
21:02:16 for local landmark designation under criterion A,
21:02:20 military history, the Florida National Guard armory,
21:02:24 arm storage operations, drill space and training for
21:02:28 guards, in addition to serving the commitment, for
21:02:31 sporting event, social gatherings and speaking
21:02:35 Also important is its architecture, designed in art
21:02:38 decco style most likely, without doubt the largest and
21:02:43 most substantial art decco in the city, would be --
21:02:47 the design was popular during the 1920s and 1930s
21:02:50 as architectural styles change from the classic forms,
21:02:53 which you see throughout much of the 1920s to more
21:02:57 modern style.
21:02:58 This style was used for many National Guard armory
21:03:02 during the work administration, the building itself is
21:03:06 named after Homer W. Hesterly, a colonel during that
21:03:10 period, was instrumental in having this facility
21:03:13 He later went on to be a brigadier general, and served
21:03:17 the country in both World War I and World War II, was
21:03:20 honored with a number of awards including the brass --
21:03:27 bronze star. That concludes my presentation.
21:03:31 We are seeking landmark designation.
21:03:36 The guard supports it.
21:03:37 It has been there intent from the beginning to ensure
21:03:40 when this transfers over it transfers to individuals,
21:03:44 rehabilitating this property, and continuing it as
21:03:46 part of their history in the City of Tampa.
21:03:48 Thank you.
21:03:56 >> I heard at one point that it came missing and was
21:03:59 misplaced and --
21:04:02 >> I remember it as a kid.
21:04:04 And it glowed.
21:04:08 Maybe somebody watching this will discover its
21:04:12 >>MICHELE OGILVIE: Planning Commission staff.
21:04:18 I have been sworn in.
21:04:22 The Planning Commission reviewed the historic
21:04:24 designation request on October the 9th and found
21:04:30 the request to be consistent with comprehensive plan
21:04:32 policies that require recognition, protection and
21:04:38 preservation of Tampa's historic heritage.
21:04:41 And the Planning Commission has forward its resolution
21:04:45 to the City Council for their consideration.
21:04:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
21:04:49 on item 12?
21:04:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
21:04:52 >> Second.
21:04:52 (Motion carried).
21:04:53 >>THE CLERK: I do not have an ordinance.
21:05:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Wait, wait, wait.
21:05:09 >> We might have it.
21:05:11 Hold it.
21:05:32 >>> For some reason I don't think the ordinance made
21:05:35 it through.
21:05:36 I apologize.
21:05:36 I'll bring the ordinance back in a week -- November
21:05:40 I'm sorry.
21:05:46 >> Move to send it to legal.
21:05:47 >>THE CLERK: Public hearing is scheduled for November
21:05:49 30 at 10:00 on this issue.
21:05:51 It's already scheduled.
21:05:54 You would have first reading at that point.
21:06:01 >> First reading at nine, second reading at ten.
21:06:14 >> We found it.
21:06:15 We found it.
21:06:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have been here 12 hours.
21:06:18 It doesn't matter.
21:06:22 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It doesn't really matter.
21:06:25 Been here since nine anyway.
21:06:27 It doesn't matter.
21:06:31 >>ROSE FERLITA: Mary wants to read this.
21:06:35 Let her read something.
21:06:51 We found it.
21:06:52 You can read it.
21:06:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: an ordinance of the City of Tampa
21:07:08 designating the property known as fort Homer Hesterly
21:07:12 located at 522 north Howard Avenue Tampa, Florida as
21:07:15 more particularly described in section 3 hereof as a
21:07:18 local landmark providing for repeal of all ordinances
21:07:20 in conflict, providing for severability, providing an
21:07:23 effective date.
21:07:24 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
21:07:26 All in favor of the motion and a question on that
21:07:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to remind everybody.
21:07:32 Do you all remember we got that letter from that
21:07:34 relative of Homer Hesterly?
21:07:37 Did you all see that?
21:07:38 We got a letter.
21:07:41 We got a letter from a relative of the original
21:07:45 colonel Hesterly.
21:07:46 And he lived up north somewhere.
21:07:48 And he had Googled it and came across the fact that we
21:07:51 were designating it as a historic monument.
21:07:54 He was very excited.
21:07:55 I'm not just making that up.
21:07:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: He actually wanted to object, right?
21:08:00 [ Laughter ]
21:08:00 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
21:08:02 (Motion carried)
21:08:03 Anything else to come before council?
21:08:06 >> Move to receive and file.
21:08:08 >> Second.
21:08:08 (Motion carried).
21:08:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We stand adjourned.
21:09:30 (off air momentarily) (roll call).
21:09:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay, sir, you may talk now.
21:09:43 >> So I hired this state licensed contractor to build
21:09:45 a house.
21:09:46 >> Put your name on the record for us.
21:09:48 >> Ed GOLLY, 3510 South MacDill.
21:09:54 In March of 2005, you abandoned the project.
21:10:01 I discovered that it suffered from such extreme
21:10:05 construction discrepancies that to resolve everything
21:10:07 the contractor had done wrong and left incomplete,
21:10:10 which was essentially everything he had done, and
21:10:12 complete the structure, I would need to spend as much
21:10:16 as or more than the original contract price of the
21:10:18 So consequently, it becomes financially impractical
21:10:22 for me to have any work performed on the project, and
21:10:24 I put it up for sale.
21:10:26 And the likelihood of sale is extremely remote and in
21:10:32 all probability my only remaining option will be to
21:10:35 demolish I shall the partially completed structure,
21:10:38 restore it to an empty lot and try to sell that.
21:10:42 I anticipate if I am ever able to sell the lot my
21:10:44 financial loss will be a minimum of $250,000 and as
21:10:48 much as twice that or half a million dollars.
21:10:51 Never having spent a single day in the house.
21:10:54 All of these structural discrepancies were able to
21:10:56 happen in spite of numerous inspections by the City of
21:10:58 Tampa building services center.
21:11:01 The contractor deliberately conspired to deceive
21:11:05 building inspectors and in every case was successful.
21:11:07 In other cases, visible to inspectors that completely
21:11:15 The damage has been caused primarily as a con artist
21:11:18 Michael Wayne but significantly supplemented by the
21:11:21 utter and absolute incompetence of the City of Tampa
21:11:23 building inspectors who were so easily duped by the
21:11:28 deliberate construction fraud as to render their
21:11:31 efforts of inspectors utterly worthless.
21:11:34 The degree to which construction fraud and
21:11:36 incompetence can be overlooked by City of Tampa
21:11:39 building inspector should be cause for this body to
21:11:41 acknowledge that if only a small percentage of
21:11:44 contractors are incompetent and or unscrupulous as con
21:11:49 artist Michael lane there could be hundreds of
21:11:52 structures in our city that pose serious danger to
21:11:54 their occupants.
21:11:55 The fact that these structural crimes have been
21:11:57 brought to the attention of City of Tampa building
21:12:01 services center to their complete indifference and no
21:12:04 action of any kind has been taken against the criminal
21:12:06 contractor to suggest that fraudulent contractors can
21:12:08 operate with complete impunity within our community to
21:12:12 the potential endangerment of all citizens.
21:12:15 Now, because I have been put in a position whereby I
21:12:18 can neither complete nor sell this structural disaster
21:12:21 left by this con artist Michael lane the City of Tampa
21:12:24 Code Enforcement Board is now going to fine me $100 a
21:12:27 day, while the perpetrators of all the problems remain
21:12:31 untouched by the damage they wrought.
21:12:35 Therefore I am asking the following of the Tampa City
21:12:37 Number one.
21:12:40 Direct independent outside investigation be conducted
21:12:43 of the City of Tampa building services center to
21:12:45 ascertain responsibility for the incompetent leading
21:12:49 to if severe structural discrepancies at 433 South
21:12:55 Two, City Council take appropriate action against
21:12:56 those found responsible for those discrepancies
21:12:58 including dismissal from employment.
21:13:02 Three, the City of Tampa assume some financial
21:13:04 responsibility for addressing the violations which
21:13:06 have been found by the City of Tampa Code Enforcement
21:13:09 Board, and that the Tampa City Council determine and
21:13:14 compensate appropriate financial remuneration to me
21:13:17 for financial losses that I will incur as a result of
21:13:19 the incompetence of the employees of the city services
21:13:25 I would like to enter into the record what I read.
21:13:28 Including two pages of --
21:13:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Give it to our attorney.
21:13:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What sort of reaction have you had
21:13:47 from our building department when you have had -- I
21:13:50 assume you have had discussions with our building
21:13:52 department about this issue.
21:13:53 >>> They have no explanation for why they overlooked
21:13:56 And no answer at all.
21:13:58 Maybe you could get one out of them.
21:14:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think at a minimum as a citizen
21:14:04 you deserve an answer.
21:14:06 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
21:14:16 It just so happens that when I was representing CSE, I
21:14:21 did have representation was Mr. Golly.
21:14:23 He had filed a complaint with Hillsborough County,
21:14:28 with the city, to look at contractor issues and to
21:14:32 look at other issues.
21:14:33 He did file a complaint with that board.
21:14:37 I believe that they found -- did not rule in Mr.
21:14:41 Golly's favor.
21:14:42 I recall appeal was filed.
21:14:43 I don't recall what happened with that.
21:14:46 In terms of everything that he's outlined today, I
21:14:49 think probably if you wanted to receive additional
21:14:52 information, probably the most appropriate way is to
21:14:54 ask for CSE to provide a report as to what occurred at
21:14:58 this particular location.
21:15:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's write was headed.
21:15:03 I mean, clearly the complaint against the contractor,
21:15:07 I think you have already pursued that.
21:15:08 But I think that -- I'll just make a motion that
21:15:12 construction services come back to us December 21 O or
21:15:20 December 21st, with a report on the -- the address
21:15:25 was 4333 South MacDill?
21:15:29 4303 South MacDill, property of Ed golly.
21:15:33 >> Second.
21:15:34 (Motion carried).
21:15:36 >>THE CLERK: Do you wish to receive and file the
21:15:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
21:15:43 So moved.
21:15:43 (Motion Carried).
21:15:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Meeting adjourned.
21:15:50 (Meeting adjourned)