Help & information    View the list of Transcripts



Tampa City Council
Thursday, December 14, 2006
9:00 a.m. session

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

09:04:57 [Sounding gavel]
09:04:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
09:04:59 The chair will yield to Ms. Linda Saul-Sena.
09:05:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
09:05:03 Good morning.
09:05:03 It is a great pleasure this morning to again welcome
09:05:06 back to City Council chambers sister Ann Dougherty who

09:05:12 is sharing some exciting news.
09:05:14 After many years at frightens house she's gone to work
09:05:17 at the academy prep which is a middle school for
09:05:20 at-risk children in Tampa that does wonderful work, in
09:05:24 a historic building in Ybor City.
09:05:26 She always leaves us in the great thoughts.
09:05:29 I welcome you this morning and ask everyone to rise
09:05:31 for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge
09:05:34 of allegiance.
09:05:38 >>> And let us pray.
09:05:40 O blessed and compassionate God, sustainer of all
09:05:44 people, you embrace the whole concept within yourself
09:05:48 for everything exists in you.
09:05:50 Let your spirit enlighten us in your truth and pour
09:05:54 out your grace into our hearts as we make right and
09:05:58 just decisions for the citizens of Tampa.
09:06:00 Take away all negativity and transform us into your
09:06:04 love and let us radiate that love to all people.
09:06:08 Inspire us with your unending life.
09:06:11 Soften our limited way of being.
09:06:16 Lift us to your divine light and give us your capacity
09:06:20 to share that light with everyone.

09:06:21 Let us realize fully that we are members of that
09:06:24 sacred community with all humankind with creation and
09:06:29 the entire cosmos.
09:06:31 Grant us -- let us be in communion with you forever, a
09:06:38 love that transforms all into your divine radiance.
09:06:42 We pray this in God's holy name.
09:06:44 Amen
09:06:45 [ Pledge of Allegiance ]
09:06:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much.
09:07:01 Can we get a copy of that?
09:07:03 Thank you.
09:07:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
09:07:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:07:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
09:07:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
09:07:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:07:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
09:07:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:07:14 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to announce that council
09:07:17 will be taking a break at 11:30 to attend the Tampa
09:07:21 Chamber of Commerce luncheon.
09:07:23 We will be back at 1:30.

09:07:25 The council will break at 11:30 and be back at 1:30.
09:07:29 At this time we go to our sign-in sheet.
09:07:31 Dennis Fernandez.
09:07:34 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
09:07:38 I'm joining in Dennis with this request.
09:07:40 We are requesting to walk on a resolution to allow us
09:07:44 to process with the department of state a grant
09:07:49 application for $25,000.
09:07:51 It does require a matching fund, and the matching
09:07:53 fund, and is contingent on you providing for matching
09:07:58 funds in the 2008 budget.
09:08:00 It doesn't require to you do that now.
09:08:01 But just to be contingent on that issue.
09:08:04 Dennis is here and I'm here for any questions.
09:08:07 We have the resolution.
09:08:12 >> Move the resolution.
09:08:13 >> Second.
09:08:13 (Motion carried).
09:08:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:08:17 I have a request to make of Dennis, and that is
09:08:22 yesterday I visited the Gary school under a
09:08:24 threatening sky, and I'm sad to say that it's still

09:08:29 not sold and it is in terrible shape and the sale that
09:08:34 came before the school board that's continued till
09:08:36 January doesn't mention the fact that it's a historic
09:08:38 building.
09:08:39 And according to Dennis, it's not only significant,
09:08:43 it's a landmark building.
09:08:45 So what I would like to request that you do is send
09:08:49 the school system information on its status, and
09:08:54 request that that is included in the materials that
09:08:57 they put out, and they consider purchasers for it.
09:09:01 And perhaps explain that whoever buys the building has
09:09:04 to respect it as a historic building, and fix the
09:09:08 holes in the roof and take care of it and not demolish
09:09:11 it.
09:09:12 Thank you.
09:09:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:09:15 Mr. David Smith.
09:09:22 >>DAVID SMITH: I have about six things today but I
09:09:24 think what we want to do is maybe figure out how you
09:09:27 want to handle those.
09:09:28 Two things I think would be appropriate to deal with
09:09:30 up front are the memorandum I sent you with respect to

09:09:33 the residential restrictions on sexual predators, and
09:09:39 something that just arrived that I want to distribute
09:09:41 to you so that you have it.
09:09:45 I'll get back to the ordinance in a minute.
09:09:47 We just received our opinion from the department of
09:09:49 business and professional regulation regarding our
09:09:51 specials, we wanted to find out whether we could pass
09:09:54 an ordinance that would regulate the grant specials it
09:09:58 was originally an attorney general request.
09:10:02 The attorney general as you may recall passed the
09:10:04 baton to the department of business and professional
09:10:08 regulation.
09:10:09 Let me give you -- and one of the reasons why I bring
09:10:29 this to your attention now is I have a standing
09:10:32 request to deliver medley, which I will do.
09:10:38 I want to make sure you have it so when you get an
09:10:41 inquiry it will not be one of your shrug the shoulder,
09:10:44 why didn't the city attorney tell me?
09:10:45 So you have it.
09:10:50 I have hardly had a chance to look at it.
09:10:52 We will evaluate it and get back to you next week or
09:10:55 the first meeting in January.

09:10:56 But we really only have two options at this point, it
09:10:59 seems to me, and that is to either accept the fact
09:11:01 that it's preempted and we can't do anything, or
09:11:04 perhaps we could file an action if we are so inclined
09:11:08 to get a further clarification.
09:11:10 Let us evaluate that.
09:11:11 I want to make sure you were in the loop so you don't
09:11:13 get calls and don't know what's going on.
09:11:16 Now, the issue with respect to the residential
09:11:23 restrictions on sexual predators has gotten a little
09:11:27 more convoluted than I anticipated.
09:11:31 I received the briefs that were filed in the case in
09:11:34 California on proposition 83.
09:11:36 You may remember proposition 83 was Jessica's law.
09:11:42 I believe I got that name correct.
09:11:43 And the federal court there issued a temporary
09:11:45 restraining order.
09:11:46 Now, we as attorneys know that has a limited amount of
09:11:50 precedential value but the arguments that were made
09:11:52 are very significant, and there was two bases on which
09:11:56 that temporary restraining order was entered.
09:11:58 One is the fact that it may be an ex facto violation.

09:12:05 I won't go into all those details.
09:12:06 We are continuing and will provide you a summary that
09:12:08 hopefully will make sense of that somewhat arcane
09:12:12 provision. The second issue, the court found and
09:12:15 likely prevail on the merits about due process, and
09:12:19 that dealt with the issue of whether the presumption
09:12:21 of continued dangerousness was fair and reasonable.
09:12:25 And why this is relevant, or at least without an
09:12:28 opportunity -- know there's an opportunity to be
09:12:30 heard -- and why this is relevant, some of the
09:12:33 recommended solutions may be that we will look at a
09:12:35 time period by which the pro hibition will apply with
09:12:38 an opportunity to be heard to establish you no longer
09:12:43 are dangerous or to limit our ordinance more to those
09:12:45 who have been predators, for example, on children.
09:12:48 Sex offenders versus predators and predators on
09:12:51 children.
09:12:51 There's a whole bunch of gradation of meanings and
09:12:55 import there.
09:12:56 Long story short, we are going to provide you a
09:12:58 summary, because we need to make sure we know what the
09:13:01 law is.

09:13:01 We will provide you that summary in the near future,
09:13:05 hopefully, and suggest that we come back to you on the
09:13:08 second meeting in January to have a specific schedule,
09:13:11 and maybe, if we are able to get there at that time, a
09:13:14 proposed ordinance.
09:13:16 But first we have to sort through the law, and then we
09:13:19 will know what we will recommend to you that we think
09:13:21 is an stance that we can defend.
09:13:25 I also would recommend in a memorandum to you that you
09:13:28 receive some testimony from at least two different
09:13:30 groups.
09:13:31 One is Tampa Police Department, and the other is the
09:13:33 Department of Corrections now, Tampa Police Department
09:13:36 is only coming down here to explain to you how they
09:13:40 are monitoring and the registration process works, and
09:13:44 what if any factors need to be considered as part of
09:13:47 that process in order to ensure that what we do
09:13:50 remains effective.
09:13:53 TPD is very effective right now in our registration
09:13:56 and monitoring predators, and obviously we want to
09:14:00 make sure that continues, because we really want to be
09:14:02 effective in what we do.

09:14:04 So I want to make sure you have that as part of your
09:14:06 calculus.
09:14:07 So that is basically the point of my memorandum and
09:14:10 the request we come back to you the second meeting in
09:14:13 January.
09:14:13 Yes, sir.
09:14:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
09:14:16 I'm all right with Mr. Smith's recommendation to come
09:14:19 back in January.
09:14:20 He needs a bit more time to make sure secondarily that
09:14:26 what we are going to do is going to pass
09:14:28 Constitutional muster, but primarily that we are not
09:14:31 going to enact an ordinance that is going to make
09:14:34 TPD's job harder and to keep our citizens safe.
09:14:38 We don't want to do that.
09:14:40 But I also think that we want to be as aggressive as
09:14:44 we possibly can on this new ordinance.
09:14:47 And if we can require additional registration, provide
09:14:50 additional tools to TPD in some way, that would help
09:14:53 them enforce this new and improved ordinance, then we
09:14:57 ought to be willing to do that, and I'm sure we will
09:15:00 be willing to do that.

09:15:03 We are not sociologists up here and it's really not
09:15:06 our job to try to figure out what the impact of this
09:15:09 is going to be, other than something that's going to
09:15:11 keep our kids safer in the City of Tampa.
09:15:14 So I'll be happy to make that motion, if legal comes
09:15:18 back the second week in January for an update and
09:15:21 hopefully a proposed ordinance.
09:15:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Question, Mr. Dingfelder?
09:15:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll be glad to second the motion.
09:15:28 The question I have, didn't we have a discussion also
09:15:31 about including all the jurisdictions so we could have
09:15:36 more of a comprehensive thing?
09:15:39 Because clearly, when corrections and probation, their
09:15:43 jurisdiction, you know, would go across all of our
09:15:46 jurisdictions.
09:15:47 It would probably be easier if there was something
09:15:52 consistent.
09:15:52 But where are we on the meeting with the county?
09:15:55 >>DAVID SMITH: We have had a meeting with the county.
09:15:57 That was in fact the direction of council two to four
09:15:59 weeks ago.
09:16:01 Ms. Kert has had a meeting with the county on this

09:16:03 issue, Rebecca Kert of my office, and they are also
09:16:06 evaluating the situation.
09:16:09 Part of what they were going to do is try to determine
09:16:13 what the distance prohibition meant in their
09:16:15 jurisdiction, and that's very important for us,
09:16:18 because part of the analysis and the case law is that,
09:16:21 quote, banishment meaning nowhere to live in the
09:16:29 jurisdiction is punitive and therefore violating the
09:16:35 prohibition.
09:16:36 So therein lies one part of the complication, is we
09:16:40 need to make sure we craft this in a way that remains
09:16:43 civil regulatory, i.e., protective of our citizens and
09:16:46 not an additional punitive or criminal measure which
09:16:49 has some issues with respect to the requirements.
09:16:52 So we are working with them.
09:16:53 I don't know what has happened since the initial
09:16:56 meeting.
09:16:56 But obviously I'll have that information for you as
09:16:58 well, and we will continue to work with them.
09:17:01 Because we obviously have a huge common boundary with
09:17:04 them.
09:17:05 And it's important that we coordinate what we do.

09:17:08 They have less of a problem in the sense of banishment
09:17:10 than we do because they have larger areas undeveloped.
09:17:13 But the urban and suburban areas are where the
09:17:15 problems arise in terms of the banishment concept.
09:17:19 >> Legislatively are we in --
09:17:22 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I have spoken personally with
09:17:24 commissioner Hagan as late as about a week ago.
09:17:28 >> Do you know what their schedule is?
09:17:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No, but I do know the same concerns
09:17:33 we are hearing from our legal staff and TPD, they are
09:17:35 hearing from theirs, and David gee.
09:17:37 And I have even spoken to David gee about it.
09:17:40 So I think a bit more time is probably a good thing to
09:17:44 make sure that not only is everyone comfortable from a
09:17:46 legal perspective but that we are enacting as close as
09:17:49 possible the exact same ordinance, so that we don't
09:17:52 have those -- you're sending them our way, we are
09:17:56 sending them your way sort of thing.
09:17:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think keep track on this and come
09:18:02 back in January.
09:18:03 It might be optimistic to say we'll have something
09:18:06 ready to go in January, because -- and I don't want to

09:18:13 leave them out if they are so inclined.
09:18:15 >>DAVID SMITH: We had no conversation with either of
09:18:18 those jurisdictions to my mind.
09:18:21 >> I don't know if they are inclined to go down this
09:18:24 rote.
09:18:26 >>> We will certainly talk with them.
09:18:27 And I understand.
09:18:28 But deadlines are good.
09:18:29 They force us to make as much progress as we can.
09:18:32 If we are not completely there, we will know exactly
09:18:34 what the problems are, I hope, and have a better idea
09:18:37 how to follow them.
09:18:43 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Thank you for coming this morning,
09:18:45 David.
09:18:45 This is obviously new for me, being new on the
09:18:48 council.
09:18:48 I have gone back and looked through the statements and
09:18:51 comments of other council members.
09:18:53 And I think Rose Ferlita made some important
09:18:56 observations that I just wanted to echo, and that is
09:19:01 that we be careful that what we do here does not
09:19:03 simply shift a problem within the city, or within the

09:19:07 county.
09:19:08 And I think that that is critical in what we are doing
09:19:11 here.
09:19:13 Based on what I have seen so far, it's likely that the
09:19:21 poles that have been discussed will simply move the
09:19:24 problem from parts of Tampa to other parts of Tampa
09:19:26 that I don't think is appropriate.
09:19:27 I think the children in places in East Tampa that
09:19:32 would be left out of this are just as important and
09:19:35 just as critical to the future of the city as the kids
09:19:37 in north Tampa or in South Tampa.
09:19:40 Or West Tampa for that matter.
09:19:43 So I think that that's important.
09:19:45 And I recognize that this is a complicated issue with
09:19:48 lots of legal nuances and being a lawyer I respect
09:19:52 that.
09:19:52 But in looking at this, I look at this as a father
09:19:57 first and foremost.
09:19:58 We encourage you to make sure as you work with these
09:20:01 other jurisdictions, Temple Terrace, Plant City, the
09:20:04 county, and most importantly law enforcement, that
09:20:07 what we get back here is not just an ordinance that

09:20:10 would appear on its face to dollar victory on an issue
09:20:15 when we hadn't really made much progress but
09:20:19 integrated proposal that's coordinated with the police
09:20:22 department, the department of corrections, that we
09:20:25 really have something here that's going to first and
09:20:28 foremost protect the children of the city.
09:20:30 Because I don't think -- I would think that's the most
09:20:35 important thing and I would have a hard time not being
09:20:39 confident in strides in that direction.
09:20:41 I would also encourage you to be as strong in your
09:20:44 legal analysis as possible.
09:20:46 We have, in the past in this city, taken
09:20:55 Constitutionally strong positions, and issues related
09:20:58 to adult businesses and other activity, and in my
09:21:05 opinion this is significantly more important, perhaps
09:21:07 the most important thing that a government can do to
09:21:09 protect its children.
09:21:10 And I would encourage you to be as strong and
09:21:16 aggressive in that as you can be in your analysis and
09:21:18 if the city needs to then defend its position.
09:21:21 I think that is something that I, at least, would
09:21:25 support, and encourage you to examine this issue in

09:21:29 that light.
09:21:31 >>> Thank you.
09:21:31 That's exactly the point of additional time.
09:21:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Fletcher, you raise good points.
09:21:38 We all want to make sure, and we are all doing this
09:21:40 for the right reason, and we want to make sure the end
09:21:43 result is a safer city.
09:21:44 Don't get caught up in the maps that you have seen so
09:21:47 far, because the only maps that I have seen so far
09:21:51 were generated by one of the local newspapers, and
09:21:55 they did not use the definition of "parks" in the same
09:22:00 way that I think ultimately this ordinance will use
09:22:03 the definition of "parks."
09:22:06 So I think that a lot of people have been drawn into
09:22:09 that argument that, all you are going to be doing is
09:22:12 shifting them to certain parts of the city and they
09:22:15 are going to be sort of gathered in these areas, and
09:22:19 that is not the legal analysis or the geographic
09:22:24 analysis that our staff has done.
09:22:27 >>> One additional fact you should know coming out in
09:22:29 reading the cases is one of the potential solutions
09:22:31 may be, and may be required, that we grandfather in

09:22:35 those who preexist, meaning we cannot dispossess you
09:22:39 from your home.
09:22:40 So you are going to have a distribution, I suspect, a
09:22:42 cross the city when the ordinance is ultimately done.
09:22:44 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
09:22:47 floor.
09:22:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Repeat it so we are clear, clerk,
09:22:53 please.
09:22:56 >>> I believe it's to come back the second meeting in
09:22:58 January to report on the update and suggest a schedule
09:23:00 and hopefully have an ordinance.
09:23:03 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Even if it's just a draft ordinance
09:23:06 that we send to the county and everybody starts
09:23:07 working from that.
09:23:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And continue coordinating with the
09:23:12 county and possibly the other jurisdictions.
09:23:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
09:23:16 >>GWEN MILLER: You want to include Temple Terrace and
09:23:19 Plant City?
09:23:21 >>> Yes, ma'am.
09:23:21 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
09:23:23 floor.

09:23:23 (Motion carried).
09:23:27 >>DAVID SMITH: The next issue is whether we take up
09:23:29 central Ybor and central Espanol.
09:23:35 I think it will take up a fair amount of time if we do
09:23:38 it now.
09:23:39 I'll be happy anyway.
09:23:40 I will be happy to take it up in sequence if it makes
09:23:43 more sense for you.
09:23:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:23:45 What about item -- number 1, you wanted to talk on
09:23:51 that one?
09:23:54 They didn't sign up.
09:23:55 That's why I thought you were going to do it.
09:23:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: After the sign-in we'll approve the
09:24:02 agenda and move sequentially.
09:24:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Martin.
09:24:09 >>> Do you know what item Mr. Martin signed up for?
09:24:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 32.
09:24:13 >>> That's central Ybor.
09:24:14 We'll take that up at that time.
09:24:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
09:24:16 We are going to go to approve the agenda.

09:24:18 Are there any items we need to pull?
09:24:32 >> Move to approve the agenda.
09:24:33 >>> Second.
09:24:34 (Motion carried).
09:24:35 >> Cindy Miller, director of growth management
09:24:38 services here for item number 1, which is a request
09:24:41 for resolutions for approving a land sale agreement
09:24:44 between the City of Tampa and FS property.
09:24:48 There had been some discussion last week on this item.
09:24:51 But there has been some other information that we
09:24:54 discussed among our staff last week that I thought
09:24:57 would be important for you to be able to hear from us
09:25:02 regarding.
09:25:04 I was asked to come back this week and also ask that
09:25:07 you take a vote on the item this week.
09:25:09 Let me go through a couple of items, some of which you
09:25:12 have seen, some which you have not, but it is part of
09:25:14 the record a memo from me to you outlining certain
09:25:17 points of this property, as well as some photographs
09:25:22 and other aerial information.
09:25:24 The Elmo, please.
09:25:35 I have a copy from the Hillsborough County appraiser's

09:25:38 web site.
09:25:39 The item -- the property is outlined in the center.
09:25:43 If you look at the web site, it looks like this is a
09:25:46 nice 50 by 100-foot parcel on a corner lot.
09:25:59 This is a photograph taken I believe yesterday of the
09:26:01 subject property.
09:26:04 And I think it's important to note that there are no
09:26:07 streets.
09:26:08 There are no utilities.
09:26:09 This is an unimproved area.
09:26:11 It is a former landfill site.
09:26:14 The landfill was landfill number 32.
09:26:23 And this is a former landfill.
09:26:26 Most of the rest of the landfill coupled by two acres
09:26:30 by the city around 1979, and this parcel was retained
09:26:34 in order to possibly put a pump station on it.
09:26:37 As we came by our department.
09:26:40 The parcel itself as I mentioned is 50 by 100.
09:26:43 It is part of the former landfill.
09:26:48 We had requested an appraisal of this property in
09:26:51 identifying how the appraisal would be accomplished.
09:26:53 We identified, asked the appraiser to do it as if it

09:26:57 were a clean parcel.
09:27:01 The surrounding area about two acres -- and I will put
09:27:04 something that shows this -- the green cross-hatch
09:27:11 that is not outlined, here's the part in question, the
09:27:16 surrounding area of two acres.
09:27:23 The proposed purchaser has been -- has identified that
09:27:27 there is over $1.2 million in clean-up necessary.
09:27:31 And this is before the two-acre site including the
09:27:34 parcel that the city has identified to sell to the
09:27:39 adjacent property owners.
09:27:40 One thing that I think is a good comparison to draw is
09:27:44 that one reason why we have in our policy to do a
09:27:47 negotiated land sale is if it is going to enhance the
09:27:51 economic benefits of the surrounding area, and there
09:27:55 is basically two parts from that standpoint.
09:27:57 This parcel in isolation if cleaned is worth $7,000
09:28:03 but again it has to be cleaned.
09:28:06 What we have identified from an environmental
09:28:07 standpoint is that there's probably four feet of
09:28:11 landfill underneath the surface, two feet of fill on
09:28:13 top.
09:28:16 An engineer with our coordination group is here to

09:28:21 speak on any questions you have on the environmental
09:28:22 issue.
09:28:23 I think what basically is the key point here -- and
09:28:26 let me draw some other comparisons.
09:28:28 Think about a year ago, I was before you for a real
09:28:30 estate transaction in West Tampa.
09:28:36 We a number of city parcels.
09:28:39 By selling those parcels, it makes the development of
09:28:43 parcels they own, and it made our parcels all the more
09:28:47 valuable to the community.
09:28:48 We believe that by this particular sale transaction to
09:28:51 the adjacent property owner who has made the
09:28:53 commitment to make us do the clean-up of their parcel
09:28:57 as well as ours, that in this way, this will be an
09:29:00 economic benefit.
09:29:01 It will enhance the City of Tampa in this area.
09:29:04 I also believe that there are -- and I am not an
09:29:08 attorney and I am not an environmental expert --
09:29:11 however, we have also identified -- and this is some
09:29:14 of the discussion that we had in the last few days --
09:29:17 is that by not having this parcel in their possession,
09:29:21 it really jeopardizes the clean-up of the other two

09:29:25 acres, because in that case, they would really not be
09:29:28 able to tell how the potential leeching or other
09:29:33 situations with this parcel going on.
09:29:36 But again we can address that if you have further
09:29:38 questions on that matter.
09:29:40 So I'm here for any questions.
09:29:42 Mr. Faye is.
09:29:47 And there is also the gentleman representing
09:29:49 corporation that is the intended purchaser is also
09:29:52 here if you have any questions of him.
09:29:55 Thank you very much.
09:29:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez?
09:29:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Ms. Miller, for the
09:30:00 explanation.
09:30:04 I'm noting on one of the exhibits, exhibit 4, that
09:30:15 it's not on Westshore Boulevard but within.
09:30:21 I don't know how to explain it other than it doesn't
09:30:23 look like it's close to the road.
09:30:28 >>> If we can go back to the Elmo, I can outline that.
09:30:32 >> My question is, war they planning to do with this
09:30:34 parcel?
09:30:35 Do they own all of it all the way to Westshore?

09:30:38 >>> Yes, they do.
09:30:38 FS properties, I can outline here, basically the
09:30:42 property oner is through here. This is Westshore
09:30:45 Boulevard.
09:30:47 This is MacDill Air Force Base.
09:30:50 This little square right here is the parcel that we
09:30:53 are proposing to sell to them.
09:30:55 The area here is where the landfill site has been
09:30:59 which they are the owners of.
09:31:02 >> Are they planning to put in roads in there?
09:31:06 >>> It would be best if I asked the representative of
09:31:08 the corporation to come forward and address those
09:31:09 questions.
09:31:10 I believe, however, from my knowledge of the Port
09:31:12 Tampa area, these are already existing private lots.
09:31:16 But none of the improvements have been made to them.
09:31:18 So let me have him go through that.
09:31:21 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Okay.
09:31:27 >>> David Shapino, president of FS Properties.
09:31:31 The intent is to put the grid back in.
09:31:35 Again this is a platted subdivision.
09:31:41 But, yes, we do intend to redo Westshore and

09:31:45 MacDill, put it back in place.
09:31:47 >> Is there the name of a street in there to this --
09:31:51 >>> I believe it's Fitzgerald or DeSoto.
09:31:58 It just stops shortly right about one block up is
09:32:01 where it actually stops.
09:32:03 Now, another developer -- what's left there now is
09:32:09 from here to here.
09:32:12 We are going to continue Westshore down and we are
09:32:14 just going to put the grid pretty much back in place.
09:32:21 >> Are you planning to environmentally clean it?
09:32:23 >>> Yes.
09:32:24 >> You bought the lot for $7,000 and you are willing
09:32:27 to put in 1.2 million into cleaning?
09:32:30 >>> We got everything there and the value today is
09:32:35 pretty close to the same value of clean-up but when
09:32:37 you are building half will million dollar homes it's
09:32:39 in the best interest not to have a landfill sitting in
09:32:41 your backyard.
09:32:43 The landfill, because of the age of the landfill,
09:32:49 ensures you have overlay of two feet.
09:32:51 But in other areas it's only six inches.
09:32:54 So, you know, it was never disposed of or closed up

09:32:59 the way you close up a landfill development.
09:33:01 So it's really in the best interest just to go
09:33:03 ahead -- we are not even sure we are building houses
09:33:07 on that portion yet.
09:33:08 Because there is a long process in this clean up that
09:33:13 you have to go through.
09:33:14 It's going to be a two-year process between gas
09:33:17 testing, leakage and the rest.
09:33:20 >> Has anybody asked you to sell this piece of
09:33:23 property to them?
09:33:25 >>> No.
09:33:27 Ashley is a big developer who came in who I have
09:33:29 negotiated a deal with for portions of it because they
09:33:32 are a much bigger company and they can handle some of
09:33:34 the development costs, in particular the back fill.
09:33:40 Back fill a loan is in the total area about 130,000
09:33:43 yards of dirt.
09:33:44 Landfill itself is about 15,000 yards representing
09:33:47 almost $250,000 just to bring dirt back in.
09:33:51 So, anyhow, nobody wants to touch it until it's clean.
09:33:55 So they said, well, do the other portions.
09:33:58 But we are not touching the landfill till it gets

09:34:00 remediated.
09:34:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
09:34:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
09:34:06 Mr. Shapino, how many acres do you own, do you or your
09:34:13 company out there?
09:34:18 >>> 12, 13, 14, 15, something like that.
09:34:21 Again about nine of that has been acquired legally by
09:34:24 Ashton, even though I am partaking in this process.
09:34:29 >> Part of this is the Ashton?
09:34:30 >>> Part of it is Ashton, yes, that was before the
09:34:34 board a month or so ago, I guess, for the developer's
09:34:36 agreement.
09:34:37 >> And did you sell Ashton those properties?
09:34:41 >>> I sold them this piece, this piece, this piece,
09:34:43 and this piece.
09:34:45 I took this one, this one, and this one here.
09:34:50 In the sale there's a percentage back in and all that
09:34:53 platted stuff.
09:34:54 >> What was the per-lot --
09:34:57 >>> 50 grand per lot.
09:34:59 >> To Washington?
09:35:01 >>> For Ashton.

09:35:02 >> For clean lots?
09:35:04 >>> For clean lots.
09:35:04 And mine is about 70 grand to clean them per lot.
09:35:09 So I'm in the hole.
09:35:10 >> So basically the fair market value of these lots
09:35:13 right now for clean lots is about $50,000?
09:35:16 >>> Yes.
09:35:18 I bought them for about 10, sold three years later.
09:35:21 Because there's some remediation that had to take
09:35:24 place.
09:35:25 We sold them at 50 or 53, right in there.
09:35:30 And our clean-up costs are about 7.
09:35:33 >> And is this a deal killer for you if you don't get
09:35:37 this one little lot those on the corner of your
09:35:39 project?
09:35:40 >>> We can't remediate it so the answer is yes.
09:35:43 We can't remediate the other 15.
09:35:46 DC doesn't want leakage and problems coming from the
09:35:51 landfill that could have gases and chemicals leaking
09:35:54 onto the other portion that is are around it.
09:35:55 >> Do you have that in writing?
09:35:57 >>> So he has requested -- I'm sure I can go back to

09:36:00 Ron cope and ask him -- if you want the whole thing
09:36:04 remediated.
09:36:05 >> You don't have it in writing?
09:36:07 >>> No, because we anticipated all along of
09:36:09 remediating the whole piece under his --
09:36:12 >> And you indicated, you said you may not build homes
09:36:14 on it.
09:36:14 What does that mean?
09:36:15 >>> At this point, we may not do anything because it's
09:36:18 going to take so long.
09:36:19 I can't assess.
09:36:20 It is zoned single-family so it can only be done as
09:36:24 single family.
09:36:24 The issue we have is major clean-up as we go through
09:36:27 it.
09:36:27 So the answer to that -- I don't want to make a
09:36:30 commitment today to say I'm building homes today,
09:36:33 because again the clean-up is going to take anywhere
09:36:35 from two to three years to go through the whole
09:36:38 process.
09:36:38 At that point, we assess can we build single-family
09:36:41 homes?

09:36:43 This is again according to Ron cope to eventually
09:36:49 hopefully put single-family homes.
09:36:51 They have done it for warehouses, done it for
09:36:53 apartment complexes but not for single-family homes.
09:36:56 So it's somewhat of a unique situation and we are
09:37:00 willing to undertake the process.
09:37:02 >> And, Herb, I just looked at the contract and I
09:37:05 didn't see anywhere in the contract where there's any
09:37:07 requirement that there's clean-up at all.
09:37:10 The only thing I saw in there -- and I might be
09:37:13 wrong -- and I might have missed it -- but, you know,
09:37:17 the whole thing seemed to be premised upon the fact
09:37:19 that, you know, that we are assured that it's going to
09:37:23 be cleaned up.
09:37:24 And I hear this young man.
09:37:25 He says that's the intent and I'm sure it is.
09:37:28 But I don't see anywhere in the contract that that's
09:37:30 the case.
09:37:34 >>> Herb Fecker, manager of the real estate division.
09:37:38 There probably isn't a direct language to that effect.
09:37:42 >> There's not?
09:37:43 >>> However, there is a caveat that says that the city

09:37:50 disclaims making any representations or warrants
09:37:52 expressed or implied regarding the property in matters
09:37:55 that affect the property, and paraphrasing goes on to
09:37:58 say that the buyer is aware that we are making these
09:38:03 disclaimers, and that would be the extent of it in our
09:38:06 normal contract.
09:38:13 >>> Making a commitment, as we continue to do the
09:38:15 tests on this landfill, and we haven't done really any
09:38:18 on that 50 by 150, and we can summits very similar to
09:38:23 the other 15 lots surrounding, that there's something
09:38:27 that does show up, you know, under that portion, or
09:38:30 something that does come up, our intent is to clean
09:38:33 it.
09:38:35 Again, we do have to do some more testing over the
09:38:38 next 30 days.
09:38:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I haven't been out on that corner
09:38:42 of the property but looking at the aerial it appears
09:38:44 for some reason that corner seems to be wooded, and
09:38:48 that's just make that very high aerial.
09:38:51 >>> That's correct.
09:38:51 No one has used it.
09:38:53 We have used the other 15 lots.

09:38:55 It was used prior.
09:38:56 >> For what?
09:38:57 >>> Salvage yard.
09:38:58 Storing cars.
09:38:59 Salvage and junk yard is what it was.
09:39:01 But that corner wasn't used.
09:39:04 >> So we are not really sure what's underneath it?
09:39:07 >>> We can assume that it's the city landfill like the
09:39:12 other 15 lots so feel comfortable it's consistent, and
09:39:15 it does go beyond that because right next to it, we
09:39:21 know the extent.
09:39:25 >> Thank you.
09:39:30 >>> Cindy Miller: Mr. Fahey, perhaps he can address
09:39:36 that now.
09:39:41 >> I think that's appropriate because my comments and
09:39:43 questions were going to be related to the ability of
09:39:44 the buyer to remediate without remediating the entire
09:39:48 landfill, which in my experience is a very difficult
09:39:51 if not impossible prospect.
09:39:55 >>> Dan Fahey with the city office of environmental
09:39:58 coordination.
09:39:59 This particular landfill is two acres total.

09:40:06 This particular parcel is about a 10th of an acre.
09:40:11 And in Hillsborough County anytime there's any type of
09:40:18 activity on any old fill area, there is a permit
09:40:21 required by the Environmental Protection Commission.
09:40:25 And it's my understanding that what Mr. Shapino did
09:40:30 state was correct, to put in single-family homes on
09:40:33 the old landfill that all the debris would have to be
09:40:35 remediated.
09:40:37 Are there any other questions?
09:40:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
09:40:48 >> One of the questions was about remediating the site
09:40:51 without remediating the entire landfill, which is
09:40:56 what -- if it were sold to a different purchaser.
09:41:00 And I practice environmental law.
09:41:03 That's what I do.
09:41:04 And I have had a number of cases where the person
09:41:08 doing the remediation had to either acquire, get
09:41:11 access to adjacent properties so the entire landfill
09:41:15 could be, or the site can get remediated, which I
09:41:21 suspect is what Mr. Shapino would have to do here,
09:41:25 otherwise you have no ability to control the movement
09:41:27 of waste onto the other now hopefully clean property,

09:41:33 and there are a whole host of liability issues
09:41:35 associated with that when you have movement of
09:41:38 contamination source from one property owner's land to
09:41:43 another property owner's land.
09:41:44 So if you would just address that, and I don't know if
09:41:49 David or someone else would want to address liability
09:41:51 issues here or not, but if you could kind of more
09:41:56 fully flush out that issue in response to the other
09:42:01 councilman's questions.
09:42:03 >>> Certainly.
09:42:03 I think what you are talking about is chemical
09:42:05 contamination, something that would migrate off site,
09:42:08 particularly groundwater.
09:42:10 Part of the permitting process that the Environmental
09:42:14 Protection Commission requires is to determine if
09:42:18 there's migration of chemical contamination.
09:42:22 In an instance where there is not some sort of
09:42:24 transported chemical contamination, the EPC would
09:42:28 require just a removal of the debris, and soil that's
09:42:32 around the debris, and replace it with clean soil.
09:42:37 In this particular case, if this site were remediated,
09:42:44 everything except that particular lot, then there is a

09:42:48 potential that there might be some chemical
09:42:51 contamination on that parcel that could spread.
09:42:55 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
09:42:57 Councilman Fletcher, I am not an environmental lawyer,
09:42:59 but I think the implication in the question is when
09:43:01 you have dual ownership, and in a remediation context,
09:43:06 you have the potential for each pointing at the other
09:43:08 in terms of some of the potential plans, other kinds
09:43:10 of examinations that exist.
09:43:13 It's a much cleaner, excuse me, expression at least
09:43:16 liabilitywise with one owner so you don't have that
09:43:21 finger pointing going on, you can have a better more
09:43:23 effective remediation and the process can be
09:43:26 completed.
09:43:27 I think that's the primary point of your question.
09:43:30 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That was really my question, was if
09:43:34 you can't acquire maybe not ownership of the lot but
09:43:37 at least access to remediate on this lot, that means
09:43:41 that you can't remediate the other 15 lots without us
09:43:46 knowing whether or not there's actually been some sort
09:43:47 of leeching into this one?
09:43:53 >>> According to the EPC, that the owner of that lot

09:43:57 cannot guarantee there will not be leakage onto the
09:44:00 other lots.
09:44:01 There will be no guarantee.
09:44:04 Again that's why they require, you know, complete
09:44:07 remediation, regardless of chemical or not, in order
09:44:12 to avoid the liability back and forth, meaning just
09:44:16 remediate -- is it remediated?
09:44:22 Sure.
09:44:22 But you haven't increased the value because you have
09:44:24 the potential problem sitting out there.
09:44:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions from council members?
09:44:30 >> I would like to move the resolution.
09:44:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have one other question.
09:44:33 It's interesting.
09:44:35 This discussion originally came up about what is the
09:44:37 fair market value of that lot?
09:44:39 And the neighborhood says, that's a clean lot.
09:44:44 And Ms. Miller, Mr. Fecker, you indicated we have an
09:44:48 appraisal that shows the $7,000 value for a clean lot.
09:44:51 And that would be the fair market value.
09:44:53 And I have a question about that because we are all
09:44:56 very familiar with Ashton road, which was in front of

09:44:59 us a month ago.
09:45:01 And they are redeveloping the same area.
09:45:03 And the gentleman just testified that he had an arm's
09:45:09 length transaction for each of those lots of $50,000 a
09:45:12 lot for clean lot.
09:45:13 And that's really -- that was the original crux of
09:45:16 this whole thing.
09:45:17 There's no question that this is a contaminated area,
09:45:20 there's no question that it be better, et cetera,
09:45:23 et cetera, et cetera.
09:45:23 But I question the appraisal.
09:45:25 And you didn't do the appraisal, Herb, so it's not
09:45:29 your credibility at all, or yours, Cindy.
09:45:32 But I question the appraisal.
09:45:33 And I think more importantly that neighborhood in that
09:45:36 community of Port Tampa questions the appraisal
09:45:37 because the original appraisal shows -- this appraisal
09:45:41 in front of us shows $7,000 for a clean lot.
09:45:47 And I think everybody in Port Tampa knows that the
09:45:49 fair market value of clean lots in Port Tampa is
09:45:54 50,000 or more.
09:45:55 So that's where I'm coming from.

09:45:59 >>> I understand, and I'm not sure how to satisfy your
09:46:01 question, Mr. Dingfelder.
09:46:02 The point being, this is a single contaminated parcel.
09:46:08 And as a single parcel on its own, under current
09:46:13 condition, it would have no value because of the
09:46:15 contamination.
09:46:16 So in this hypothetical world, if it were clean, in
09:46:20 the opinion of an MAI appraiser, it would be worth
09:46:24 $7,000.
09:46:25 And I understand your scenario. But that is the
09:46:30 appraisal.
09:46:34 >>> I understand what you're saying.
09:46:36 But, as a matter of fact, I got two.
09:46:40 The city has another one.
09:46:42 The cost is going to be in the 70 to $75,000 range.
09:46:45 So if it is worth 50 grand, I'm in the hole 20 grand
09:46:51 alone.
09:46:51 But again it's in the best interest of the development
09:46:54 around it.
09:46:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know.
09:46:57 It's just a strange thing going on, that if we are
09:47:00 calling the appraisal $7,000 for a clean lot, then

09:47:04 something is wrong. Anyway, go ahead.
09:47:08 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I missed last week.
09:47:10 As I understand there were some questions raised by
09:47:12 the Port Tampa community.
09:47:15 About maybe putting this off for a little bit of time
09:47:19 so that they could take a look at maybe even perhaps
09:47:22 purchasing it themselves.
09:47:25 Have they decided not to -- follow up with that?
09:47:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I can clarify, Mr. Harrison.
09:47:31 What they said was -- and I attended a meeting -- they
09:47:34 basically said, why isn't the city putting this out to
09:47:37 bid as opposed to having a negotiated sale?
09:47:39 And they sent us a letter to that effect.
09:47:41 As an association, they don't want to buy it.
09:47:43 But they are just questioning, you know, why don't we
09:47:45 put it on the open market like we do many, many other
09:47:48 lots as opposed to a negotiated sale at $7,000, you
09:47:53 know, which they question whether or not that's the
09:47:57 fair market value.
09:47:59 So that's where they are coming from.
09:48:01 I think frankly -- I don't know if they still have
09:48:06 opposition but that was their position.

09:48:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes, I want to move the resolution.
09:48:12 We have already talked about this ad nauseam.
09:48:17 I think your explanations have been right to the
09:48:20 point.
09:48:20 I don't believe anybody would want to buy a piece of
09:48:24 property that belongs to the rest that belongs to
09:48:27 somebody else at in point, if there's no road, no
09:48:31 utility, and this gentleman wants to square off the
09:48:35 rest of the development and I'm ready to move with
09:48:38 this thing.
09:48:48 >> One of the underlying concerns of the Port Tampa
09:48:53 community which I respect is that they want to know if
09:48:56 city property is being made available in their
09:48:58 community that they could potentially -- even an
09:49:01 individual could purchase.
09:49:02 And if we heard that East Tampa, West Tampa all over,
09:49:07 the question with their favorite, a plan that was made
09:49:10 available.
09:49:10 So I ask you, how does a general member of the public
09:49:13 find out about land maybe the city got land for
09:49:17 foreclosure, or we don't need anymore.
09:49:19 How do people find out about what's available and how

09:49:21 to go about contacting the city on purchasing?
09:49:26 >>> And for property that's considered generally
09:49:28 marketable.
09:49:29 And I think that's a little different than what we
09:49:30 have here.
09:49:31 Because this is a rather unique situation.
09:49:34 For generally marketable property we do make it
09:49:36 available on the city's web site, and very shortly we
09:49:43 will also have parcels in East Tampa that will be
09:49:46 through our housing and community development.
09:49:49 So the city's web site, we also do advertisements in
09:49:53 papers of general circulation.
09:49:55 This is sort of a unique situation because of the
09:49:57 situation of the environmental and the surrounding
09:50:00 development that would be impacted, if it is not sold.
09:50:03 But generally marketable, we make it to our web site
09:50:06 so that is there.
09:50:07 We also have newspaper advertisements in general
09:50:11 circulation.
09:50:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other quick question, Mr.
09:50:19 Shapino.
09:50:21 We appreciate your patience on this.

09:50:26 It's sort of a novel issue.
09:50:28 For us.
09:50:29 Maybe not for you.
09:50:30 >>> It's definitely novel for me.
09:50:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
09:50:35 Last week, council's direction to staff was to suggest
09:50:39 that they go ahead and bid this out.
09:50:42 And that was passed 5 to 1.
09:50:47 If in fact the city put those up for bid, do you bid
09:50:53 on them sometimes?
09:50:54 >>> Sometimes.
09:50:55 >> If in fact the city bid on this, is it feasible
09:50:59 based on your entire investment in this that if
09:51:01 somebody else is bidding on this, you might bid more
09:51:04 than $10,000?
09:51:08 >>> No.
09:51:09 >> Why?
09:51:09 >>> Because it's a landfill.
09:51:10 And I would request if they are going to do that, that
09:51:13 they make at requirement that that parcel, whoever
09:51:15 that individual is, who buys it, condition that.
09:51:18 If I am going to remediate the other 15 --

09:51:21 >> That's not the question.
09:51:22 How much money do you have invested in the remainder
09:51:25 of those parcels?
09:51:26 You have hundreds of thousands --
09:51:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't think it's --
09:51:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm asking the question.
09:51:32 >>> Wouldn't bid more than $7,000.
09:51:35 >>GWEN MILLER: I am going to call the question.
09:51:39 All in favor say Aye.
09:51:41 Opposed, Nay.
09:51:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Nay.
09:51:44 >> I voted for it but I wanted to state it's my
09:51:46 understanding that Port Tampa folks were interested in
09:51:48 maybe taking this and utilizing it on their own, a
09:51:52 pocket park potentially, something of that nature, and
09:51:56 had that been the case, then I think there would have
09:51:58 been a lot more reason to hold off on this.
09:52:00 If that's not their intention and they are simply
09:52:03 questioning a $7,000 a fair price, I think there's
09:52:06 ample testimony that $7,000 is a fair price.
09:52:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
09:52:13 We go to item number 2.

09:52:20 >>SAL TERRITO: Legal department, here on item number
09:52:22 2.
09:52:23 Motion was made to ask about raising the homestead
09:52:25 exemption for seniors to $50,000.
09:52:29 There are two parts to that.
09:52:32 50,000 for seniors since 2002.
09:52:36 The Constitutional amendment that passed is a bit
09:52:39 confusing but what it basically did is authorize the
09:52:41 legislature, if they so chose, to raise the homestead
09:52:45 exemption an additional 50,000 beyond the 25,000 that
09:52:49 everyone else gets for senior citizens.
09:52:51 That will require the legislature to actually pass
09:52:56 legislation authorizing City Council through
09:52:59 ordinances to raise the homestead exemption for
09:53:02 seniors to 50,000 for a total of --
09:53:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a clarification because he
09:53:09 would cause panic and people rush down here.
09:53:11 It's not just seniors, right?
09:53:13 It's low-income qualifying seniors?
09:53:16 >>> Low income qualifying seniors, indexed.
09:53:19 That will change over time.
09:53:20 It's low income qualified --

09:53:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's important that we
09:53:23 clarify that.
09:53:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Sal.
09:53:27 We spoke about this last night. That probably was the
09:53:29 most poorly worded Constitutional amendment known to
09:53:31 mankind.
09:53:33 So what you're saying is, if the legislature does
09:53:38 enabling legislation, then the City of Tampa could go
09:53:40 an additional 25,000 beyond where we are at.
09:53:46 >>> Correct.
09:53:46 A total of 75.
09:53:50 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Ms. Wise, you have taken a look at
09:53:53 this, I believe.
09:53:54 >>BONNIE WISE: Director of revenue and finance.
09:53:57 We have about 2400 and 14 people who qualified for the
09:54:01 additional for low income seniors.
09:54:06 If we include that for every one of those the
09:54:10 additional 25,000 which they probably would not
09:54:12 because some of their home prices wouldn't be in that
09:54:14 range, it would cost the city about $367,000
09:54:19 additionally.
09:54:19 But you would what you would expect to happen frankly

09:54:23 is some people's homes would be valued at, let's say,
09:54:26 60,000, to be able to take advantage of the 75,000 so
09:54:32 it would be less than that.
09:54:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Even though we do have to wait for
09:54:37 the legislature to take action, I cannot imagine that
09:54:40 they will not take this action, and they will probably
09:54:43 do it as quickly as possible, maybe even if in a
09:54:46 special session.
09:54:47 So I think given the financial impact of the city is
09:54:51 less than $400,000 and we are helping out a segment of
09:54:53 our community that desperately needs help, I would
09:54:59 move that -- I don't know that we can pass an
09:55:03 ordinance yet.
09:55:05 >> Second.
09:55:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: But we either do a resolution or we
09:55:09 pass an ordinance that says immediately upon enactment
09:55:13 by the legislature that this will take effect in the
09:55:15 City of Tampa.
09:55:17 >>BONNIE WISE: I think we have to bring it before you
09:55:19 once the legislature takes that action.
09:55:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do you agree with that, Mr. Smith?
09:55:24 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, my recommendation would be that

09:55:28 you pass a resolution and send to the council that you
09:55:33 would like to see an ordinance to that effect when it
09:55:35 becomes legislatively legal and the ordinance would be
09:55:39 prepared and brought before you.
09:55:41 You have some very convoluted and arcane budget
09:55:45 requirements.
09:55:46 I want to make sure how we have to do that, whether
09:55:48 that has to occur in a budget process.
09:55:51 It will make no difference until then anyway by virtue
09:55:54 of the way the assessment works.
09:55:55 So let us look at that.
09:55:56 I think what you are really doing is indicating a
09:55:58 sense to council and that's the appropriate thing to
09:56:00 do.
09:56:01 >> My motion would be a resolution to that effect,
09:56:03 that upon passage by the legislature, then we will
09:56:07 have an ordinance prepared and ready to go that will
09:56:12 enact that for the City of Tampa.
09:56:14 >>DAVID SMITH: And that may end up being the process.
09:56:19 We understand.
09:56:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Question, Mr. Dingfelder?
09:56:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just one more point.

09:56:25 >>> The next cycle for ad valorem taxes.
09:56:27 We are into the cycle already.
09:56:29 That will not be until the 2007 calendar year.
09:56:33 Because --
09:56:35 >>SHAWN HARRISON: The legislature enacts it, it would
09:56:37 be effective January 1st of '07, right?
09:56:40 But our budget year wouldn't be impacted until October
09:56:43 1, 2007.
09:56:46 So it would go into effect in the City of Tampa's next
09:56:49 fiscal year.
09:56:50 >>> That's what you did in the last one. The
09:56:51 legislature passed the 2001, didn't become effective
09:56:54 until 2002.
09:56:57 >>FRANK REDDICK: Would there be any type of public
09:57:00 campaign to inform the citizens?
09:57:07 >>BONNIE WISE: The property appraiser's office, there
09:57:09 is an annual requirement for seniors to file for this
09:57:12 exemption that they are currently getting so they do
09:57:14 have to provide additional information, income
09:57:18 information, income information, so there is an annual
09:57:21 process that they go through now and it would be part
09:57:24 of that process that they go through.

09:57:25 >>FRANK REDDICK: Will the property appraiser's office
09:57:30 make the available to them?
09:57:32 >>> Yes.
09:57:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
09:57:34 floor.
09:57:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think, Bonnie, when you and I
09:57:37 talked about this yesterday, I think it's important
09:57:40 for people that are watching, A, it's for low income
09:57:45 seniors.
09:57:48 And $25, and you said that our millage is about 6.
09:57:54 So that would equate to about $125, $130 per lease
09:58:00 for, you know, in response to the motion that is
09:58:04 passing, and I think that's God.
09:58:06 I mean, it's not enough probably for some people but
09:58:11 it's gad.
09:58:12 And then combined with the existing one, and that's
09:58:15 $250 relief for a low income senior.
09:58:18 >>BONNIE WISE: Would be an extra $150 for the extra
09:58:23 25,000.
09:58:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, good.
09:58:26 So that's a little more than I said.
09:58:27 Maybe $300 total for that.

09:58:29 So I think that's an excellent motion.
09:58:31 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
09:58:35 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
09:58:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 3.
09:58:37 We have a memorandum.
09:58:39 Mr. Harrison, are you okay with that?
09:58:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes, ma'am.
09:58:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 4.
09:58:56 >>> Jane castor, assistant chief, Tampa Police
09:58:59 Department.
09:59:00 I have come to give you a report on the intraoperable
09:59:05 communication and I intend to give a very, very broad
09:59:09 overview of that issue that is hopefully informative
09:59:12 and the only thing is everyone's agreement that it is
09:59:21 the number one public safety issue nationwide.
09:59:24 And from there it gets very, very difficult.
09:59:31 You may recall there was in a definitive funding for
09:59:37 that and there's a number of reasons for that, not the
09:59:39 least of which is we haven't determined exactly how
09:59:41 much it's going to cost.
09:59:44 So to give that you broad overview, first we want to
09:59:47 tell you what the federal government is doing for

09:59:53 interoperability.
09:59:54 They have tied all that grant funding to what is
09:59:57 called project 25.
09:59:58 It's P-25 compliance.
10:00:02 And that allows divergent radio systems to communicate
10:00:05 to each other.
10:00:06 In this area there were two major communications,
10:00:09 radio providers, and that's MACOM and Motorola.
10:00:14 And they are used by different agencies within the
10:00:17 Tampa Bay area.
10:00:17 Now, what the State of Florida has done, they have
10:00:21 installed what they call a patch statewide.
10:00:24 So in essence, we are interoperable with Hillsborough
10:00:28 County in that our communications group can talk to
10:00:32 their communications.
10:00:33 In other words, dispatch can talk to dispatch.
10:00:36 But officers on the street can't talk to people on the
10:00:38 street at this time.
10:00:39 So that's the state solution for interoperability.
10:00:44 As most of you were aware, the security initial we
10:00:48 were named initiative site in '03.
10:00:50 That's a homeland security program.

10:00:52 And we have obviously identified interoperability as
10:00:56 our number one in the area.
10:00:58 It includes Hillsborough County, Pinellas, St. Pete,
10:01:02 Clearwater, and Tampa.
10:01:03 What we did is we teamed up with a division of DHS --
10:01:12 ICTAP -- and all these acronyms, you will probably
10:01:15 fall over in a minute -- Interoperable Communications
10:01:18 and Technology Assistance Program.
10:01:20 They are the communications experts.
10:01:23 They came down and they spent about a year assessing
10:01:26 all of our voice and data communications systems for
10:01:29 all of those five jurisdictions that I just mentioned
10:01:31 and they gave us a plan for that.
10:01:34 So we have a five-year plan that at the end of that
10:01:39 plan, all of our divergent jurisdictions will be able
10:01:44 to communicate.
10:01:53 Now the City of Tampa, we are will go to get a new
10:01:55 system.
10:01:56 If we were to build our own system from the ground up,
10:01:59 the price tag could be anywhere from 30 million up to
10:02:02 80 million.
10:02:06 And that's why it's such an expensive proposal.

10:02:09 But Hillsborough County has a system, MACON, we can
10:02:12 actually merge with their system, and a lot of our
10:02:15 undercover officers have been utilizing their radios
10:02:19 for over a year now and the coverage is perfect within
10:02:21 the City of Tampa.
10:02:22 But what we have done, in order to be good stewards of
10:02:26 the grant dollars, the federal funding, we have
10:02:34 developed an RFP and we have put that out.
10:02:36 So there may be other companies besides MACON or
10:02:40 Motorola but they are probably the two front runners
10:02:44 that are going to bid on this system.
10:02:45 Pinellas County has Motorola.
10:02:47 And they are connected with St. Petersburg police
10:02:50 department.
10:02:51 And in Clearwater, police department has MACON.
10:02:54 Our long range goal was to get Pinellas County to be
10:02:57 able to communicate.
10:02:58 And Hillsborough County all able to communicate.
10:03:00 And then build that P-25 compliance between the two.
10:03:04 But we've to see how that bid comes back.
10:03:06 And Motorola obviously may be the one that wins that
10:03:10 bid.

10:03:10 So then we would connect with Pinellas, and then in
10:03:15 the long range Hillsborough and Pinellas County.
10:03:17 So that is what our long range interoperable plan.
10:03:22 We do have most of our '06 grant money is earmarked
10:03:26 for interoperability and we have approximately 6
10:03:28 million right now that is going towards the City of
10:03:30 Tampa.
10:03:31 And a little less than 2 million over in Pinellas.
10:03:34 And we intend, if in the '07 funding, which that
10:03:40 decision will come out in the next week or so, then we
10:03:43 intend to put that money towards it as well but the
10:03:45 city obviously will be obligated for some funding for
10:03:47 that communications system.
10:03:52 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I wanted to make sure that I had my
10:03:54 facts straight.
10:03:56 I have that letter from David gee back in October of
10:03:59 2004 who estimated that it would take somewhere in the
10:04:04 neighborhood of between 8 and $10 million probably for
10:04:06 us to join their system.
10:04:10 >>> Yes.
10:04:10 And what that would include would be purchasing radios
10:04:13 for all the officers and the new consoles for our

10:04:16 dispatch.
10:04:18 >> Has the price of radios gone up just like the price
10:04:21 of everything else has gone up?
10:04:22 Or do you think that's still --
10:04:24 >>> No, I think that's probably an accurate $8 to $10
10:04:28 million is probably accurate.
10:04:29 You can see if you have a new system from the ground
10:04:32 up 8 to 10 million and -- 80 million and if you can
10:04:37 merge for 8 to 10, that's probably a good bargain.
10:04:40 >> And if we get 6 now and might get a little more in
10:04:43 the coming fiscal year -- I understand the RFP
10:04:46 process, and we have to make sure that we are getting
10:04:49 the biggest bang for our buck.
10:04:51 But it seems like it's going to kind of be a
10:04:54 no-brainer going that way as opposed to building from
10:04:56 the ground up.
10:04:58 >>> Right.
10:04:59 >> When did the RFP go out?
10:05:01 >>> The RFP hasn't been distributed, to my knowledge,
10:05:04 yet.
10:05:05 It's been developed and it's been reviewed.
10:05:06 We actually have the individual that is the RFP.

10:05:12 And I believe they are meeting with the vendors
10:05:15 purchasing it to discuss it.
10:05:16 And associated with the bid process.
10:05:20 So if it hasn't gone out, as of yet, I would say
10:05:24 obviously before Chris mall holiday it will go out.
10:05:28 >> What's the time frame?
10:05:29 >>> I'm not sure what the time frame is for the
10:05:32 turn-around.
10:05:33 But I know that MACON and Motorola have their basic
10:05:38 bid together.
10:05:39 They have already been to the communications center
10:05:42 and they have those packages together.
10:05:43 So it wants be any long, drawn-out process.
10:05:47 >> Well, it seems to me like if we have to do the RFP
10:05:50 process, we should do the RFP process from a legal
10:05:55 perspective.
10:05:55 But if there's any way that we can jump start this and
10:05:58 move it up, I mean, five years, none of us really
10:06:01 think that we are going to have to wait five years for
10:06:04 this.
10:06:05 If we get 6 out of $10 million ready to go, and we are
10:06:08 going to get more in the next fiscal year, it seems we

10:06:11 could have this thing up and running in fairly short
10:06:14 order.
10:06:15 >>> Now you're talking like me.
10:06:17 That's way say.
10:06:17 I say about a year.
10:06:22 I'm the eternal optimist.
10:06:24 We do hope it will move a lot faster. That five year
10:06:27 plan involves the ultimate ability for all five
10:06:30 jurisdictions to communicate.
10:06:31 So obviously we could look at, you know, sometime in a
10:06:35 year time frame, if we were to merge with Hillsborough
10:06:38 County.
10:06:38 And there is other interoperable communications
10:06:42 funding that is going to be ready from FEMA and that's
10:06:46 going to be ready as well.
10:06:47 So we hope that we can avail ourselves to that funding
10:06:50 as well.
10:06:52 >> Okay.
10:06:52 Well, again, if we have to go out to bid legally,
10:06:55 let's do it.
10:06:56 If we don't have to go out to bid legally and we are
10:06:58 ready to go with joining up with the Hillsborough

10:07:02 County sheriff's office, I think we ought to go ahead
10:07:04 and do that and just get a quote from them and let's
10:07:07 fund this.
10:07:08 >>> And we did have the discussions versus RFP and we
10:07:13 have had discussions with purchasing, and being a good
10:07:16 steward of the federal fund we thought the RFP was the
10:07:19 best way to go.
10:07:20 But if you are building a system from the ground up,
10:07:23 as you say, it appears to be a no-brainer that we have
10:07:26 to wait until those bids come back in from MACON and
10:07:31 Motorola.
10:07:33 >> if that's the opinion from our legal department and
10:07:35 that's a requirement --
10:07:37 >>> And we are done with that.
10:07:38 That process will move very quickly now.
10:07:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could we get a report back?
10:07:44 I would like to request that we get a report back from
10:07:46 you in two months.
10:07:50 I would say February 1st under staff reports, to
10:07:55 update us on where we are.
10:07:57 Maybe at that point you will have good news, that we
10:07:59 have been through the RFP, we have made a selection

10:08:01 and are forging ahead.
10:08:03 >>> Or maybe unemployed.
10:08:06 Yes, we will do that.
10:08:07 And I also want to tell you that one of the things
10:08:09 with interoperability, even if we do get a system, one
10:08:15 of our concerns is the threat of a hurricane and that
10:08:17 will knock out most radio systems that we have.
10:08:20 So what we have done with our urban area planning is
10:08:22 that we have purchased portable communication systems,
10:08:25 two for the Pinellas County side, two for the
10:08:31 Hillsborough side, and first responders will have the
10:08:33 ability to communicate under those circumstances.
10:08:37 Thank you very much.
10:08:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'll second Mrs. Saul-Sena's motion.
10:08:43 >>CHAIRMAN: We have a motion and second.
10:08:45 (Motion carried)
10:08:47 Item number 5.
10:08:49 Want to hear from Tampa Fire Rescue.
10:09:00 >>THOM SNELLING: Growth management services.
10:09:03 Actually, I'm here -- I had turned in a letter earlier
10:09:07 in the week.
10:09:08 And for some reason -- I am basically requesting a

10:09:12 continuance until January 11th, the reason I need
10:09:17 to set a number of meetings with not only the Tampa
10:09:19 Fire Rescue, but also with the Tampa Police
10:09:21 Department.
10:09:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to continue this.
10:09:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:09:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To the 11th?
10:09:32 >>THOM SNELLING: January 11th.
10:09:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Under unfinished business?
10:09:37 >> Yes.
10:09:38 (Motion carried).
10:09:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 6, we have a request to continue
10:09:42 this to January 25th.
10:09:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
10:09:47 >> Second.
10:09:47 (Motion carried).
10:09:49 >>CHAIRMAN: Item number 7.
10:09:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
10:09:57 The river overlay, I believe, is what we are talking
10:10:00 about.
10:10:01 At this point, I don't have any further activity as
10:10:04 far as writing any language.

10:10:06 We have finally reached full staff.
10:10:08 We have four planners.
10:10:09 The last one came in about a month ago.
10:10:11 We have assigned this task to committee meetings at
10:10:15 the station over the next six months and hopefully by
10:10:19 July we should have some basic language to bring to
10:10:21 you.
10:10:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I have a meeting
10:10:24 recently with our river round table group.
10:10:28 Everybody is very eager for you guys to get going on
10:10:31 this.
10:10:31 What I would like to suggest is that you invite your
10:10:36 staff and representatives maybe of the home builders
10:10:40 association and the river round table to go out on the
10:10:45 police boats and go up the river to see the specific
10:10:47 issues involved, and to do that early on so that they
10:10:52 have a real sense of what's going on, and actually
10:10:55 that everybody, council, whatever.
10:10:59 Because right now, the Hillsborough River is
10:11:02 relatively pristine, and I'm very concerned that this
10:11:05 is going to change rapidly.
10:11:08 And I want to get ordinances in place sooner rather

10:11:12 than later which is why I brought this up last summer.
10:11:16 And I'm disappointed that it's taken this long, but I
10:11:19 realize you have had staffing issues.
10:11:21 So I am really eager to get going on this.
10:11:23 And I would be happy to help figure out who else could
10:11:26 be invited to be there.
10:11:27 But I think actually physically being on the river,
10:11:31 seeing good examples, bad examples, and the issues
10:11:34 would really jump start things.
10:11:36 So I would like to look at doing that in January.
10:11:43 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Is that something you would
10:11:45 coordinate getting the police boat?
10:11:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, you all can do it.
10:11:49 I just think it would be extremely valuable to do
10:11:52 that, to get people actually on the river.
10:11:54 Because the view from the streets that are parallel to
10:11:56 the river, it's completely different from the view on
10:11:59 the river.
10:12:00 And I think everybody literally needs to understand
10:12:04 the issues and be able to address them.
10:12:07 So I'm thrilled that you're getting going.
10:12:10 I wish it were March instead of July.

10:12:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We could report back with some
10:12:17 language in July, after the July 4th holiday.
10:12:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no.
10:12:25 It needs to be much sooner than that.
10:12:26 This has been pending for six months.
10:12:28 And you haven't even gotten started.
10:12:35 >>> When Gloria submitted the memo to you back in July
10:12:37 of this year, we listed all the other things that were
10:12:40 changing.
10:12:44 >> The good thing is we checked a lot of things off.
10:12:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You have the Kennedy Boulevard
10:12:49 overlay. The Westshore overlay.
10:12:51 And you have gotten several more staff members.
10:12:53 So why don't we get a report back in April and see how
10:12:56 we are doing?
10:12:57 >> Sounds good.
10:12:58 >>> How about the second week in April, which would be
10:13:04 April 12th?
10:13:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second the motion.
10:13:10 If I corks I have a question on the motion.
10:13:12 I think looking at item 7, perhaps part of the problem
10:13:18 is it's very broad in terms of the issues that you

10:13:22 want to address.
10:13:24 You know, environmental -- the environmental issues,
10:13:28 you know, that sort of thing.
10:13:30 What I am wondering about, if you want to make a quick
10:13:32 impact, and you want to perhaps address the setback
10:13:36 issue, maybe that's something to be addressed a little
10:13:39 quicker.
10:13:39 And with a little more simplicity.
10:13:42 And I also think obviously it's important that we get
10:13:44 the river community, vis-a-vis the property own areas
10:13:48 long the river, they have got to be involved.
10:13:51 But, anyway, just maybe -- maybe if we tightened up on
10:13:56 it a little bit.
10:13:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And specifically rather than --
10:13:59 well, specifically, the environmental issues, such as
10:14:03 chemicals running into the river, that's something
10:14:06 that doesn't actually need to come through Ms. Coyle.
10:14:10 That is a stormwater and environmental issue.
10:14:12 And I think in that case, I think David McClary is
10:14:18 being head of -- there's pollution people under his
10:14:24 department.
10:14:24 I think perhaps to make it easier on you, I can make a

10:14:28 motion that his group takes a look at the issue of
10:14:34 chemicals from people's lawns going into the river and
10:14:37 getting a report back on that more quickly.
10:14:40 >> But in terms of Kathy's task, we would -- can we
10:14:45 hone in on it in terms of saying exactly what you
10:14:48 think?
10:14:50 >> The setbacks for docks, there are some docks as
10:14:56 large as homes that completely change the river.
10:14:59 Coyle.
10:15:00 >> If we have jurisdiction.
10:15:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We don't permit the docks.
10:15:03 That's the port authority.
10:15:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So they don't have to pull city
10:15:07 permits at all.
10:15:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe what we need to do, I will
10:15:13 volunteer to have a meeting on the river overlay by
10:15:17 staff and by port people, and sort an advisory by
10:15:23 environmental people to figure out who is on first.
10:15:26 I think some of these issues can be dealt with in
10:15:28 different ways.
10:15:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Our river board and Alan Wright
10:15:35 over there at the Planning Commission, the river

10:15:41 board.
10:15:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are eager to have these
10:15:43 things.
10:15:43 >> I'm sure they are.
10:15:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And Temple Terrace.
10:15:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Alvarez?
10:15:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Since you are doing that, Ms.
10:15:55 Saul-Sena, can you find out from the chemical
10:15:57 companies whether the chemicals they are using for
10:16:00 their lawns are environmentally safe?
10:16:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If they were safe, they wouldn't
10:16:07 have the markers.
10:16:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Maybe he would ought to talk to these
10:16:11 chemical companies to see if we can put something
10:16:16 environmentally safe for not only lawns but for dogs.
10:16:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a better idea.
10:16:24 I think we off to have councilman Fletcher as an
10:16:27 environmental lawyer -- I would be so honored.
10:16:33 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I would be happy to take this
10:16:35 over.
10:16:35 The comment, what I'm hearing from Mr. Dingfelder, is
10:16:43 pursuing a watershed protection ordinance related to

10:16:46 stormwater run-off and surface water contamination for
10:16:53 lawn use and other activities.
10:16:55 There's a lot of examples out there that we can look
10:16:57 to and maybe get that part of it going pretty quickly,
10:17:01 I think.
10:17:01 And if I understood the comments and discussion
10:17:04 correctly, David McClary is going to be the person to
10:17:08 contact with the city.
10:17:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have staff to do --
10:17:18 If you could do environmental, too, that would be
10:17:19 great.
10:17:21 >> I could take the watershed protection, quality
10:17:26 issue and work with that.
10:17:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll continue to work on the land
10:17:32 use zoning issues.
10:17:37 Oh.
10:17:37 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We will be readdressing in 2007 the
10:17:40 Seminole Heights area and 40th Street area, not just
10:17:43 the corridors.
10:17:43 We are looking at that boundary from 30th street
10:17:45 to the city limits.
10:17:46 And those are two large segments of the river.

10:17:49 That will be done through 2007 as well, just in two
10:17:52 different plans.
10:17:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there was a motion on the
10:17:58 floor.
10:17:59 Do you want to amend that or withdraw it?
10:18:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What is the motion?
10:18:04 I think my motion was to hear a report back in April.
10:18:08 And I think that's a good motion.
10:18:10 Because it will keep us going.
10:18:11 See how we are doing.
10:18:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On all the issues?
10:18:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Specifically on the
10:18:20 McMansionization along the river.
10:18:24 >> I will work with Mrs. Saul-Sena on that.
10:18:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Getting a report from her on where
10:18:34 we are going and looking at the impact of development
10:18:37 on the river.
10:18:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mass, scale and setbacks.
10:18:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Would you like to have some kind of
10:18:47 workshop maybe in February where you can invite the
10:18:49 builders association and people that live along the
10:18:51 river?

10:18:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's talk about that.
10:18:53 >>GWEN MILLER: The report you bring back in April.
10:18:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Do you want the second week of April?
10:18:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
10:18:59 I think I specified it.
10:19:00 I think I specified the 11th.
10:19:06 >>THE CLERK: April the 12th.
10:19:07 >>KIMLYN WALL: 12th.
10:19:09 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor?
10:19:11 Opposed?
10:19:12 (Motion Carried)
10:19:14 All right.
10:19:15 Item number 9.
10:19:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You did receive a memo from Cindy
10:19:31 Miller, director of growth management services, and I
10:19:33 did pass out a copy for you as well.
10:19:36 The property at 3900 North Florida Avenue is zoned CI
10:19:40 commercial intensive.
10:19:41 This zoning district does allow a crematorium.
10:19:46 This particular property which you see the pictures
10:19:49 for is an auto body and there are some various views
10:19:53 along the alley and along the front.

10:19:56 There is a sign posted on the property as well that
10:19:58 you will note for an APC permit.
10:20:05 Crematoriums do have to go through air permitting.
10:20:10 We did receive correspondence from Diana Lee.
10:20:14 She is the chief of air permitting with the EPC.
10:20:18 And there is some heightened public concern.
10:20:23 What you have in your packet is the letter from
10:20:27 Richard Garrity, the Executive Director, that notes
10:20:30 that under chapter 1-2.051-B, rules of the EPC,
10:20:35 project of public concern, heightened public concern
10:20:39 can be elevated to require a public hearing.
10:20:41 That is through the EPC permitting process, however.
10:20:45 The bottom line, the zoning issue is that this is a
10:20:48 permitted use.
10:20:50 There may be a buffering issue on the rear they would
10:20:58 have to fix the masonry wall which we haven't received
10:21:00 any permitting site plans for yet.
10:21:02 I'm here for any questions if you have any.
10:21:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Isn't there a Florida mortuary
10:21:08 crematorium on Florida Avenue already?
10:21:11 >>> I'm not sure, to be honest with you.
10:21:13 >> I believe so.

10:21:14 There's a gentleman back there that's nodding his
10:21:16 head.
10:21:16 >>> This crematorium according to their permit
10:21:19 application would be for how many and animal remains.
10:21:22 >>GWEN MILLER: For what?
10:21:25 >>> Human and animals.
10:21:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Why would you want two on Florida
10:21:35 Avenue?
10:21:35 >>> I can't say we would want them but zoning does
10:21:39 allow its use.
10:21:40 >> When does it come up to council for a vote?
10:21:42 >>> It doesn't.
10:21:43 It's an allowable use within the zoning district.
10:21:45 >>GWEN MILLER: All you have to do is get a permit and
10:21:48 they can go ahead and --
10:21:50 >>> Yes, they are getting a permit now and that's the
10:21:52 process.
10:21:55 >> And City Council would not have to approve it?
10:21:57 >>> Not unless they were to rezone the property which
10:21:59 they don't actually need to do.
10:22:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: But if the people in that area don't
10:22:05 want it, I mean, what do we do?

10:22:14 I don't want to make Florida Avenue a crematorium --
10:22:20 you know.
10:22:21 >>> I understand the concern but zoning district does
10:22:23 allow that particular use.
10:22:25 There's a very long list of uses allowed and one of
10:22:29 them is a crematorium.
10:22:30 They just have to get the environmental permits and
10:22:33 that's the process they are going through now.
10:22:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair?
10:22:40 The EPC is in the review process.
10:22:43 >>> There will be a public hearing, apparently.
10:22:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think what we can do, and Mr.
10:22:50 Fletcher can help me out on this, too, with his
10:22:52 background.
10:22:53 But what we can do as a board, we can express our
10:22:55 concerns to the EPC by letter from Madam Chair.
10:23:01 That's very common that agencies such as ours would
10:23:06 comment to other agencies when there's a regulatory
10:23:08 process going on.
10:23:09 And I think in light of the fact that, Cathy, there's
10:23:14 immediately abutting residential behind this?
10:23:18 >>> On the opposite side of the alley, yes.

10:23:20 >> In light of that and in light of the concern that's
10:23:23 been expressed by our constituents and perhaps I'm not
10:23:27 sure if it's in Mary's district, but, anyway,
10:23:32 regardless, they are city constituents.
10:23:35 I am going to move that Mr. Shelby work with Madam
10:23:38 Chair and perhaps Mr. Fletcher, separately, to draft a
10:23:46 letter of concern, appropriate concern to EPC.
10:23:51 >>> You do have the contact information for the EPC
10:23:53 permitting authority in those letters as well, if you
10:23:56 could send a letter.
10:23:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
10:24:00 (Motion carried).
10:24:04 Ms. Coyle, I have a question for you, too.
10:24:09 Between 30th and 34th I noticed they put a
10:24:13 monument, head stone for the cemetery.
10:24:16 And are you saying they had a permit to do that
10:24:20 without coming before council?
10:24:22 >>> They put in head stones?
10:24:25 >> Yes.
10:24:25 >>> Along the sidewalk?
10:24:26 >> No, it's a business.
10:24:28 They put a portable there.

10:24:36 >>> They make the head stones?
10:24:37 >> I don't know if they make them there or just sell
10:24:39 them from there.
10:24:40 I don't know.
10:24:40 >>> We can look at that.
10:24:42 >> Will you check that?
10:24:42 And this is in a neighborhood.
10:24:46 It's between two single-family homes.
10:24:52 Portable itself put between two single-family homes.
10:24:54 And I went back again and looked and they had these
10:24:58 monuments sitting out from.
10:25:00 >>> I can have our code enforcement liaison go out and
10:25:05 look at them.
10:25:08 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
10:25:12 Item number 10.
10:25:14 Mr. Shelby.
10:25:16 And Shirley Foxx-Knowles.
10:25:24 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.
10:25:27 I'm here to provide an update on the board and
10:25:30 committee appointment process.
10:25:32 I sent you a memo regarding the same.
10:25:36 And I just wanted to let you know what some of the

10:25:41 proposed improvements are, that we have already
10:25:44 implemented.
10:25:45 We have changed our board and commission application
10:25:51 questionnaire.
10:25:52 We have added the question about what district the
10:25:57 individual would be in.
10:26:00 I would think that would be of interest to you.
10:26:04 Also, we will keep the application for a period of two
10:26:08 years.
10:26:10 We have incorporated an office use only where we will
10:26:14 note when the application actually came in, who
10:26:18 received it, and the disposition of the item.
10:26:23 We have updated the board and commission's web site
10:26:30 for about 95% and it will be full reply updated by the
10:26:34 end of the year.
10:26:37 We have established a tickler system to let us know
10:26:41 about upcoming vacancies.
10:26:45 We will be providing a quarterly update to City
10:26:49 Council regarding any vacancies.
10:26:52 And we will be advertising, if you would like, for
10:26:59 some of the positions.
10:27:01 We will advertise via the City of Tampa web site.

10:27:05 We will also include it on the bulletin board located
10:27:10 downstairs in the old City Hall.
10:27:14 Under the announcements on the draft, the actual
10:27:16 agenda, we will also have -- we can advertise to
10:27:26 professional organizations and through the
10:27:27 neighborhood and community relations department, and
10:27:32 CTTV.
10:27:33 We will also have better communications between our
10:27:37 office and with the board coordinators.
10:27:43 We will ask the board coordinators to provide us any
10:27:49 resignations, term limits, and anything else that
10:27:53 would be of interest.
10:27:58 Any questions?
10:27:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to thank you.
10:28:00 This is excellent.
10:28:01 This is so much what we have needed to do.
10:28:04 And I am pleased.
10:28:06 This will be clear.
10:28:08 We'll get a tickler in advance.
10:28:10 We won't have these vacancies.
10:28:11 I can truly see huge improvement with this system.
10:28:16 I went through all the information and the

10:28:18 applications.
10:28:18 And the only question I had was, doesn't a person need
10:28:22 to be a city resident in order to serve on these
10:28:25 boards?
10:28:25 And I asked Rolando Santiago from our legal department
10:28:30 to research that.
10:28:31 And is he in the audience right now?
10:28:33 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
10:28:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe somebody can grab him.
10:28:36 Anyway, what he told me was, yes, someone does have to
10:28:39 be a city resident.
10:28:42 And the only thing that would make our decision making
10:28:47 a little easier is where a person needs to represent a
10:28:52 different quadrant of the city.
10:28:53 I didn't see an indication on the materials that you
10:28:59 gave us about what quadrant the people are from.
10:29:01 But Madam Chairman, I have had a chance to review
10:29:04 this.
10:29:04 I think it's really excellent.
10:29:06 And I would love to go ahead and fill some of the
10:29:09 vacancies that are sitting out there.
10:29:11 Because the longer these vacancies fester the more

10:29:13 difficult it is for the different boards to have a
10:29:16 quorum and do their business.
10:29:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Santiago, we had a question for
10:29:24 you.
10:29:25 >> Would you share with everybody the information
10:29:27 about residency requirements?
10:29:30 >>> Surely.
10:29:30 Chapter 17.5-71 of city code applies to the Variance
10:29:34 Review Board.
10:29:37 And that particular section, appointees must be in the
10:29:40 city.
10:29:40 The other one you asked me about was the architectural
10:29:42 review commission and the provisions are in chapter
10:29:45 27-212.
10:29:48 That one talks about the condition that the appointees
10:29:52 must represent certain quadrants.
10:29:54 And identify the type of composition, the background
10:29:57 of those particular individuals.
10:29:58 And with regard to how that quadrant representation
10:30:02 arises.
10:30:04 >> Do the quadrants represent the different districts,
10:30:07 the single-member districts in City Council?

10:30:09 >>> That question I can't answer with definite
10:30:12 accuracy.
10:30:13 It's referred to as quadrants.
10:30:15 I just don't know if they represent the districts that
10:30:17 they are aligned with the City Council district.
10:30:19 I don't know the answer to that.
10:30:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:30:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Reddick?
10:30:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you. This is -- I just want
10:30:31 sod clarification if possible.
10:30:36 When you state professional organizations, can you
10:30:37 give me an example of the type of professional
10:30:40 organization you are speaking of?
10:30:41 And two, on the neighborhood and community relations,
10:30:46 exactly what you mean by that.
10:30:50 >>> Professional organization would be say if you are
10:30:53 looking for horticulturist.
10:30:57 We would say seek out a professional organization that
10:31:00 would have, you know, they will all be members of.
10:31:05 Some of the hard-to-find positions.
10:31:09 >> That's the same with neighborhood community
10:31:13 relations as well?

10:31:15 >>> That's internal department, Shannon Edge's area.
10:31:22 We have a neighborhood association.
10:31:25 >> Will any advertisement be done in local newspapers,
10:31:27 for example?
10:31:28 >>> We could.
10:31:32 >> I was thinking if we have a position available, we
10:31:35 have several local newspapers that we can put an
10:31:38 advertisement in there about those positions.
10:31:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fletcher.
10:31:52 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Not so much the daily newspapers
10:31:54 that are out there but the weeklys that serve
10:31:57 communities, additional participation in city
10:32:02 government.
10:32:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We received -- this is just such an
10:32:09 excellent report.
10:32:10 I really have to compliment you.
10:32:13 We received the summation of the authority and the
10:32:15 positions and the applications received.
10:32:20 For example, the pages aren't numbered.
10:32:23 My assistant had one for me.
10:32:28 But for the architectural review commission, we
10:32:30 received four applications.

10:32:34 Two of them don't live in the city, which would make
10:32:37 our decision making much easier, not only are the
10:32:40 people outstanding, but they live in the city.
10:32:46 If my colleagues are comfortable with it, I would like
10:32:49 to start making some recommendations that we accept
10:32:54 these applications when we make these appointments.
10:32:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can.
10:32:59 I believe Ms. Foxx-Knowles hasn't addressed this but
10:33:02 my discussion with Ms. Marshall is they intend to.
10:33:06 Mr. Harrison had raised the point when a term has
10:33:09 expired and they are eligible for another term then
10:33:11 it's not an automatic reappointment by the City
10:33:13 Council, and there's also discussion, Mr. Harrison, if
10:33:18 you had raised the issue of whether or not council
10:33:20 wanted to have interviews for these positions prior,
10:33:25 or introductions prior to the appointments.
10:33:27 And that was not yet resolved.
10:33:29 I don't know if you want to address that now.
10:33:31 My only recommendation or request would be that if you
10:33:34 wish to make an appointment for the future agenda,
10:33:40 that it would be on the agenda if you wish to take any
10:33:42 action.

10:33:42 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to ask a question.
10:33:44 If we have only two vacancies and two applicants do we
10:33:47 still need to do interview?
10:33:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That is council's prerogative.
10:33:51 I guess Ms. Foxx-Knowles could address that but if you
10:33:55 wished to increase the pool and bring it back at a
10:33:58 time certain with additional advertisement you can.
10:34:01 I don't think you are necessarily bound by the lack of
10:34:05 appointment, or the lack of applications.
10:34:10 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: We don't have anyone for the
10:34:12 southeast quadrant.
10:34:13 We don't.
10:34:15 The individuals you see under ALC, they would only
10:34:20 qualify for alternate positions.
10:34:25 >>GWEN MILLER: In that case you wouldn't need to have
10:34:28 an interview then.
10:34:29 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: We need to advertise or --
10:34:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Put out advertisement then.
10:34:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do is go
10:34:41 through -- I happen to be familiar with all of the
10:34:43 people who live in Tampa who have applied, and they
10:34:45 are all just great people.

10:34:47 I would like to move ahead with the things like the
10:34:49 alternate, where we have two applications, but then
10:34:54 one of them applied to do something else.
10:34:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know what you are looking
10:35:00 at.
10:35:00 Do we have the same document?
10:35:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
10:35:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where is it?
10:35:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I respect your idea, Mr. Shelby,
10:35:09 that we should put this on for next week but I think
10:35:13 we should be clear about what we are doing.
10:35:14 So if everybody doesn't have the sheet then maybe we
10:35:16 can wait a second till we get copies for everybody.
10:35:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Item number 11, planning to move a
10:35:32 resolution for Kara Davis that wants to be a member of
10:35:38 the A.R.C. southwest quadrant.
10:35:41 And what I have here, Judy brown is also a council
10:35:44 appointment for the south west quadrant and her term
10:35:48 expires 8-23-09.
10:35:52 >>REBECCA KERT: Last week we walked on a substitute
10:35:54 resolution that would be appointing her to the
10:35:57 northeast quadrant.

10:35:58 When you appointed her originally did you not specify
10:36:01 a position for her to fill.
10:36:02 And the only position was the northeast.
10:36:07 That's why we brought that resolution.
10:36:09 You appointed her several months ago.
10:36:10 There was a great deal of confusion because you didn't
10:36:12 appoint her to a specific --
10:36:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on that kind of confusion,
10:36:17 maybe what we ought to do -- by the way, do you know
10:36:20 what a quadrant means?
10:36:22 >>> It does not match the quadrant as they are cut out
10:36:26 for the single-member district.
10:36:27 We do have staff who could probably tell knew more
10:36:30 detail or we could bring that back next week.
10:36:34 >> It is not clear on this form that we received that
10:36:36 says applications received.
10:36:41 There's no indication what quadrant these people live
10:36:43 in.
10:36:44 Also, I don't know if legal or the clerk would scrub
10:36:46 the application and delete the people who are not city
10:36:48 residents because these a requirement.
10:36:51 >>> Our office hadn't received them before you voted

10:36:54 for them.
10:36:55 I would be happy to be part of that process.
10:36:57 I think it would be helpful if on the application,
10:37:02 what they were applying for.
10:37:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And that they are city residents,
10:37:08 the basic premise, and which quadrant.
10:37:10 Is that something that we would be designating for?
10:37:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Is it on the application, a quadrant?
10:37:19 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: We don't have a quadrant.
10:37:20 We do have under 5-D on the new application, if you
10:37:23 are a resident of the city, and also to indicate your
10:37:27 city voting district.
10:37:28 So that's new.
10:37:30 >>GWEN MILLER: So that would tell us what quadrant
10:37:32 they live in.
10:37:34 >>> We will have to do more research on the quadrant.
10:37:36 >>CHAIRMAN: Should we hold this?
10:37:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I be specific about what we are
10:37:46 doing?
10:37:47 My request would be that on next week's agenda, we
10:37:49 look under the architectural review commission, we
10:37:52 have two people who are available, who are eligible

10:37:57 for the City Council alternate position, to come
10:38:01 before us.
10:38:02 >>GWEN MILLER: But we don't know which quadrant.
10:38:06 >> No, no, the City Council alternate doesn't matter.
10:38:10 Those people are Keith Roberts, and Wilson Ialla.
10:38:16 Those two people are eligible.
10:38:17 The other two people, Danoia and Richard Anderson --
10:38:27 >> Richard is already serving.
10:38:29 >> Officially he's not.
10:38:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He's been serving.
10:38:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: He's been serving.
10:38:33 But --
10:38:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He might have turned down something
10:38:36 but he's been serving.
10:38:38 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
10:38:40 He's currently on the board.
10:38:41 His term has expired and it needs to be refilled.
10:38:45 He is eligible to serve again.
10:38:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Perhaps we need this better
10:38:51 clarified.
10:38:52 Perhaps we can put this back on our agenda.
10:38:54 And what we need is very specific information.

10:38:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We need a workshop.
10:39:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, we just need information from
10:39:05 staff, what is even clear about what they are eligible
10:39:09 for, what quadrant they are in, that they live in the
10:39:12 city, and then we can move ahead.
10:39:14 So my motion is this appear under next week -- two
10:39:17 weeks?
10:39:20 Do you know if these boards have enough people to
10:39:24 operate?
10:39:26 >>> They do.
10:39:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then the second week in January.
10:39:29 January 11th.
10:39:30 Thank you.
10:39:32 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: I want to also mention that
10:39:34 Del Acosta was coming over to explain the quadrant
10:39:37 part of it.
10:39:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe you can just attach a map
10:39:41 when this comes back in January.
10:39:45 >>> Thank you.
10:39:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a motion.
10:39:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the motion to continue this
10:39:50 whole discussion?

10:39:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, with clear materials.
10:39:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:39:55 >>GWEN MILLER: January 11th.
10:39:59 (Motion Carried)
10:39:59 We need to move the resolution item number 11.
10:40:03 >> So moved.
10:40:04 >> Second.
10:40:04 (Motion carried).
10:40:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought item 11 --
10:40:13 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In a, she's going to be in the
10:40:14 northeast quadrant.
10:40:17 About four weeks now.
10:40:18 Time to move it.
10:40:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does anybody know about her, know
10:40:23 how she feels about the issues?
10:40:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In a, I don't.
10:40:26 I didn't get any backup information.
10:40:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She applied and then she came into
10:40:35 the hopper.
10:40:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Somebody had to appoint her.
10:40:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no.
10:40:40 Can we get a copy?

10:40:41 Can we hold this till later in the meeting and get a
10:40:44 copy of her application?
10:40:47 >>REBECCA KERT: For clarification, City Council did
10:40:49 already appoint her and in the backup material her
10:40:53 backup information was supplied.
10:40:55 It was just a matter of getting the resolution back to
10:41:00 you.
10:41:01 But I would be happy to get a copy and get that back
10:41:03 to you.
10:41:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before he would vote on it.
10:41:07 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the legal effect when we voted
10:41:11 on her but there was no resolution and it was an
10:41:13 incorrect quadrant, right?
10:41:16 >>> You did not specify what quadrant.
10:41:18 You just appointed her.
10:41:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is the legal effect --
10:41:23 >>> She has actually not started serving.
10:41:29 You required a resolution.
10:41:31 >> Which we haven't done yet.
10:41:32 >>> Has not been passed.
10:41:34 I was just giving you background information.
10:41:36 I am happy to bring the background information to you.

10:41:39 >> I think the board is functioning feign.
10:41:40 I think that when should carry over her along with
10:41:44 Keith Roberts and any other issues until January
10:41:46 11th.
10:41:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So they know where the quadrants
10:41:49 are.
10:41:54 >>> If I understood what just happened, we just
10:41:56 passed --
10:41:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Passed the resolution, yes.
10:41:59 >>> And if the pleasure of the council is to hold
10:42:01 this, I would move to reconsider that so that we can
10:42:05 hold it for next week.
10:42:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't hear the vote.
10:42:08 I agree.
10:42:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to second for reconsideration.
10:42:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
10:42:13 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
10:42:15 Opposed, Nay.
10:42:19 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Nay.
10:42:22 >>GWEN MILLER: The vote is 5-2.
10:42:25 Miller and Alvarez.
10:42:29 Council had passed the resolution.

10:42:30 And then we brought it back again.
10:42:35 We took it back and it's back again.
10:42:37 And now you want to take it back.
10:42:38 It's been hanging out there for almost a month.
10:42:41 City Council already passed the resolution.
10:42:43 And we keep saying we are going to put her on the
10:42:46 board.
10:42:46 Now you have taken her off the board.
10:42:51 >> We have appointed her.
10:42:51 >>GWEN MILLER: We had the resolution.
10:42:55 Mrs. Saul-Sena, we passed the resolution.
10:42:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There was a vote, it's done.
10:43:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a motion to reconsider that
10:43:03 passed on a 5-2 vote.
10:43:05 What is the pleasure of council on item number 11?
10:43:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion would be to put this back
10:43:10 on the agenda on the January 11th meeting when we
10:43:13 are going to receive the other materials, and receive
10:43:17 Kara Davis' application and we have a clear map of the
10:43:20 quadrants.
10:43:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
10:43:23 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, I'm confused.

10:43:25 Has she been appointed or has she not been appointed?
10:43:28 Is she just over there sort of as you're going to get
10:43:31 appointed, so start doing the job and we'll get around
10:43:34 to it?
10:43:35 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:43:37 Our position, we stated it last time, when you make
10:43:39 the appointment, they are appointed.
10:43:40 The resolution, for reasons that make no sense, has
10:43:44 been a follow-up.
10:43:46 Remember last time we had one that fell through the
10:43:48 cracks, came in a year later, the person was serving
10:43:51 on the Planning Commission, they were validly
10:43:53 appointed.
10:43:54 Our position is legally they are validly appointed.
10:43:56 If you want to delay her accession to the job or
10:43:59 something like that, I guess you are free to revisit
10:44:01 that issue but it's our position it's already legally
10:44:04 enacted.
10:44:05 She has appointed.
10:44:06 >>SHAWN HARRISON: She has appeared on an agenda and
10:44:08 this council has taken some sort of action that gave
10:44:10 her the impression that she is now in that job.

10:44:14 Right?
10:44:14 So I think it would be unfair now to take that back.
10:44:22 >>> We are going to change the ordinance so you don't
10:44:23 have to do the resolution.
10:44:26 There's no requirement.
10:44:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Where are we now?
10:44:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Reconsider the --
10:44:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In light of opinion of council, we
10:44:43 have already appointed her.
10:44:44 I move the resolution.
10:44:45 >> Second.
10:44:45 (Motion carried).
10:44:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would still like to see her
10:44:49 application.
10:44:52 >>CHAIRMAN: Item number 12.
10:44:57 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
10:45:00 Item 12 is also linked to item number 40 and 42.
10:45:04 It's really an update.
10:45:05 And 40 and 42 are the action items.
10:45:07 It's more than an update.
10:45:09 What I would system redo is we just take those up when
10:45:12 we get to 40 and 42, which is the memorandum of

10:45:15 agreement, and the resolution extending.
10:45:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: David, do we have any idea what we
10:45:29 are going to use it for?
10:45:30 We all think it's a great idea that we are buying it.
10:45:34 >>DAVID SMITH: I can address that in 40 and 42.
10:45:38 For limited uses are tied to the financing that's been
10:45:40 provided for the rehabilitation.
10:45:42 And to sum rides essentially, cultural and educational
10:45:46 uses.
10:45:47 I would assume the administration will also open this
10:45:49 process up to get additional input from the community.
10:45:52 The community has been very interested in this
10:45:54 facility.
10:45:55 And I think there needs to be a process.
10:45:57 Because it's been so long.
10:45:58 You know, this was deeded back in '99.
10:46:02 I think we need to get additional community input and
10:46:05 see what needs are greatest.
10:46:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I agree.
10:46:08 Madam Chair, it seems to me that the Virginia river
10:46:13 theater has been looking for a home for a long, long
10:46:16 time.

10:46:21 >>GWEN MILLER: 40 and 42, you don't want to do it now.
10:46:25 >>> If you want to do it now.
10:46:26 That's fine.
10:46:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we hear from the public first?
10:46:30 >>> Unless you want to hear from the public first.
10:46:32 Okay.
10:46:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to item number 30th 13.
10:46:43 >> Is there anyone that would like to ask for
10:46:49 legislative matters? Okay, we go to the public.
10:46:51 Anyone in the public that wants to speak on any item
10:46:54 on the agenda not set for public hearing.
10:47:02 She raised her hand.
10:47:05 FROM THE FLOOR: (speaking off microphone).
10:47:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Any item on the agenda not set for a
10:47:18 public hearing?
10:47:18 You can speak to any item on the agenda.
10:47:22 >>> Let me clarify with Martin Shelby who spoke this
10:47:24 morning.
10:47:25 Am I able to speak for item 13 that's moved to the end
10:47:27 of the day?
10:47:29 >> Yes.
10:47:32 >> My name is Janell Hanson, south 12th Street, for

10:47:37 item later in the day, file E-2006-8 chapter 27.
10:47:43 There are four points that the community as a whole
10:47:50 has agreed upon.
10:47:50 You are going to be discussing the Channel District
10:47:52 zoning code.
10:47:53 The infrastructure portion of the study has not been
10:47:55 completed as of yet.
10:47:57 Parking and transportation, the community is working
10:48:00 with transportation and parking to complete that.
10:48:03 And I understand in January the parking portion will
10:48:05 be completed.
10:48:06 Since the codes right now are wonderful and you can
10:48:09 move forward as you have already with numerous items,
10:48:12 wait until the study is complete so the accurate codes
10:48:17 do get changed.
10:48:18 And maybe there need to be more additions or maybe
10:48:20 subtractions but please complete it.
10:48:22 In January, have the parking -- Jim Corbett come
10:48:28 forward and explain to you about what the results are
10:48:30 and then transportation as well.
10:48:31 But the gentleman has been working with the community
10:48:33 directly speak to you and ask that.

10:48:36 And when that's done by all means go forward with
10:48:38 changing codes.
10:48:40 But until then please leave those as they are.
10:48:42 Secondly, a lot of discussion has been going on about
10:48:46 the bonus.
10:48:46 One thing that's been omitted in this part of the
10:48:49 discussion is the fact that bonus right now is based
10:48:51 off of items only up to a CD-3 which means 60 feet
10:48:56 higher than there's bonus.
10:48:59 Perhaps that should remain but should be enhanced in
10:49:01 the sense that for the bonus, we are will go for a
10:49:06 residential goal.
10:49:06 Therefore if you have a residential goal for the
10:49:08 Channel District, by all means the developers coming
10:49:11 forward, when want a residential goal.
10:49:13 We are still short more residents.
10:49:15 And now let's look at what's the bonus structure is.
10:49:17 That way you will have high, you will have low, you
10:49:21 will have funk and feel in the neighborhood.
10:49:23 This has never been discussed yet to dismay.
10:49:26 People in the Wilson Miller were upset this wasn't
10:49:30 discussed, people in the community because did it not

10:49:32 get out to the community until the day before the
10:49:34 workshop for the two discussions for the codes, as
10:49:36 when Ms. Saul-Sena can account, no one was told in our
10:49:39 community.
10:49:39 Maybe once the study is finished we can attempt to
10:49:42 talk to the community again as well as other
10:49:44 departments such as parking and transportation, the
10:49:46 people talking with the community, as well as parks
10:49:49 and recreation.
10:49:50 People keep talking about a park as a pocket park.
10:49:54 Right now the definition of a pocket park is a portion
10:49:56 of a linear park.
10:49:58 So, in January, if you want to use this definition,
10:50:01 added to the definitions in the comprehensive plan.
10:50:05 The comprehensive plan omitted pocket park or
10:50:07 something smaller than an acre for two reasons.
10:50:10 The cost to maintain a park smaller than an acre is a
10:50:15 struggle for the city so why should that be a burden
10:50:19 for home owners? The second reason is it brings in an
10:50:22 unwanted em empty to your community.
10:50:25 Now if these two are not an issue let's embrace pocket
10:50:28 parks, let's change it in the comprehensive plan and

10:50:30 move forward together as a team.
10:50:32 But let's not have the comprehensive plan contradict
10:50:40 what codes are going in a neighborhood because there's
10:50:42 nothing more upsetting than when a neighborhood is
10:50:45 listening to codes saying, well, what about this?
10:50:47 And then City Council is put on the spot having to
10:50:49 say, is there a truth or false?
10:50:52 And just a conflict of poor communication.
10:50:54 So come January, look at the codes and address things
10:50:58 properly.
10:50:59 And the final thing that the neighborhood always
10:51:01 discussed about was respect to unity.
10:51:04 Something about respect and unity.
10:51:06 (Bell sounds).
10:51:07 If I may finish.
10:51:08 Is the fact when the community was getting together,
10:51:10 whether you go to -- because every community only can
10:51:14 one community with the city, there are numerous
10:51:16 different groups in a community.
10:51:18 As we know in East Tampa they spoke to our community
10:51:20 and the umbrella to represent.
10:51:25 >>GWEN MILLER: You have to wrap it up now.

10:51:28 >>> What happens when we were meeting last night we
10:51:29 found out that the city can no longer speak to
10:51:31 different groups in the community, they can only speak
10:51:34 to the Channel District council which is the only one
10:51:36 allowed to be registered with the community.
10:51:39 And this was told to city officials.
10:51:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up now.
10:51:47 >>> That's just unacceptable.
10:51:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:51:49 Next.
10:51:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: While she's coming up, I just
10:51:57 wanted to make one point, Madam Chair, and this
10:52:00 hopefully will be helpful to staff.
10:52:02 This afternoon when we get around to discussing the
10:52:04 Channelside issue, which is item 13, I do have a
10:52:09 request of Mr. LaMotte as well as our parking official
10:52:17 to join us in that discussion so we can include them
10:52:19 and get some information from them.
10:52:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like Shannon Edge to also
10:52:25 join us.
10:52:25 Because the issue is raised about different community
10:52:28 groups and different voices.

10:52:29 And I think that will be helpful.
10:52:35 >>> Linda Pearson, here to discuss an issue related to
10:52:40 item 6 and the protection of sidewalks.
10:52:44 We have been trying unsuccessfully, some of the
10:52:46 residents in the area, to create a history or pattern
10:52:49 of what has happened at the northwest corner of Howard
10:52:53 and Jetton, a successful restaurant there.
10:52:55 The city has permitted construction of seven parking
10:52:58 spaces in the public right-of-way for the express use
10:53:01 of that adjacent restaurant.
10:53:03 This approval is to allow a very private prospering
10:53:08 business which is a wonderful thing, to pave over the
10:53:10 public right-of-way, and provide parking for their
10:53:14 patrons, which we feel is unprecedented.
10:53:16 The site plan, which I have provided for you on the
10:53:19 Elmo, depicts the seven parking spaces.
10:53:22 It was approved on 8-21-06, and signed off
10:53:26 administratively by staff members, as you can see.
10:53:30 The applicants have found a way to circumvent to
10:53:34 prevent the city from site plan procedure, and they
10:53:36 filed for a right-of-way and construction for this
10:53:43 expanded parking lot.

10:53:44 We provided in the backup for you that we just handed
10:53:46 out this amount, for site plan approval, in our
10:53:51 opinion, without going through the review of the site
10:53:53 plan process.
10:53:55 The city has established regulations that everyone
10:53:58 else has to follow for a very good reason.
10:54:01 And it is to protect its residents.
10:54:04 It's a very narrow street.
10:54:06 People are backing out into it.
10:54:07 People are parking as you see from some of the
10:54:11 photographs we provided for you.
10:54:12 It creates some visibility obstruction.
10:54:15 And it's very dangerous to for parked cars to be
10:54:18 backing out into the street traffic so close to this
10:54:20 intersection.
10:54:21 The pedestrian walkway and the right-of-way has now
10:54:23 been zigzagged onto the private property in an
10:54:28 unorthodox manner.
10:54:31 It does not comport to acceptable city standards, and
10:54:39 it now dead-ends at a planter on the site plan.
10:54:43 I guess you have to walk through the planter and then
10:54:46 walk back out to Howard Avenue.

10:54:48 It doesn't conform to accepted engineering practice.
10:54:52 You won't find anything in the city's ordinance or
10:54:54 regulations that allow it.
10:54:59 Reconfiguring a site to go by the adopted standard.
10:55:01 We all do that.
10:55:02 If we allow this to happen city-wide, there would be
10:55:05 people lined up around the block.
10:55:06 My clients would be up around the block wanting to do
10:55:09 the same thing. The residents in the area have been
10:55:11 trying unsuccessfully to for several months to figure
10:55:14 out how this happened.
10:55:14 This came up on your November hearing, I believe.
10:55:20 She's gotten many e-mails back and forth.
10:55:23 Those are entered into the record.
10:55:25 I don't have copies of those but I understand there's
10:55:27 been some communications.
10:55:27 The parking for this very successful business
10:55:31 encroaches well into the residential neighborhood.
10:55:33 They are parking over on the right-of-way, even into
10:55:36 the residential streets. and it appears to also have
10:55:41 additional multiple code violations.
10:55:46 The residents in this area want the City Council, when

10:55:50 we talk about the sidewalk preservation, because they
10:55:52 want the parking in the right-of-way to stop, they
10:55:55 want enforcement of the encroachment of the street
10:55:57 parking in their neighborhoods to stop, they want to
10:56:01 have the pavement removed and the sidewalk area
10:56:03 restored, or the walkway restored so they don't have
10:56:06 to go up into a piece of private property, up next to
10:56:12 their building and then come back into the public
10:56:14 right-of-way.
10:56:14 And there's many site compliance issues that need to
10:56:20 be addressed with water run-off, food containers,
10:56:23 buffering, many other things.
10:56:24 But I am limiting specifically mainly today to the
10:56:26 sidewalk issue which is on the agenda.
10:56:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
10:56:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Pearson, thank you for bringing
10:56:38 this to council's attention and following up on what
10:56:41 Ms. Ferlita started and the neighborhood started.
10:56:44 I don't think my office was contacted directly on
10:56:48 this, which was actually a surprise.
10:56:52 But what I'm confused about is, was there a real
10:56:56 sidewalk there?

10:56:57 Or was this just theoretically --
10:57:02 >>> We have gone back -- and I apologize for not
10:57:04 providing information to you.
10:57:06 I was only retained two days ago so I had to very
10:57:09 hurriedly prepare.
10:57:10 >> I can't picture a real sidewalk there.
10:57:12 >>> There was not.
10:57:13 But there was a sidewalk that ended at the alley.
10:57:15 And there was a clear ability to continue walking in
10:57:18 the right-of-way.
10:57:19 And I can show you a 2000 aerial photograph that
10:57:22 depicts the area where they could walk from the
10:57:26 restaurant down to the avenue without getting onto
10:57:38 public property.
10:57:38 There's green space in this area.
10:57:40 There are a lot of families in this area.
10:57:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know the area pretty well.
10:57:45 I think rest of council does.
10:57:50 I think it would be good to get a report back from Mr.
10:57:56 Lee.
10:57:58 Is it on our agenda?
10:58:01 >>: Yes, they asked for a continuance.

10:58:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. Lee or his staff does
10:58:06 need to come in and explain this a little better as to
10:58:08 why they would necessarily approve this.
10:58:10 It is rather unusual.
10:58:11 But the flip side of it is -- and this just jumps out
10:58:15 at me -- if they have additional space for these six
10:58:19 cars, then sentence it six cars that are going to go
10:58:25 park down in New Suburb Beautiful?
10:58:28 You know, because their business has been there.
10:58:31 It's not like we are approving a new business.
10:58:33 And I don't think we are approving new space or new
10:58:35 anything except for the new parking spaces.
10:58:37 And it just seems if we can squish in some new parking
10:58:42 spaces closer to Howard and it takes less vehicles
10:58:45 that might be down in that neighborhood.
10:58:46 So I think we have to be careful of what we ask for.
10:58:52 >>> They are still not sufficient for this road.
10:58:56 But it's still filtering out into the right-of-way, as
10:59:02 you can see by one of our photographs.
10:59:04 >> There's in a doubt about that.
10:59:07 Anyway.
10:59:08 >> They want the sidewalk.

10:59:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for doing such a complete
10:59:16 report.
10:59:17 It really helps to have this documentation.
10:59:19 We rescheduled this, I believe, January.
10:59:24 So you mate want to come back then.
10:59:26 >> We will be back.
10:59:27 >> And I'll provide this to the transportation
10:59:29 department.
10:59:31 Thank you.
10:59:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
10:59:36 Next.
10:59:41 >>> My name is John Beforia, north Arlington Avenue.
10:59:46 And I'm here to talk about item number 9, the
10:59:50 crematorium.
10:59:51 I do have -- I did make a copy of a research study
10:59:56 that I found online, any information about
11:00:01 crematorium, there hasn't really been much health
11:00:05 issue study done but I have found one journal in
11:00:08 epidemiology and community health related to adverse
11:00:12 pregnancy outcomes, that stated there's an increased
11:00:15 risk of stillbirths and encephalitis.
11:00:21 So I made a copy of that to hand out.

11:00:24 I also have the map, to give you an idea where this
11:00:33 is.
11:00:34 The area in blue is the proposed crematorium.
11:00:37 Everything in pink is residential.
11:00:40 I didn't mark the lower right quadrant.
11:00:42 That's Robles Park housing development.
11:00:45 There are families living there as well.
11:00:52 If I can get my facts together here.
11:00:56 I'm sorry.
11:00:57 This is a big issue across the country, not just in
11:00:59 Tampa.
11:01:00 Crematoriums are becoming more and more common.
11:01:03 And when you search the Internet you are going to find
11:01:06 there's communities everywhere trying to deal with
11:01:08 this.
11:01:09 Largo just recently addressed the issue.
11:01:13 There was a crematorium that wanted to go into a
11:01:16 property that was zoned correctly, as this is, and the
11:01:20 City Council and the neighbors got together and kept
11:01:24 them from opening the business.
11:01:26 And that's what we are looking to you today for today
11:01:30 is to help us with that.

11:01:31 I know that quickly after that, Largo changed their
11:01:34 zoning for crematoriums to get back from residential
11:01:40 neighborhood.
11:01:41 Even if we are unsuccessful with this business, and
11:01:44 hopefully we won't be, I'm hoping that you will
11:01:46 address that 1,000 feet now before it happens to
11:01:49 somebody else.
11:01:51 Don't let it get out of control.
11:01:53 I also have here a resolution that was passed by this
11:01:58 council in 2003.
11:02:00 It's resolution 2003-237, February 20th, 2003,
11:02:05 that is -- that Tampa Heights plan in the community.
11:02:10 And if you look at this plan, it's 37 pages long so I
11:02:14 did not print a copy for everyone but I will leave
11:02:17 this with you and you can view it on TampaHeights.org.
11:02:24 This is clearly out of input to what this council is
11:02:29 expecting on Florida Avenue, and the Tampa Heights
11:02:33 area.
11:02:33 We are a very proud community.
11:02:35 We worked very hard for what we have.
11:02:40 It was a nice neighborhood when most of us moved in
11:02:44 and that's changed.

11:02:45 We are hoping that you guys can help us.
11:02:47 Thank you very much, by the way, for your earlier
11:02:51 resolution to get with the EPC.
11:02:54 I know everyone in my neighborhood has spoken to them.
11:02:56 And they do seem responsive to our needs.
11:02:59 Thank you.
11:03:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Based on your map that you have here,
11:03:03 can you tell me where the other crematorium is?
11:03:08 >>> It's further north.
11:03:09 There's another gentleman waiting to speak that can
11:03:11 tell you exactly, some of the issues that we have seen
11:03:14 come out of there.
11:03:15 (Bell sounds).
11:03:17 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES:
11:03:18 >>THE CLERK: I didn't get his last name.
11:03:21 >>> DeFiore.
11:03:25 D-E-F-I-O-R-E.
11:03:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Moses Knott.
11:03:47 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I resign at 2902 East Ellicott
11:03:50 street three nights a week, and I just thank God for
11:03:54 his grace and his mercy.
11:03:56 And I'm here today to thank God to see a birthday.

11:04:07 With me I'm just glad to celebrate it.
11:04:11 It's Jesus birthday.
11:04:13 If it ain't hurt his birthday it ain't none of our
11:04:17 birthday.
11:04:18 But I had to get that out of the way because I'm
11:04:20 fairly disturbed by something you all were talking
11:04:22 about this morning.
11:04:23 This article number 1, you know, I sat back there.
11:04:28 I was home last week when you all were talking about
11:04:33 that.
11:04:33 The last time you were talking about that I was at
11:04:35 home.
11:04:39 I wish you all had come up with this.
11:04:46 Thousands in this town, this city could have been for
11:04:51 what they were talking about at the end.
11:04:53 And then follow up this morning to what the neighbors
11:04:56 say we should get for the lot.
11:05:02 I think the last time I counted over 6,000 houses,
11:05:05 called them crack houses in my part of town, burned
11:05:08 down, torn down, anyway they could get them down and
11:05:11 give them all to these nonprofits to build new houses,
11:05:14 and then they are then charging something like

11:05:16 $56,000, more money than the house is worth to make up
11:05:19 for the loss.
11:05:21 But I am going to use this for a prop.
11:05:30 Over in West Tampa, the material he got over there,
11:05:33 got 6 lots for $2,000, clean lots.
11:05:38 Nothing wrong with them.
11:05:39 I think a little more money went down the line.
11:05:42 But it was $2,000.
11:05:44 Now, the mayor and you all got a great big plan to get
11:05:47 rid of, I think, about five or six lots in my part of
11:05:53 town and seven lots, going in and sell that land.
11:06:01 White man died and let the city own it because took
11:06:06 the land from me.
11:06:07 Now they are going to give it away.
11:06:08 But I tell you one thing.
11:06:09 I am totally against -- this is about the most
11:06:12 discriminating thing you ever seen.
11:06:15 This is one lot in the middle of a landfill.
11:06:20 The neighbors want to get more money for it.
11:06:22 I wish to God that we had had a chance to buy them
11:06:26 lots.
11:06:26 These seven lots at 1710 East Ellicott, thousands of

11:06:32 people come and asked me, the city own the lots.
11:06:35 They still ain't for sell.
11:06:41 Seven lots.
11:06:45 Took from me totally illegal.
11:06:50 What I am saying, though, down through the years, you
11:06:52 all give these lots away.
11:06:54 This city would have been -- if they would have
11:06:59 offered a lot of money.
11:07:01 Years ago people could buy a lot in my part of town
11:07:04 and build their own house.
11:07:05 They can't do it anymore.
11:07:06 They got these vultures now.
11:07:09 I don't see coming in there yet.
11:07:15 Thank you.
11:07:16 >>GWEN MILLER: That you can thank you.
11:07:17 Next.
11:07:22 >>> I reside at 1102 South Moody Avenue.
11:07:25 I'm here to speak a little about the item number 6,
11:07:32 parking lot.
11:07:33 I live approximately here nine years in that
11:07:37 neighborhood.
11:07:37 I'm about eleven feet away from the establishment.

11:07:40 For years I been there and living there.
11:07:42 And this establishment is business for their own
11:07:47 profit.
11:07:48 And they have not cared to do anything concerning our
11:07:52 neighborhood.
11:07:54 The restaurant is there in the back.
11:07:56 Nobody can walk in there.
11:07:59 The issue of the parking lot, Mr. Dingfelder, there
11:08:03 was a parking lot there, there was a sidewalk there.
11:08:05 I lived there nine years.
11:08:07 About four years ago, they took the four-foot concrete
11:08:12 sidewalk out, and when we went over there to make a
11:08:15 parking lot and object to it, they put some gravel in
11:08:18 there.
11:08:18 But for four years there was gravel there,
11:08:21 four-fountain gravel along the side.
11:08:24 And about two months ago driving by I see they are
11:08:27 resurfacing their parking lot in the center in front
11:08:30 of the establishment.
11:08:31 I'm coming back home and.
11:08:33 For lunch and I see a bunch of cars over there.
11:08:36 So I went to the contractor, the agency contractor,

11:08:40 pavement contractor, where is the permit?
11:08:43 What are you guys doing?
11:08:44 They said we got a permit to turn this side of Jetton
11:08:48 into a parking lot.
11:08:50 I could not find it.
11:08:53 I can't call the city.
11:08:55 I could not get ahold of anybody.
11:08:58 In five hours they tore up the side of Jetton, paved
11:09:01 it.
11:09:04 I called the city the following day and asked, you
11:09:06 know, questions.
11:09:07 I could not get ahold of anybody.
11:09:10 Finally I get ahold of Mr. Houseman who says he didn't
11:09:14 issue the permit, he doesn't know about it.
11:09:16 I said who issued the permit?
11:09:17 They said, Mr. Lee.
11:09:19 And I tried to get ahold of Mr. Lee by the phone.
11:09:22 No phone call, nothing.
11:09:24 Later I went to the city.
11:09:26 I'm a general contractor.
11:09:27 I build.
11:09:29 And in the neighborhood as well.

11:09:31 So I asked for the site plan.
11:09:34 They show me a site plan.
11:09:35 Yeah, they have a permit. The permit is for
11:09:37 resurfacing their own parking lot, and very small site
11:09:41 on the side of the site plan, they said the parking
11:09:46 lot on the side of Jetton.
11:09:48 There was never a parking lot.
11:09:49 I don't have the information, the aerial showing from
11:09:53 several years back that there was a sidewalk there.
11:09:56 There was never a parking lot.
11:09:58 The permit was issued.
11:10:00 We got the city going on the inspector side.
11:10:05 There was never a parking lot there to be repaired.
11:10:08 So the issue of the permit.
11:10:16 Code enforcement, they have some permit that requires
11:10:18 some setback.
11:10:20 They do not meet their set back for the dumpster.
11:10:23 They have it enclosed.
11:10:24 And it is a new sans to us who live there.
11:10:30 It's just terrible.
11:10:33 With that side of the street.
11:10:34 We like them, it's a good successful restaurant.

11:10:37 We respect that.
11:10:39 If you look at the back of the restaurant it's awful.
11:10:41 And now they come in and put in this.
11:10:48 They have now personalized that.
11:10:50 They have cones put in there so nobody else can park
11:10:52 over there.
11:10:55 (Bell sounds).
11:10:55 I have pictures but I will bring this.
11:10:59 So it's private parking on public profit and it's very
11:11:03 dangerous.
11:11:03 I would like to bring it to your attention.
11:11:05 Because an accident will happen.
11:11:07 They come in and backing up and there's almost nothing
11:11:12 on Jetton.
11:11:15 The parking or the traffic that goes through Jetton.
11:11:19 My house, the other side, driving the car parking both
11:11:28 sides of moody and Jetton.
11:11:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Your time is up.
11:11:32 >>> Thank you very much.
11:11:36 I would like for the council to take some action
11:11:39 against this.
11:11:41 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.

11:11:43 Next.
11:11:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to share with you,
11:11:47 sir, we are getting a report back specifically on this
11:11:53 as well as on sidewalks in general on January
11:11:55 25th.
11:11:56 And I am going to encourage the staff to look into
11:12:01 your testimony so we'll understand.
11:12:03 Thank you.
11:12:05 >>> My name is John Deckstrom, 3901 north Arlington
11:12:10 Avenue, in the historic Tampa Heights.
11:12:13 I have lived at this address for more than eight
11:12:15 years.
11:12:16 Our entire neighborhood was shocked to find out this
11:12:19 crematorium, item number 9, could even be considered
11:12:25 within the city limits or even in a residential
11:12:27 neighborhood.
11:12:28 I have spoken with many of my residential and
11:12:30 commercial neighbors.
11:12:32 All of which would oppose such an offensive business.
11:12:38 In October the Largo community leaders successfully
11:12:40 rejected a planned crematorium.
11:12:44 The proximity to my home is absurdly close.

11:12:48 I am separated by a ten-foot alley from this proposed
11:12:53 crematorium, not the 1,000-foot that Largo now
11:12:57 requires.
11:12:58 My house is a 1926 historic two-story bungalow.
11:13:03 The exhaust stacks from crematories are typically 18
11:13:07 feet. The wind would blow straight into my home in
11:13:11 that proximity.
11:13:13 I believe that the crematory does not fit into the
11:13:15 fabric of our historic neighborhood and does not meet
11:13:18 some of the business guidelines that were approved by
11:13:20 City Council for the Tampa hates development plan.
11:13:26 Even though this lot is a grandfathered commercial
11:13:28 lot, the lot size should still be 10,000 square feet,
11:13:32 not 5,000 that it is right now.
11:13:36 And many of my fears stem from what I have learned and
11:13:39 seen for myself.
11:13:41 As a Florida mortuary, and I have many friends that
11:13:44 work and live near there, that's on Nebraska and
11:13:48 Cayuga, what's one mile away has opacity and odor
11:13:54 issues as we speak today. I have seen smoke billowing
11:13:57 out of this crematory.
11:13:59 Many of the neighbors in our community do not realize

11:14:02 these are violations, and the EPC should be notified
11:14:06 immediately every time they see this.
11:14:09 It is difficult to convince me that I should not be
11:14:12 worried about the mercury from dental fillings,
11:14:20 formaldehyde, radioactive iodine from thyroid
11:14:25 patients, also.
11:14:31 I am unable to be convinced this will be clean.
11:14:33 If the crematory is ever built, my result will
11:14:37 continue.
11:14:38 I personally will monitor the stack 24-7.
11:14:42 I will monitor for odor and opacity violation.
11:14:45 And I will report every violation to the EPC.
11:14:49 And I will attempt to focus once it's in any way.
11:14:56 I think it is apparent to most individuals, you would
11:15:00 not want to buy a home or raise a family this close to
11:15:04 a human and pet incinerator.
11:15:07 Thank you very much.
11:15:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:15:10 Next.
11:15:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Our attorney, Martin Shelby,
11:15:14 actually lives in Largo.
11:15:16 But my question would be, Mr. Shelby, what additional

11:15:19 action would you consider that City Council can take
11:15:24 to find that this use is incompatible with adjacent
11:15:27 residential uses?
11:15:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, I can just tell you from my
11:15:33 observation, the issue before the Largo City
11:15:37 Commission was one of compatibility.
11:15:38 And again it was within the permitted land uses at the
11:15:42 time that the petition was heard.
11:15:45 And my understanding as a result of the concerns of
11:15:50 the residents that were raised, the commission did
11:15:55 request the administration to come back with
11:15:58 recommendations on how to address it.
11:16:00 One of them was to address the issue of the definition
11:16:04 of crematory, which I believe was in the Largo code
11:16:09 was not sufficiently defined.
11:16:10 There was an issue in Largo was a crematory
11:16:14 consistent, one oven, three ovens, or six ovens?
11:16:18 The other issue that needed to be addressed was the
11:16:21 buffering or distance from residential areas.
11:16:24 And I believe this gentleman, I believe, made
11:16:26 reference to the fact that Largo had proposed a
11:16:29 1,000-foot buffer from the residential area.

11:16:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would they have to be considered a
11:16:37 special use?
11:16:37 Did they create a special use category?
11:16:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe they did.
11:16:41 It's in the process.
11:16:42 I should point out, as full disclosure, that I was
11:16:48 present at that hearing, and also that that decision
11:16:53 is the subject of litigation presently.
11:16:55 So I'm not privy to litigation.
11:16:57 I don't know what the current status of it is.
11:17:01 Except for the fact that it may be appropriate, if you
11:17:04 wish to -- again Ms. Coyle did make the presentation
11:17:10 this is a permitted use under the code.
11:17:12 My recommending would be if council has concern the
11:17:15 code does not adequately -- adequately protect this
11:17:18 sort of situation then council may request the
11:17:19 administration to look at ways to address the concerns
11:17:22 that have been raised.
11:17:24 I don't know what effect if any -- and that would be a
11:17:26 legal decision that would have on this application, I
11:17:28 don't know where this process along is.
11:17:32 So I cannot say.

11:17:33 And I cannot give advice to that.
11:17:35 But if it is a concern to council, that the code as
11:17:40 presently constructed does not adequately address
11:17:43 these kind of concerns, then it's certainly within
11:17:45 council's purview to make that request of the
11:17:48 administration.
11:17:49 >>GWEN MILLER: I see Ms. Cole could came in.
11:17:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
11:18:00 we ask the administration to come back to City Council
11:18:04 with recommendations on questions of the crematory in
11:18:09 proximity to residential uses and whether we should
11:18:12 make it a special use, whether we should impose
11:18:17 distance separation from residential uses or whether
11:18:19 we should examine the number of ovens.
11:18:23 I would like a report back in 30 days on what we can
11:18:26 do on recommendations from you, the administration, on
11:18:30 how we can better protect and design.
11:18:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think 30 days is enough.
11:18:37 That involves significant research.
11:18:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It may very well be.
11:18:41 But by the same token, you do have an issue, I don't
11:18:44 know what effect it has on this particular project but

11:18:47 we do have a pending ordinance and I don't know where
11:18:50 that is.
11:18:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Come on, Mrs. Cole.
11:18:55 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
11:18:56 And without understanding all the facts, we would want
11:19:02 to be careful because we have a situation where as I
11:19:07 heard and understand, that this particular property
11:19:09 owner is permitting with EFC under their current
11:19:16 zoning application that I heard Mrs. Coyle say they
11:19:19 are allowed to be there, so I don't want there to be
11:19:21 any thought or belief that this is moving Ford an
11:19:26 ordinance to -- in the future will have any impact on
11:19:31 this particular property.
11:19:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Cole is absolutely correct, and I
11:19:36 didn't want to give that impression either.
11:19:38 And also the other complication from my perspective is
11:19:44 the EPC is you neck to Hillsborough, Tampa, with
11:19:47 regard to its jurisdiction.
11:19:49 So I don't know what its purview and its scope of
11:19:51 review is, with regard to compatibility or with regard
11:19:54 to admission.
11:19:56 So this may be adequately taken care of by the EPC but

11:19:59 I cannot speak to that.
11:20:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My motion is within 30 days, I
11:20:04 would say 60 days, see what we can do to address this
11:20:08 in the future N.all my years of council this is not an
11:20:10 issue that's ever come before us before.
11:20:12 And oftentimes we learn -- my motion is that we get a
11:20:20 report back in 60 days.
11:20:23 >> Second.
11:20:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I'll second that.
11:20:24 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I would support that motion.
11:20:27 I'm glad the clarification was made that this may not
11:20:29 affect this particular project.
11:20:32 But I think when should move forward as expeditiously
11:20:34 as possible with the understanding that we need to
11:20:39 make sure that this is addressed at some future date.
11:20:43 I am a little concerned about what appears to be the
11:20:46 developing potentially the cluster in this area of
11:20:49 this type of use.
11:20:52 And I would mention, if memory serves me right,
11:20:56 councilman Reddick has been successful with EPC on
11:21:02 other projects where you have clustering of
11:21:04 potentially harmful emissions in a residential area.

11:21:07 And I believe that one of the ways that was addressed
11:21:10 was through additional monitoring by EPC and other
11:21:15 types of heightened attention to those projects that
11:21:19 are in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods so
11:21:21 that any of these repeated violations that you
11:21:26 mentioned, if in fact there are violations, are
11:21:29 monitored, are taking action on to ensure they do not
11:21:35 continue.
11:21:35 And I would suggest that perhaps in the letter that we
11:21:39 discuss is drafted -- crafted to EPC that it suggests
11:21:43 that they consider additional monitoring in this
11:21:46 vicinity because of the proximity to the residential
11:21:49 area.
11:21:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: I have a question.
11:21:52 What type of support have you received from EPC, if
11:21:55 any?
11:21:57 >>> Basically just the notification that they are
11:21:59 trying to pull a permit.
11:22:01 Other than that, they are just wanting to make sure
11:22:05 that everything is legal.
11:22:07 I don't know what authority they have to deny or allow
11:22:11 at present.

11:22:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: Are you represented by legal
11:22:15 authority?
11:22:18 >>> No.
11:22:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
11:22:24 floor.
11:22:24 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:22:26 Opposed, Nay.
11:22:26 (Motion carried).
11:22:27 Thank you, sir.
11:22:28 Next.
11:22:34 >>> Matthew McCOAH.
11:22:37 I reside at 102 east Virginia Avenue in the Arlington
11:22:41 heights area.
11:22:41 My house is about a block and a half away from where
11:22:49 this proposed crematorium would be.
11:22:51 And I just -- I'll try to make this succinct and
11:22:56 concise because I know a lot of people are already
11:22:59 addressed some issues.
11:23:00 But it seems having a crematorium in this spot is
11:23:04 completely inconsistent with the vision that the city
11:23:08 has as a whole, which includes the mayor, the City
11:23:11 Council, homeowners such as myself, businesses,

11:23:15 entrepreneurs, the vision that we have for Tampa
11:23:17 Heights and the renovation of that area, a lot of
11:23:21 people that put in -- and I'm speaking particularly of
11:23:24 homeowners and individuals -- put a lot of hard work,
11:23:28 energy, time, money, taking a chance.
11:23:31 Some people more so than others.
11:23:35 People that got in there ten years ago and they had
11:23:37 the guts to get in there because they thought it was
11:23:39 something worth trying to renovate the area because of
11:23:43 the richness of the homes there, they are old, and
11:23:46 interesting, and they represent something about Tampa
11:23:49 itself, the heart of Tampa.
11:23:51 And I think some of the main concerns are obviously
11:23:56 the environmental safety concerns, which I think -- if
11:24:00 you could actually see how close this is to John's
11:24:03 house, the gentleman that was up here, it almost seems
11:24:06 ridiculous that this could even have a chance of
11:24:09 happening.
11:24:10 I understand that it sort of happened because this
11:24:13 area, you know, for a long time, you know, there were
11:24:18 just industrial-type commercial places.
11:24:20 And maybe in some people's minds it's not even

11:24:23 considered a residential neighborhood as you would
11:24:24 think of maybe Carrollwood or Westchase or something
11:24:27 like that.
11:24:28 But the bottom line is that there's a lot of
11:24:34 residences there where this is going to go up.
11:24:37 I don't think anybody brought this up, that the
11:24:39 potential psychological effect that this could have
11:24:42 being there, for instance, I'm not a zoning expert,
11:24:45 but I know just as a layman reading the newspaper over
11:24:49 the years and stuff, there are laws against having,
11:24:53 for instance, you know, like liquor stores next to
11:24:55 schools, or strip clubs next to churches or sex shops
11:25:00 in certain areas.
11:25:01 This is just an example.
11:25:04 Well, it doesn't really make sense for the city to
11:25:07 okay having a strip club next to within a certain
11:25:12 amount of feet to a church.
11:25:14 It's kind of like a slap in the face if we let that
11:25:16 happen.
11:25:18 Why would we want to have a place where dead people,
11:25:21 dead bodies and dead animals, are incinerated in an
11:25:25 oven in a relatively gruesome fashion, right next to a

11:25:29 place where people are living and trying to raise
11:25:31 their families?
11:25:32 They get up in the morning and they want to drink a
11:25:34 cup of coffee and go to work, and they are driving by
11:25:36 a place, in the back of their mind, they know -- I
11:25:42 know it's a legitimate type of business.
11:25:44 It's a way to get rid of our dead.
11:25:46 But just the location seems to be very strange.
11:25:49 And also, I will make this kind of my last point.
11:25:54 I think that even the idea of revisiting the zoning
11:25:59 rules and regulations for the future is a great idea,
11:26:02 because even if this already happened, I think it's
11:26:06 important to not set a bad precedent.
11:26:07 (Bell sounds).
11:26:09 Thank you very much.
11:26:09 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, sir.
11:26:10 And we did take action just a second ago.
11:26:13 We are going to do everything we can within the bounds
11:26:15 of the law to try to protect this neighborhood.
11:26:19 >>> And I really appreciate that.
11:26:20 I'm very happy and very thankful and I'm proud of the
11:26:23 council for taking the position they have on this

11:26:25 situation.
11:26:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I received a request from Ms. Coyle
11:26:31 because it was a very broad motion if you could be
11:26:33 more specific with regard to direction.
11:26:35 What do you wish her to come back with?
11:26:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: As maker of the motion, I would
11:26:40 like her to come back with a draft of an ordinance to
11:26:45 further protect neighborhoods from crematoria, and I
11:26:50 will follow the guidance of the administration.
11:26:53 whether they want to do it through creating a special
11:26:55 use, the kind of special use that has to have a
11:26:57 hearing before council, whether they just feel like
11:27:00 adding additional criteria in the definition of
11:27:07 crematorium is sufficient.
11:27:09 So I will go with the staff recommendation.
11:27:11 But I want it to come back in the form of an ordinance
11:27:15 that we can discuss and perhaps take action on.
11:27:19 Second
11:27:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As seconder of the motion I accept
11:27:23 the clarification.
11:27:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: And maybe not to add to that but to
11:27:27 make a statement that Tampa Heights is a historic

11:27:30 neighborhood.
11:27:31 It really doesn't need crematoriums.
11:27:35 I'm sorry that they are even trying to do that.
11:27:37 But how can we protect these neighborhoods from
11:27:41 unsavory uses?
11:27:42 I know they are probably needed.
11:27:44 But I'm sure there's a lot of room on the east side of
11:27:47 town like maybe the cemeteries that they could
11:27:51 probably put something over there, you know.
11:27:53 I'm very disappointed that this thing is even coming
11:27:57 up.
11:27:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think the point is that we had no
11:28:01 control.
11:28:02 It's zoned for that type of use.
11:28:03 There's nothing we can do at this point other than to
11:28:05 try to reclassify this type of use before they
11:28:08 actually get their permits to go in at this location.
11:28:12 >>FRANK REDDICK: We have enough cemeteries on the east
11:28:14 side of town.
11:28:16 [ Laughter ]
11:28:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really leave it to the
11:28:20 professionals and the staff.

11:28:22 But perhaps the thing to do is to reclassify this as
11:28:25 only allowable in an industrially zoned parcel of a
11:28:30 certain scale, certain distance requirement.
11:28:36 I really would put that in the hands of a professional
11:28:39 staff.
11:28:39 I know this will come back as a good recommendation.
11:28:42 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Next.
11:28:44 >>> Good morning.
11:28:45 My name is Lisa Gurney, a homeowner on Arlington.
11:28:50 I realize you took action.
11:28:51 But I am going to continue to talk about this ad
11:28:54 nauseam to show you just how important it is to our
11:28:56 neighborhood.
11:28:57 It's difficult for people to take the day off and to
11:29:00 sit here and be able to speak, and just how important
11:29:04 it was to our neighborhood that there's that many of
11:29:06 us here to speak about this issue.
11:29:08 And again I realize that they were able to -- I
11:29:14 appreciate your looking into changing that.
11:29:19 I actually work in St. Petersburg.
11:29:23 I had to park necessary the crematorium in
11:29:26 St. Petersburg.

11:29:26 It does smell.
11:29:27 If you leave your car there for at least an hour,
11:29:29 there's particulate matters that settles on your cars.
11:29:35 Again, the hospital is industrial in nature.
11:29:38 But the idea that near my home, and really if we are
11:29:41 going to regenerate this neighborhood, I own a 1918
11:29:47 bungalow.
11:29:48 And if we are going to do this, there's no
11:29:50 restaurant -- in order to do this.
11:29:56 And I realize the area, you might not even really
11:29:58 notice our neighborhood because the area between
11:30:03 Floribraska and Martin Luther King, if you travel
11:30:05 along Tampa and Florida you are not aware of the
11:30:09 beautiful homes just a -- just a block away.
11:30:12 A lot of people are surprised when they come over, no
11:30:14 idea that there's this beautiful tree-lined street.
11:30:18 So it is important to offer that.
11:30:23 I wanted you to know that about the St. Petersburg.
11:30:28 Again, it would be very difficult for us to attract
11:30:31 the type of businesses that we mate like, drycleaners
11:30:35 or restaurants, with a crematorium nearby.
11:30:38 Ware not against business development.

11:30:40 Just this particular one.
11:30:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:30:42 Next.
11:30:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, council.
11:30:44 Please forgive me for interrupting and interrupting
11:30:46 the agenda public comments.
11:30:47 But it is 11:30.
11:30:49 I just wanted to bring to council's attention that so
11:30:55 you aren't forgotten, I received a text message from
11:30:58 county commissioner Kevin White to remind you that --
11:31:04 [ Laughter ]
11:31:05 That you are approaching your lunch hour.
11:31:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Are there people in the audience --
11:31:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Send Kevin our best.
11:31:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
11:31:21 we work for eight more minutes and hear from these
11:31:23 people and that two minutes each to speak.
11:31:26 So to do it before' eat lunch.
11:31:31 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Two minutes.
11:31:34 >>> My name is Don muscleman.
11:31:37 I own a business across the street from the property.
11:31:40 And just want to join in with the neighbors about the

11:31:42 concern.
11:31:44 These people have done a great job of rebuilding the
11:31:46 neighborhood.
11:31:46 And, you know, we have concerns, we are there during
11:31:50 the days and are concerned about pollution, and odors
11:31:53 and things.
11:31:54 I know there's different levels of equipment that can
11:31:57 be put in.
11:31:57 And if this does happen, I don't know whether council
11:32:00 has any jurisdiction, I guess it's more the EPC, that
11:32:05 they are required to put in the proper equipment to
11:32:07 really minimize that as much as possible.
11:32:10 Also, there's always concern for everybody's property
11:32:14 value because of it.
11:32:16 And also wanted to address, again getting to the
11:32:20 transportation, the small property, and really don't
11:32:23 know how this operates when the HEARSES come in but we
11:32:31 don't want to see bodies being delivered and brought
11:32:33 into a building.
11:32:34 It's not pleasing for a residential perspective or a
11:32:39 business perspective.
11:32:40 We don't want to see that as well.

11:32:45 And that's basically it.
11:32:46 I just want to thank you for your support.
11:32:49 And anything that we can do to stop this from going
11:32:54 forward.
11:32:55 Thank you.
11:32:55 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:32:56 Next.
11:32:58 >>> My name is Robert Nelson, 3022 Emerson trace
11:33:06 court, but I do own property at North Tampa Street.
11:33:13 1978, I was privileged to purchase property in this
11:33:17 area.
11:33:18 I received the first banner for restoring in this
11:33:28 area.
11:33:29 Restored homes for 21 years.
11:33:31 I love the community.
11:33:33 I decided to keep a part of that community with me by
11:33:38 maintaining property in that area.
11:33:41 And I have seen the worst and I am seeing the better.
11:33:45 And I think the worst will come back to us and bite
11:33:49 us, if we don't help this community, to continue the
11:33:54 progress that they have made over the 20-plus years.
11:33:58 And I applaud this council for taking whatever steps,

11:34:05 forcefully, if possible, to see if you can get
11:34:08 something from the EPA to help us.
11:34:11 Thank you.
11:34:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:34:12 Next.
11:34:15 >>> Good morning.
11:34:17 Myra DARIO, 3006 west Main Street, Tampa, Florida.
11:34:22 I'm here to speak about agenda item 12, which you are
11:34:26 going to hear later on, in relation to some
11:34:29 resolutions.
11:34:31 I'm here today to just say that the people in West
11:34:35 Tampa stand ready and willing and able to work in
11:34:39 partnership with the City of Tampa as you move
11:34:42 forward, once you approve this plan for the central
11:34:48 Espanol, the West Tampa building, to recover it for
11:34:51 the community, and to bring it back as a community
11:34:55 center, to celebrate our history, our art, our
11:34:59 culture, and our Renaissance in West Tampa.
11:35:03 So I just hope that you will approve these
11:35:06 resolutions.
11:35:08 And we do stand by to work with you.
11:35:11 Thank you very much.

11:35:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:35:12 Next.
11:35:16 >>> Good morning.
11:35:17 My name is Figaretta, also West Tampa.
11:35:26 I also echo what Myra has just said.
11:35:29 We are very excited that there is going to be a vote
11:35:31 today on the old Centro Espanol.
11:35:34 The last remaining gem of West Tampa.
11:35:38 We are encouraged that you all will make the right
11:35:40 decision and vote yes.
11:35:44 We would love a unanimous vote.
11:35:46 We are committed.
11:35:47 We want you to know that the residents in West Tampa,
11:35:49 we are committed to rolling up our sleeves and working
11:35:52 side by side with you, to return that building back to
11:35:55 the community as an art, history and cultural center.
11:36:01 And you have our dedication and as I said hard work
11:36:05 that we will work with you to do that.
11:36:07 So thank you again.
11:36:09 Thank you for all the hard work that you have done on
11:36:11 this issue on behalf of the residents of West Tampa.
11:36:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

11:36:16 Next.
11:36:19 >>> My name is Rebecca Yevva, one of the owners of
11:36:23 cremation center of Tampa Bay that you have had a
11:36:25 discussion about today.
11:36:26 And I came here mainly as informational courtesy.
11:36:31 I know there's not much known about crematories.
11:36:33 And I felt it was my obligation to come and share with
11:36:36 you.
11:36:38 There were some comments made by some citizens or
11:36:41 neighbors earlier about an 18-foot smoke stack
11:36:44 billowing ash out into the neighborhood.
11:36:47 To be honest, most of the information is inaccurate.
11:36:53 There was some information that's been in our EPA
11:36:56 application about 18 feet of stack.
11:36:58 Most of that is interior to the building.
11:37:00 The building is a tall building.
11:37:02 It needs to reach the top.
11:37:04 A heat ventilation pipe.
11:37:07 It's not a smoke stack.
11:37:08 It's not intended for smoke to come out.
11:37:11 If smoke is coming out of the crematory, then the
11:37:13 crematory is not operating properly.

11:37:15 And that's the responsibility of the EPC to monitor.
11:37:20 That's what they are there for.
11:37:21 They are there to protect the neighbors and make sure
11:37:23 that companies such as myself such as the one that I
11:37:28 own operate and take care of our neighboring families
11:37:31 and neighboring businesses.
11:37:35 I don't know if you can tell very well from the
11:37:37 pictures that you received from the community, that
11:37:41 the building itself, it's kind of an ugly looking torn
11:37:46 down building at this point.
11:37:47 We intend to beautify it.
11:37:49 We intend to make it aesthetically pleasing to the
11:37:53 neighborhood.
11:37:54 And right now there's operating right next to them is
11:38:02 very unappealing as well.
11:38:04 We intend to show this is attractive, and it helps the
11:38:09 community in its appearance, and actually it's a very
11:38:13 unobtrusive business that we operate.
11:38:15 It's not our intent for people to drive down the
11:38:17 street and say, there's a crematory.
11:38:19 That's not the goal of our business.
11:38:21 We offer a very dignified and successful service to

11:38:26 families, who have a loved one pass away.
11:38:28 We don't want cars passing by to see a deceased loved
11:38:34 one come in and out of the building.
11:38:35 That would mean we are not doing a good service to
11:38:37 that family member we are taking care of and for that
11:38:40 person's family.
11:38:41 Our goal is to be as unobtrusive as possible, we are
11:38:49 considered to be a low-impact organization.
11:38:56 As I mentioned before the EPC is the one that will
11:38:59 monitor and make sure that we are taking care of the
11:39:01 community around us and protecting their health.
11:39:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:39:05 Next.
11:39:12 Now we will be in recess until 1:30.
11:39:14 (Recess)


Tampa City Council
Thursday, December 14, 2006
1:30 p.m. session



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




13:37:01 [Sounding gavel]
13:37:02 >> Tampa City Council is called back to order.
13:37:04 Roll call.
13:37:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:37:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Here.
13:37:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:37:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
13:37:27 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time we need to go back to item

13:37:29 number 12.
13:37:30 I don't see Mr. Smith here.
13:37:34 So we'll move to item number 14.
13:37:39 That has been rescheduled.
13:37:43 Do you know when?
13:37:46 >> I need to check with the professor but we'll pick a
13:37:48 date in January.
13:37:49 >>GWEN MILLER: The first week.
13:37:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Continue it?
13:37:55 Did you move to continue it?
13:37:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I didn't.
13:37:57 Why don't we look at the January agenda?
13:38:00 They are all pretty daunting.
13:38:10 February 1st.
13:38:11 We don't have a night meeting.
13:38:12 So I would like to move to continue this to February
13:38:16 1st by the architecture students with the
13:38:19 understanding they will be on between 11:15 and 12.
13:38:23 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
13:38:26 (Motion carried)
13:38:27 Mr. Shelby, you had a question about an item.
13:38:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, we had a request from the

13:38:34 appeal hearing asking whether council would consider
13:38:38 moving it up or take it in the order in which it
13:38:41 appears on the agenda.
13:38:42 He was under the impression that because it was marked
13:38:45 at 10:00 it would be heard at 10:00.
13:38:49 >> Ha.
13:38:50 Really?
13:38:51 He hasn't been following our meetings, has he?
13:38:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would mean it would be no earlier
13:38:56 than 10:00.
13:38:59 Council, it was requested that I ask council to
13:39:01 consider it, and of course if council wishes, if not we
13:39:05 will take it in the order of regular business.
13:39:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Pleasure of council?
13:39:10 >>MARY ALVAREZ: No.
13:39:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
13:39:12 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
13:39:13 We continue on to our ordinance for first reading, item
13:39:16 number 15.
13:39:17 Mr. Fletcher, are you there yet?
13:39:19 Item 15?
13:39:20 Will you read that for me, please?

13:39:28 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: An ordinance amending ordinance
13:39:30 number 2006-285.
13:39:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
13:39:39 Go ahead.
13:39:41 >> Passed and ordained by the City Council of the City
13:39:43 of Tampa on November 16, 2006, correcting a scrivener's
13:39:46 error by substituting the approved site plan dated
13:39:49 October 13, 2006, for the old site plan dated September
13:39:54 1, 2006, attached to the ordinance that was supplied in
13:39:58 error, providing for severability, providing an
13:40:00 effective date.
13:40:01 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
13:40:03 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
13:40:04 Opposed, Nay.
13:40:07 [Motion Carried Unanimously]
13:40:08 Mrs. Saul-Sena, read number 16, please.
13:40:12 Alls.
13:40:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to read move an ordinance,
13:40:16 an ordinance amending ordinance 2006-233 passed and
13:40:20 ordained by the City Council of the City of Tampa on
13:40:23 September 28, 2006, which approved a Fifth Amendment to
13:40:26 a development order for the Tampa cruise ship terminal

13:40:30 DRI number 118 by substituting a corrected map H for an
13:40:35 incorrect map H that was supplied in error providing
13:40:39 for severability, providing an effective date.
13:40:41 >> Second.
13:40:41 (Motion Carried).
13:40:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Committee reports.
13:40:46 Mary Alvarez.
13:40:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move 17 through 20.
13:40:55 >> Second.
13:40:55 (Motion Carried).
13:40:55 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move 21 through 23.
13:41:02 >> Second.
13:41:02 (Motion carried).
13:41:03 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move 24 through 27.
13:41:09 >> Second.
13:41:09 (Motion carried).
13:41:09 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Move 28 through 31.
13:41:12 >> Second.
13:41:13 (Motion carried).
13:41:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Ms. Linda
13:41:16 Saul-Sena.
13:41:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move resolutions 32

13:41:24 through 45.
13:41:25 >>THE CLERK: We have a substitute resolution for item
13:41:31 number 32.
13:41:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the substitute
13:41:35 resolution 32 through 45.
13:41:38 >> Second.
13:41:38 (Motion carried).
13:41:39 >>CHAIRMAN: Transportation, Mr. Shawn Harrison.
13:41:44 >> Move items 46 through 48.
13:41:46 >> Second.
13:41:46 (Motion carried).
13:41:47 >> Move the new business items 49 through 56.
13:41:53 >> Second.
13:41:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:41:55 (Motion carried).
13:41:56 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to our ordinances for second
13:42:01 reading.
13:42:01 We need to open the public hearing.
13:42:08 59.
13:42:09 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
13:42:11 item 57?
13:42:12 >> Move to close.

13:42:13 >> Second.
13:42:13 (Motion carried).
13:42:14 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to adopt the following ordinance
13:42:17 upon second reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
13:42:20 Florida amending City of Tampa code of ordinances
13:42:23 chapter 5, building code, section 5-113.2, appeals by
13:42:28 amending the notice requirements for appeals taken from
13:42:30 decisions made by the Hillsborough County board of
13:42:32 adjustment, appeals and examiners, providing for
13:42:34 severability, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
13:42:37 conflict, providing an effective date.
13:42:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:42:40 Voice roll call.
13:42:43 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.
13:42:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
13:42:45 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
13:42:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
13:42:47 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
13:42:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: (No response.)
13:42:51 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
13:42:52 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
13:42:55 >> Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on

13:42:57 item 58?
13:42:58 >> Move to close.
13:42:59 >> Second.
13:42:59 (Motion carried).
13:43:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move -- -- move to adopt the
13:43:12 following ordinance on second reading, an ordinance of
13:43:15 the City of Tampa Florida revising chapter 16 City of
13:43:19 Tampa code of ordinances amending section 16-26 tree
13:43:23 trust fund established, repealing all ordinances or
13:43:26 parts of ordinances in conflict herewith, providing for
13:43:29 severability, providing an effective date.
13:43:31 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion an second.
13:43:32 Voice roll call.
13:43:33 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.
13:43:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
13:43:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
13:43:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
13:43:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
13:43:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
13:43:43 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
13:43:44 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
13:43:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the in the public

13:43:48 that wants to speak on item 59?
13:43:50 >> Move to close.
13:43:50 >> Second.
13:43:51 (Motion carried).
13:43:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, ma'am.
13:44:02 59?
13:44:02 I move to adopt the following ordinance upon second
13:44:05 reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the general
13:44:08 vicinity of 311 bungalow Avenue in the city of Tampa,
13:44:12 Florida and more particularly described in section 1
13:44:15 from zoning district classifications RM-16 residential
13:44:20 multifamily to PD planned development multifamily
13:44:24 residential, providing an effective date.
13:44:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion on the question.
13:44:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was going to convince my
13:44:35 colleagues to vote against this.
13:44:36 The reason I voted against it is because we heard
13:44:39 testimony about the character of the neighborhood and
13:44:40 what's being proposed according to the testimony
13:44:43 received, it was not compatible, visually or in terms
13:44:51 of density so I am trying to convince you knew folks to
13:44:54 vote against it but if you are not comfortable doing

13:44:56 that maybe would you like to continue for a week to
13:44:58 give yourself a chance to look at the site plan and
13:45:00 then think about that.
13:45:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
13:45:04 Voice roll call.
13:45:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: what's the motion, not to continue
13:45:09 it?
13:45:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We are voting on it.
13:45:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The motion is to approve.
13:45:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Approve.
13:45:15 Voice roll call.
13:45:18 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Being new, and if I am out of order
13:45:21 just tell me.
13:45:21 There was a staff recommendation that was in the
13:45:24 package, had some objections that were in place, and I
13:45:28 was curious if I could find out from staff if there's
13:45:32 objection -- if those objections still stand or if they
13:45:35 have been corrected is since the last hearing.
13:45:39 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We have to move to reopen the hearing
13:45:41 now.
13:45:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to reopen.
13:45:43 >> Second.

13:45:43 (Motion carried)
13:45:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development. This project
13:45:51 originally came through and I did raise objections as
13:45:56 to compatibility of the project for the surrounding
13:45:59 area.
13:46:01 There is a single-family home just to the south of the
13:46:04 property on bungalow.
13:46:07 I can show you some pictures.
13:46:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Because we have reopened the public
13:46:14 hearing we are going to have to swear witnesses.
13:46:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's interesting about this
13:46:25 procedure, Mitchell?
13:46:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Before we go on, hold on.
13:46:31 Is anyone going to speak on item 59?
13:46:33 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
13:46:35 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:46:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If there has been any ex parte
13:47:00 communications relative to this hearing or any hearing
13:47:04 that you will be having today, to please disclose those
13:47:06 prior to the vote with, whom you have spoken and the
13:47:08 substance of that verbal communication.
13:47:09 I don't believe there's been anything to be received

13:47:11 and filed for today's hearing.
13:47:13 Is that correct?
13:47:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I will put this on the Elmo for you
13:47:22 real quick.
13:47:22 The subject property is one block north of Azeele on
13:47:25 south bungalow Park Avenue.
13:47:28 As you can see from the aerial there are several town
13:47:31 home developments that are on the block.
13:47:36 They are older.
13:47:38 The one immediately adjacent to the property is older.
13:47:41 I will show you pictures of that.
13:47:42 This is the subject property.
13:47:46 This is the one single-family home to the south of the
13:47:48 subject property.
13:47:54 These are the town homes immediately to the north.
13:47:56 Here are the other town homes located on the block.
13:48:03 Predominantly everything is two story on that block.
13:48:07 There is a single-family home across the street.
13:48:10 When the project first came in, it was the height, the
13:48:18 maximum scale of the project, the lot is 100 -- let me
13:48:24 make sure I get that right.
13:48:26 Building took up the majority of the lot.

13:48:28 Council had advised the petitioner to consider doing
13:48:30 two units on the property and to come back.
13:48:33 The petitioner looked at the property and financially
13:48:35 was unable to do the two units.
13:48:40 They made some changes.
13:48:41 They added ribbon driveways to the front to break up
13:48:44 the driveways that are now going to be on bungalow.
13:48:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have a site plan elevation to
13:48:50 share?
13:48:52 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.
13:48:54 The design of the project with the addition of the
13:49:09 bungalow driveway, my objections are compatibility on
13:49:14 this case.
13:49:16 The petitioner did get letters of support from the
13:49:18 neighborhood, and in contrast of what's going on in
13:49:24 this area on that zoning, the opposite end of bungalow
13:49:32 on the corner, there is a -- south corner, there is a
13:49:36 CD planned development there for, I believe, eight
13:49:39 units, and the gentleman who purchased that property
13:49:41 now owns the house immediately to the south of this
13:49:45 proposed site, and is seeking to redevelop that as
13:49:48 well.

13:49:49 So there are some transitional uses going on on that
13:49:57 block that may warrant this.
13:50:03 My staff report was based on the design and that design
13:50:06 did not change.
13:50:07 I carry those objections forward.
13:50:11 >> And that was height and I think there was a note
13:50:13 about the different architectural style and those types
13:50:15 of issues.
13:50:16 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Yes.
13:50:17 Predominantly bungalow homes right across more of a
13:50:22 Mediterranean revival style.
13:50:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I wanted to say very briefly when
13:50:30 this project first came up, I think the street was a
13:50:36 little more mixed in terms of being single-family.
13:50:39 But as the months have gone by, and the time goes by,
13:50:43 the street is basically gone.
13:50:53 I don't think the design of this particular project is
13:50:56 anything to write home about but that's not our
13:50:58 criteria today.
13:50:59 So I am going to reconsider my original vote and I will
13:51:05 vote for this because there's a lot of other town homes
13:51:08 up and down this street.

13:51:10 Especially in light of the fact that there's testimony,
13:51:12 I guess, the only single family house that's
13:51:15 immediately adjacent to it is now in the possession of
13:51:18 the property owner and objecting would be kind of moot.
13:51:25 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Here on behalf of petitioner.
13:51:30 >> Were you sworn?
13:51:31 >> Yes, I was.
13:51:32 I was one of the two.
13:51:36 This project was -- there was some question about the
13:51:38 height.
13:51:39 And you can build a single-family house, 35 feet in
13:51:42 height, with similar setbacks.
13:51:45 The massing and the scale issue that staff raised would
13:51:48 also apply to a single-family house that you could
13:51:50 build without permit, without additional variances from
13:51:54 the city.
13:51:54 And the same thing would be true of a duplex.
13:51:57 You can build the same size, mass, scale that's being
13:52:00 proposed here.
13:52:00 What's different is that we have added architectural
13:52:05 articulation and surrounded all the surrounding
13:52:08 property owners and had unanimous support which we

13:52:11 entered into the record from last hearing and all of
13:52:13 the surrounding property owners are supporting this.
13:52:15 We have had no objection.
13:52:16 These were technical design staff objections.
13:52:20 I would say this is compatible.
13:52:23 It does have sort of a Mediterranean look to it.
13:52:27 And it does have flat roof and is an extremely
13:52:31 sensitive project to the neighborhood.
13:52:32 There are townhouses all around there and professional
13:52:35 office as long Azeele.
13:52:36 So we would think that this would be an attractive
13:52:45 decision to the area, not a detraction.
13:52:48 And Ms. Ferlita and Mr. White supported this originally
13:52:53 before their moving onto the county commission.
13:52:55 I would strongly urge you to vote in support of this
13:52:58 project. The reason there's three units because the
13:53:00 land costs are so high, we have no control over that.
13:53:03 And the third unit is the owner of the property plans
13:53:08 to live in so it's not an additional unit being sold
13:53:11 off to someone else.
13:53:12 It's just private residence.
13:53:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Kevin can only have influence over

13:53:18 when we take lunch.
13:53:20 [ Laughter ]
13:53:22 >>> I respectfully request your approval.
13:53:23 Thank you very much.
13:53:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else in the public want to speak
13:53:26 on item 59?
13:53:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: I want to make clear, the only
13:53:33 opposition you have to this project is the height
13:53:36 requirement?
13:53:36 >>>
13:53:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: The lot was 122 feet in depth and I
13:53:51 believe that the building.
13:53:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Abbeye, what do you mean by the mass
13:53:58 and scale as a planner?
13:54:00 What do you mean by mass?
13:54:04 >>ABBYE FEELEY: When you look at it, especially with
13:54:07 the single-family home to the south, when you were
13:54:09 driving down Azeele and looked north, all would you see
13:54:12 then is this one big wall at the building with the
13:54:16 windows there.
13:54:17 So in relation to that and how it was functioning with
13:54:20 the existing neighborhood, we did have concerns that it

13:54:23 wasn't compatible.
13:54:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to stand upon my --
13:54:35 expand upon my objection this is going to be three
13:54:39 stories.
13:54:39 This is going to be a much larger structure than the
13:54:44 other.
13:54:44 And the ceiling level on the street, I believe, is
13:54:47 going to feel less residential, more multifamily
13:54:53 towards commercial.
13:54:54 And what wave seen in this neighborhood obviously is
13:54:57 inclined toward multifamily.
13:54:58 It's really a reflection of how much, how dense, what
13:55:03 scale.
13:55:04 And my protective feelings toward the neighborhood for
13:55:13 what's proposed is going to have a negative impact
13:55:15 because of so much more density.
13:55:16 I believe the lots are only 80 feet wide.
13:55:30 And I paid attention to the staff recommendation and
13:55:33 I'm familiar with the neighborhood, and that's where I
13:55:36 am against it.
13:55:38 We are seeing a lot of transition.
13:55:39 It's only a question of scale of what's being proposed.

13:55:44 >>CHAIRMAN: We need to close the public hearing.
13:55:46 >> So moved.
13:55:46 >> Second.
13:55:47 (Motion carried).
13:55:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Reddick, oh would you read that
13:55:55 again?
13:55:56 >> Move the following ordinance in the general vicinity
13:55:58 of 311 bungalow Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida
13:56:01 and more particularly described in section 1 from
13:56:03 zoning district classifications RM-16 residential
13:56:08 multifamily to PD, planned development, multifamily
13:56:12 residential, providing an effective date.
13:56:13 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
13:56:15 Voice roll call.
13:56:16 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No.
13:56:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
13:56:20 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
13:56:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
13:56:23 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
13:56:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
13:56:27 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
13:56:28 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Fletcher and Saul-Sena

13:56:32 voting no.
13:56:33 >> Is there anyone in the public going to speak on item
13:56:36 60 through 64?
13:56:37 Will you please stand and raise your right hand?
13:56:39 (Oath administered by Clerk) 6 need to open number 60
13:56:55 through 64.
13:56:56 >> So moved.
13:56:57 >> Second.
13:56:57 (Motion carried).
13:56:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone going to speak on item 60?
13:57:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
13:57:02 >> Second.
13:57:02 (Motion carried).
13:57:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
13:57:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to adopt the following
13:57:08 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance authorizing
13:57:11 an encroachment of an existing architectural feature,
13:57:15 steps, over a portion of the public right-of-way at the
13:57:18 intersection of Moody Avenue and west Horatio Avenue in
13:57:20 the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County as more
13:57:23 particularly described herein subject to certain terms,
13:57:25 covenants 'n conditions and agreements as more

13:57:27 particularly described herein, providing an effective
13:57:29 date.
13:57:29 >> I have a motion and second.
13:57:31 Voice roll call.
13:57:32 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.
13:57:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
13:57:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
13:57:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
13:57:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
13:57:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
13:57:39 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
13:57:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
13:57:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants
13:57:45 to speak on item 61?
13:57:46 >> Move to close.
13:57:47 >> Second.
13:57:48 (Motion carried).
13:57:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following ordinance
13:57:54 upon second reading, an ordinance making lawful the
13:57:56 sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by
13:57:59 weight and not more than 14% by weight and wines
13:58:01 regardless of alcoholic content, beer and wine,

13:58:04 2(COP-R), for consumption on the premises only in
13:58:06 connection with a restaurant business establishment at
13:58:09 or from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
13:58:12 at 1905 and 1907 north 19th street, Tampa, Florida,
13:58:16 as more particularly described in section 2 hereof,
13:58:19 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
13:58:23 certain findings, providing for repeal of all
13:58:25 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
13:58:28 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
13:58:29 Voice roll call.
13:58:31 >>THE CLERK: I didn't get the second.
13:58:33 >> Second.
13:58:33 >> Second.
13:58:38 >>THE CLERK: Fletcher, yes.
13:58:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
13:58:43 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
13:58:45 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Absolutely.
13:58:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
13:58:48 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
13:58:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
13:58:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
13:58:51 item 62?

13:58:53 >> Move approval.
13:58:53 >> Second.
13:58:54 (Motion carried).
13:58:54 >> Move to adopt the following on second reading, an
13:59:03 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
13:59:05 3819 west Bay Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and
13:59:08 more particularly described in section 1 from zoning
13:59:10 district classifications RS-60 res dings single family
13:59:13 to RS-50 residential single family providing an
13:59:16 effective date.
13:59:18 >> Voice roll call.
13:59:23 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
13:59:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants
13:59:33 to speak on item number 63?
13:59:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
13:59:37 >> Second.
13:59:37 (Motion carried).
13:59:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move the following
13:59:44 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning
13:59:46 property in the general vicinity of 2804 West Virginia
13:59:49 Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
13:59:51 particularly described in section 1 from zoning

13:59:52 district classifications RS-50 residential
13:59:55 single-family to PD, planned development, professional
13:59:58 office and medical office, providing an effective date.
14:00:00 >> I have a motion and second.
14:00:02 Voice roll call.
14:00:03 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.
14:00:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:00:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:00:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:00:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:00:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
14:00:10 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
14:00:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
14:00:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants
14:00:14 to speak on item number 64?
14:00:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
14:00:18 >> Second.
14:00:18 (Motion carried).
14:00:20 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I move to adopt the following
14:00:28 ordinance on second reading, an ordinance rezoning
14:00:30 property in the general vicinity of 2111 west Paris
14:00:34 street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more

14:00:36 particularly described in section 1, from zoning
14:00:40 district classifications RS-60 residential
14:00:44 single-family to RS-50 residential single-family,
14:00:49 providing an effective date.
14:00:51 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
14:00:52 Voice roll call.
14:00:53 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes.
14:00:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
14:00:55 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Yes.
14:00:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
14:00:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Yes.
14:00:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
14:01:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
14:01:02 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
14:01:03 >>CHAIRMAN: Public hearings.
14:01:06 Is there anyone in the public going to speak on item 65
14:01:09 or 66?
14:01:11 Please stand and raise your right hand.
14:01:13 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:01:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open number 65.
14:01:24 >> So moved.
14:01:24 >> Second.

14:01:25 (Motion carried).
14:01:28 >>> This is a vacating located in East Tampa, and more
14:01:31 generally near Broadway and orient road.
14:01:36 Petitioner's property is hatched in red and the
14:01:39 vacating is in yellow.
14:01:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, did you put your name on
14:01:43 the record?
14:01:44 >>> I'm sorry, Barbara Lynch, Land Development
14:01:46 Coordination.
14:01:47 I have been sworn.
14:01:48 Petitioner is requesting to vacate a portion of 8th
14:01:51 Avenue from 71 --
14:01:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you orient us?
14:01:57 >>> Yes.
14:01:58 They want to vacate this portion between 71st and
14:02:01 72nd street.
14:02:02 And it lies between 7th Avenue and 9th Avenue.
14:02:14 There was a previous vacating you previously had
14:02:43 approved this apportionment
14:02:55 This is 8th Avenue looking west from 72nd street.
14:03:01 This is the petitioner's property.
14:03:04 Corner of 8th and 72nd street.

14:03:07 And this is the abutting property to the south.
14:03:15 This is another abutting owner on the southeast corner
14:03:20 of 72nd and 8th.
14:03:22 And this is the street that was previously vacated 72nd
14:03:27 street to the south of 8th.
14:03:29 This is 8th Avenue.
14:03:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you show that area map again
14:03:39 real quick?
14:03:41 >>> Yes.
14:03:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's already been vacated?
14:03:43 >>> This piece here.
14:03:52 Originally, they wanted a joint petition but the two
14:03:55 owners did come in together.
14:03:58 So this was vacated just shy of the intersection.
14:04:02 And it was submitted shy of the intersection for the
14:04:06 turn-around as you pointed out.
14:04:09 >> How about the continuation to the whatever direction
14:04:10 that is?
14:04:12 >>> To the west?
14:04:13 >> Yes.
14:04:14 >>> I have another.
14:04:15 >> We don't have concern about that?

14:04:18 >>> I'm sorry?
14:04:19 >> We don't have concern about that?
14:04:21 Transportation doesn't have concern about that?
14:04:23 >>> Well, Calvin isn't here right now, but we had some
14:04:26 meetings with the adjacent property owner here.
14:04:29 And they currently come out here, go around like this.
14:04:36 And they come up here.
14:04:37 And they have concerns about the vacating but they have
14:04:47 worked with the petitioner to do like a joint use, and
14:04:52 I'll let petitioner speak to that a little more.
14:04:58 This owner is no longer here.
14:05:00 He went with the petitioner and worked out an agreement
14:05:02 to compromise.
14:05:03 He had some concerns about this being closed for future
14:05:07 use.
14:05:08 But one of the problems is, if he wanted this built it
14:05:20 would be incredibly expensive and he stated he couldn't
14:05:22 afford to fund it.
14:05:23 So.
14:05:30 He's very happy with the compromise.
14:05:32 It was worked out with the petitioner.
14:05:35 If it ever came to a problem, I guess there is a lot of

14:05:40 industrial growth down here.
14:05:41 And several times they are blocked using the
14:05:44 right-of-way by trucks being parked in the
14:05:46 right-of-way.
14:05:46 And four feet right-of-way.
14:05:52 It's not real wide down there.
14:05:56 This is all one owner.
14:06:08 And come to a compromise situation on that.
14:06:10 Petitioner can answer more questions about that.
14:06:12 But staff had no objections to this petition.
14:06:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Can I ask one other question?
14:06:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I didn't hear you discuss the owner
14:06:24 to the south.
14:06:26 And it seems to me that -- maybe you can answer and
14:06:29 maybe petitioner can.
14:06:30 But why would we possibly give up a public right-of-way
14:06:33 to a private entity precluding potential for a public
14:06:37 right-of-way in the future when usually when people ask
14:06:40 for vacation, they own property on both sides of the
14:06:43 property, they want vacated.
14:06:45 In this case, my understanding from what you said, they
14:06:48 just own the property to the north.

14:06:49 >>> Yes, they do. Originally, when this first petition
14:06:52 came in, it's my understanding that the two entities,
14:06:56 this group here they just didn't get together to do it.
14:07:09 So this group submitted for this piece.
14:07:12 This group for this piece.
14:07:19 I guess he's in agreement.
14:07:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question is, you are representing
14:07:25 the public.
14:07:25 You are not representing the property owners.
14:07:28 >>> No, I am not.
14:07:29 >> So from a public perspective, what is your take on
14:07:32 that?
14:07:33 >>> Well, I will let Calvin speak to that, because
14:07:40 transportation, he can tell you what he heard about
14:07:43 circulation issues so he can explain it better than I
14:07:46 can.
14:07:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I guess this would be as good
14:07:50 a time as any to do this.
14:07:51 Last time rights-of-way came up, Rolando Santiago gave
14:07:56 a nice explanation of the criteria that you use for
14:08:00 vacating.
14:08:01 In February of this year he did a memo for council that

14:08:04 on the second page was for the criteria, in hard copy,
14:08:08 and I thought it would be useful for council to have it
14:08:10 again.
14:08:14 Were you sworn in?
14:08:15 >>CALVIN THORNTON: I do.
14:08:26 Calvin Thornton, transportation.
14:08:27 This is an unimproved right-of-way area.
14:08:45 To T one to the north is 9th Avenue, to the south
14:08:48 is 7th Avenue.
14:08:49 Both of those are improved rights-of-way.
14:08:51 This one is -- one is unimproved.
14:08:54 We don't have improved right-of-way.
14:08:58 So if it would have to be done, it would have to be the
14:09:01 developer's responsibility.
14:09:07 He said Edna money to make improvements.
14:09:09 One of the things about this area here, the water table
14:09:11 is very high.
14:09:12 Any improvement probably done out here is going to need
14:09:16 to have -- they might need -- given the cost, it's
14:09:27 something that would never be done.
14:09:30 Don't have enough real estate and to be willing to
14:09:35 capture water, without being a lot more elevated than

14:09:40 it is now.
14:09:41 And I was in a 2:00 meeting.
14:09:43 I heard you call and I came running over.
14:09:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
14:09:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The thing I'm a little confused
14:09:52 about, I thought it was the general policy of your
14:09:54 department to not support road vacatings, period.
14:09:59 I mean, I thought that we look at roads as a long-term
14:10:03 proposition.
14:10:04 We are here for the public.
14:10:06 The public owns the roads.
14:10:08 You know, we can look at this in the 100 year context.
14:10:12 We know if we are going to have funding for this 100
14:10:14 years from now, we don't know what that property will
14:10:19 be used for in a hundred years but if we give it away
14:10:22 we know it won't be used by the public a hundred years
14:10:27 from now.
14:10:27 >>CALVIN THORNTON: Has some value because of the fact
14:10:35 that the motorist starts driving down and there is some
14:10:37 traffic on this road.
14:10:39 But this is one particular right-of-way, and given the
14:10:41 fact that no one has been on this, we don't even know

14:10:45 if it's even suitable for roadway, given the height of
14:10:51 it.
14:10:52 This area is prone to flooding.
14:10:54 7th Avenue floods in heavy rain.
14:10:58 This portion of the road would be under water.
14:11:02 When we make improvements, we have to elevate
14:11:07 everything to where it doesn't flood.
14:11:10 If it continues to flood you lose the roadway.
14:11:13 It washes out.
14:11:15 The portion that is approved, we can't have apportion.
14:11:21 If we do that we need a pond site.
14:11:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I'm not suggesting that's going
14:11:25 to be improved in our lifetime.
14:11:27 But I guess my point being that we don't know what the
14:11:29 future brings.
14:11:30 So the key question that Mr. Shelby brings up is public
14:11:33 purpose.
14:11:36 And what's the public purpose related to vacating part
14:11:40 of a grid system?
14:11:42 I'm looking at what looks to be the inner core part of
14:11:46 the grid system for that little industrial park.
14:11:49 Today it's an industrial park.

14:11:50 I don't know what it's going to be 100 years from now.
14:11:56 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Dingfelder, maybe this will be one
14:12:00 of the criteria that it has in here, will it alleviate
14:12:06 the public from the cost of maintaining a right-of-way
14:12:08 in a longer useful or used by only a few members of the
14:12:12 public?
14:12:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right, but we don't maintain it now
14:12:15 so there is no cost.
14:12:16 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Exactly.
14:12:21 In the future they are not going to come out and do
14:12:23 that if there's no utility over there.
14:12:25 It just belongs to this guy here and he just wants to
14:12:28 do it.
14:12:28 I mean --
14:12:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree with you wholeheartedly,
14:12:37 Mary, but if you look at this, this is not just about
14:12:39 that adjacent property.
14:12:40 This is in the middle of all these property owners.
14:12:44 And so now they have to cut side agreements and cross
14:12:48 access agreements.
14:12:49 You do this, you do that.
14:12:50 That just seems to be contrary to the public purpose.

14:12:53 And I don't know, I haven't been out there, I don't
14:12:55 know the details.
14:12:56 But looking at this grid system, it's like, I don't see
14:12:59 it.
14:12:59 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It seems to me like they have the
14:13:03 criteria that they go by, and I'm willing to support
14:13:09 it.
14:13:14 The City of Tampa, administration.
14:13:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder that the petitioner
14:13:19 hasn't made their presentation yet.
14:13:21 I want you to be aware that petitioner will have a
14:13:23 right to address these issues.
14:13:33 >> I think we have a standard we need to meet which is
14:13:36 a finding that this is in the public interest.
14:13:38 And I have not heard anything, any sworn testimony,
14:13:40 that will support at this point, at least that I heard,
14:13:44 a finding that it's in the public interest.
14:13:46 I'm hoping that I will hear that at some point.
14:13:48 But I think we need that in the record so that we can
14:13:52 make this determination in favor of a vacating.
14:13:55 And there are some examples.
14:13:58 And Mr. Santiago's memo that may or may not be

14:14:01 applicable.
14:14:02 But I'm hoping that staff or the petitioner could
14:14:05 provide that for us before we move a whole lot further
14:14:09 on this so we can have a clear statement in the record
14:14:11 as to why this is in the public interest.
14:14:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize for interrupting.
14:14:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
14:14:17 >>> I'm Esteban Resendez.
14:14:32 I have been sworn.
14:14:34 We have asked for this petition for several reasons.
14:14:38 One is security purposes.
14:14:45 In that section, there's some very high security
14:14:49 issues, vagrancy is high, prostitution the high.
14:14:53 We caught after hours, late at night, the property is
14:14:57 unsecure several years ago, vagrants, we have found
14:15:04 needles, drug paraphernalia in our backyard, because of
14:15:12 this roadway is unimproved and just open to the public.
14:15:14 We are trying to secure that by putting up a gate,
14:15:18 putting up a six foot hey fence, barbed wire, whatnot,
14:15:23 that will secure that, because of the amount of traffic
14:15:26 that goes on after hours that is uncontrolled, and
14:15:31 because of the unimprovements have been done, we find

14:15:36 it a big measure that needs to be taken, whether it's
14:15:39 the city coming out and securing it and developing it,
14:15:43 or ourselves vacating it and securing it ourselves with
14:15:47 the adjacent property owner who has -- we both agreed
14:15:50 to put up a fence.
14:15:51 We are going to split the cost.
14:15:55 We are going to do a surveillance type of security
14:15:57 system in '07 to make it profitable.
14:16:01 Also our business has grown substantially.
14:16:05 With that comes taxes.
14:16:08 We pay taxes to the city, the state, the county, on the
14:16:12 business that we do, the amount of business that we do.
14:16:15 It's also big growth to the community to help whether
14:16:20 fund roadways, environmental aspects or whatnot.
14:16:23 Also, in the far west corner of our property is a
14:16:30 grandfathered oak tree that's over 36 inches that's
14:16:34 right now, if the roadway was to be developed, say 10,
14:16:38 15, 20 years ago, it would have to be grandfathered oak
14:16:41 tree, it would have to be cut down.
14:16:44 By us taking responsibility, we are not going to cut
14:16:47 down that tree.
14:16:47 It's a grandfathered tree.

14:16:49 We are an environmental company.
14:16:51 We are all about the environment.
14:16:53 We are not there to cut down trees.
14:16:55 Just build a roadway.
14:16:59 We have come to agreement with one of our neighbors
14:17:01 about being able to access the property.
14:17:04 He would have to try and petition for that tree.
14:17:07 And I don't think that -- myself, I don't believe that
14:17:14 there's any growth to that area other than just
14:17:18 industrial park.
14:17:19 And I don't know 100 years from now, in our lifetime,
14:17:22 what's going to happen.
14:17:23 But in the immediate future, our company is not going
14:17:26 anywhere, that road is not going anywhere, our growth
14:17:32 is growing in our business.
14:17:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: your picture of your building or
14:17:41 your operation or anything like that --
14:17:43 >>> No, I did not bring a picture, other than that
14:17:46 overview.
14:17:49 >> Can you point to the overview and tell us what's
14:17:52 happening where in regard to your business?
14:17:56 >>> Sure.

14:17:58 This would probably be the best picture here.
14:18:01 This is coming in from -- that's what we plan on
14:18:13 petitioning.
14:18:14 This back here, you see here, that's actually our
14:18:19 building.
14:18:30 To the south in this direction.
14:18:32 That's actually our growth.
14:18:33 We currently, just to give you some quick numbers,
14:18:40 roughly around 300,000 pounds of waste, nonhazardous
14:18:47 waste for industry and from counties and whatnot, to
14:18:51 about 1.2 million pounds per quarter which is
14:18:57 significant growth and that comes with many tax
14:19:00 dollars, a lot of community outreach.
14:19:03 We hold many contracts with counties, cities,
14:19:07 municipalities, collecting -- my company provides the
14:19:15 services for that.
14:19:17 We have an adjacent property, contiguous piece of
14:19:20 property that we have taken the majority of that to.
14:19:23 We bring it into a section of that facility, the
14:19:27 latex-based type paints and mix them up and send them
14:19:30 out.
14:19:31 With that growth, within the community, it's not being

14:19:36 outsourced to somewhere other than the state.
14:19:41 We have done that outreach quite significantly.
14:19:44 It's helped to improve.
14:19:48 The roadway again is unimproved.
14:19:50 We see the power lines.
14:19:52 We have those power lines with on the south side put in
14:19:58 for our benefit, because of security problems.
14:20:00 There was no lighting lit at night.
14:20:03 We have paid that out of pocket, because of security
14:20:06 issues.
14:20:07 And we are continuing to improve and put more lighting
14:20:09 back there, without asking for help or anything from
14:20:13 the community, to benefit the public.
14:20:19 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Are you saying on the property that
14:20:20 the -- the alley that exists now, that there is illegal
14:20:28 activity, things of that nature?
14:20:31 >>> Yes, there was.
14:20:35 We were not ourselves -- this slide here, that
14:20:43 overgrowth on it.
14:20:45 We close that gate after hours because of those
14:20:48 activities that were occurring.
14:20:51 Whether they were dumping on our property or on the

14:20:54 right-of-way.
14:20:57 >> For our new colleagues, we have in the past often
14:21:01 used that as a rationale for a public purpose.
14:21:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that wants
14:21:05 to speak on item number 65?
14:21:13 Need to close.
14:21:14 >> So moved.
14:21:14 >> Second.
14:21:15 (Motion carried).
14:21:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I ask a question?
14:21:18 One more question before you close.
14:21:21 Can you point to where the roadway is?
14:21:25 The roadway line is closest to your property.
14:21:32 >>> There is properly -- you see where the post is
14:21:36 here.
14:21:36 Approximately 83 feet into there.
14:21:38 That's where it ends.
14:21:39 And that's where I am actually proposing to put the new
14:21:43 gate and close off 8th Avenue.
14:21:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The part that I don't understand in
14:21:51 terms of security is, why not run a fence along your
14:21:57 property line, which I think you can do at a minimum of

14:22:01 six foot chain wine fence, barbed wire fence is
14:22:06 industrial, and run a fence at the property line close
14:22:09 to the street and that way you protect your property,
14:22:12 et cetera, et cetera.
14:22:14 >>> We did think about that.
14:22:15 And because we said earlier, what I said earlier, the
14:22:18 dumping, the late-night stuff that happens after hours,
14:22:23 when it's dark, we start to put a gate up here at the
14:22:28 front and go ahead and close it off instead of running
14:22:30 a line all the way down and have overgrowth and an area
14:22:35 that can't be reachable at any time, you know, by any
14:22:42 car, people just walking back there and doing whatever
14:22:44 they do after hours.
14:22:46 And that's the main reason.
14:22:48 We would rather just put a gate up front and draw a
14:22:51 whole line, and then have 40-foot wide road, or
14:22:55 unimproved road, with overgrowth, dumping, et cetera,
14:22:59 when we end up coming back and having to clean the five
14:23:02 foot of easement that's now in our property.
14:23:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff.
14:23:10 If this is about an acre of land that in essence we are
14:23:14 giving to the property owner, are we precluded from

14:23:20 charging him for it?
14:23:21 I mean, because he says the reason he wants to do this
14:23:24 is to save money on his fencing.
14:23:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We have asked Roland in the past.
14:23:29 It's sort of a legal question.
14:23:33 >>> Real quickly bits 15,000 square feet.
14:23:36 And the main reason we can't charge that I have always
14:23:40 understood is that this is platted right-of-way, the
14:23:42 city does not have a fee ownership interest in the
14:23:44 right-of-way, it was created by the developer who
14:23:46 platted it, and so we basically treat it like a super
14:23:52 easement over this area so when that goes away, usually
14:23:54 it reverts to be abutting property owners similar to an
14:23:58 alley.
14:23:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fletcher?
14:24:02 >>DAVID SMITH: That was a very good explanation.
14:24:04 Essentially the rule in Florida is what we call the
14:24:05 scepter line ownership rule.
14:24:07 Unless we own the deed to the property which in this
14:24:11 instance we do not, what's created in the public is a
14:24:14 right-of-way and what remains is the underlying fee
14:24:17 belongs to the property owner on both sides.

14:24:19 So when the public's right-of-way of way is vacated,
14:24:23 the fee reverts to the contiguous property owners.
14:24:27 There are exceptions to that which we don't need to go
14:24:29 into here.
14:24:31 But that's the general rule.
14:24:32 >> So in this case even though the property owner is on
14:24:36 one side of the street, the property is actually split
14:24:39 down the middle between the property owners?
14:24:44 >>> If he would go from the center line outward to the
14:24:46 contiguous property owners, that's correct.
14:24:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have a question?
14:24:51 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Actually more of a comment.
14:24:53 I think based on the petitioner's testimony, that it's
14:24:58 necessary to protect public health and safety that we
14:25:00 have a basis for public interest and I would support
14:25:03 it.
14:25:03 >> Move to close the public hearing.
14:25:04 >> I have a motion and second.
14:25:05 All in favor say Aye.
14:25:07 (Motion carried).
14:25:09 >>MARY ALVAREZ: An ordinance vacating, closing,
14:25:11 discontinuing, and abandoning a certain right-of-way

14:25:15 all that portion of 8th Avenue lying south of
14:25:17 9th Avenue north of 7th Avenue east of 71st
14:25:20 Avenue and west of orient road in orient park a
14:25:25 subdivision in the City of Tampa, the same being more
14:25:27 fully described in section 2 hereof, providing an
14:25:28 effective date.
14:25:29 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
14:25:31 (Motion carried).
14:25:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, I have a question for you.
14:25:39 As a follow-up to this.
14:25:40 We often find ourselves in these situations that I
14:25:43 would call short-term problems.
14:25:46 We have a short-term crime problem, vandalism problem,
14:25:50 trash problem, that sort of thing.
14:25:52 And so the first thing everybody asks us to do is we
14:25:55 have to vacate the alley, we have to vacate the road.
14:25:58 And no criticism, I understand your position.
14:26:00 We have to vacate these to solve a short-term problem.
14:26:03 And I would like to ask legal 90 days from now to look
14:26:09 at that issue and see if there's some way that we can
14:26:12 come up with a short-term solution that is not a
14:26:17 long-term vacating of the property.

14:26:20 As I said before, vacating is forever.
14:26:23 That parcel is now gone.
14:26:25 The grid is gone.
14:26:26 We have now lost another piece of city right-of-way.
14:26:29 We don't have that much to start with.
14:26:33 So if my motion is clear, thank you, Linda, that would
14:26:38 be it.
14:26:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm willing to support the motion to
14:26:43 let legal look at it but I think ultimately what
14:26:45 happens is the fact that the property is being used as
14:26:50 a nuisance or in some sort of dangerous way is because
14:26:53 it is open to the public.
14:26:54 And the only way to remedy that would to be close it
14:26:59 off so the public doesn't have access.
14:27:01 So you do that either by vacating, which puts the
14:27:04 property back on the tax rolls, or City of Tampa has to
14:27:07 come in and somehow secure the property.
14:27:09 So I am not sure where we are going to get at the end
14:27:11 of the day.
14:27:12 But David doesn't have enough to do in his department,
14:27:15 so he can take a look at that and research.
14:27:20 >>> You have been reading my mail again.

14:27:21 We are happy to do that because one of the things your
14:27:25 additional burden after July 1 is to have a specific
14:27:27 basis for any motion for denial.
14:27:29 So one of the things we are going to try to do -- and
14:27:31 my staff is going to kill me -- you have fairly
14:27:34 recurring source of things, and we would like to
14:27:37 provide you a quick summary of vacating the roadway and
14:27:42 what the bases is, and would you approve it so I think
14:27:46 that will address many of those issues.
14:27:48 And it will be pretty clear what follows after that
14:27:52 summary.
14:27:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You will go beyond the summary and
14:27:56 tray to come up with perhaps a more creative way of the
14:28:00 city addressing this, in terms of temporary easement,
14:28:04 you know, of other types of mechanisms.
14:28:06 Because I think council often finds itself torn.
14:28:08 I was torn on this.
14:28:10 It creates a very compelling argument, why we should
14:28:13 vacate it maybe for the next five, ten, twenty years.
14:28:18 But when you get beyond that time frame, now it's gone,
14:28:20 and it's gone forever.
14:28:21 And maybe that wasn't a good solution for the

14:28:24 long-term.
14:28:25 >>DAVID SMITH: I would be happy when we come up with
14:28:29 those parameters to make sure the administrative staff
14:28:31 is aware of it.
14:28:32 And I will make sure I understand what your request is.
14:28:36 Those kind of things -- I can tell them there's lots of
14:28:40 legal options.
14:28:41 I will be happy to at the advise them what their legal
14:28:44 options are.
14:28:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's my point.
14:28:46 Advise us what the legal options are and we can work
14:28:48 with the administration on perhaps implementing those
14:28:50 legal options.
14:28:53 As an additional option to the vacated property.
14:28:54 >>DAVID SMITH: We will look at that and address that
14:28:57 issue.
14:28:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: To that point, when we started
14:29:00 working 20 years ago and what's now called the Channel
14:29:03 District, it was this rusty, completely below the radar
14:29:08 screen murky industrial area over by the railroad track
14:29:10 and port.
14:29:11 And nobody paid any attention to it.

14:29:13 And we are very fortunate that we didn't vacate all
14:29:17 those little narrow streets in there, because otherwise
14:29:20 we wouldn't be able to have any kind of transportation
14:29:24 grid to get people around in the redeveloping area.
14:29:27 Similarly, we can't really anticipate for the future
14:29:30 what our needs are going to be.
14:29:31 And I think that's one of the things I would love you
14:29:35 to look at when you are looking as this gentleman
14:29:37 talked about, your security, the opportunities for
14:29:41 private sector people to put up lights or whatever, and
14:29:44 whatever they feel would make them more comfortable
14:29:47 facing the public land.
14:29:50 It might address their concerns for security while
14:29:57 allowing the public to view the land.
14:30:00 It's only when you have an approved right-of-way that
14:30:02 state law comes under way.
14:30:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
14:30:06 All in favor say Aye.
14:30:08 Opposed, Nay.
14:30:09 (Motion carried).
14:30:10 We are going to go to number 12 since Mr. Smith has to
14:30:12 leave.

14:30:15 >>> And before we do that, I would like to make sure
14:30:17 that the correct information was provided to you on
14:30:19 number 32, which was Centro Ybor.
14:30:24 I am not going to go into elaborate explanation but
14:30:27 there was a modification we made last night pursuant to
14:30:29 some discussions with councilman Dingfelder.
14:30:32 We clarified an issue.
14:30:33 And what I will do is I will pass this out to the
14:30:37 council.
14:30:41 >>CHAIRMAN: The substitute resolution on 32.
14:30:44 >>DAVID SMITH: Did you have the substitute page in the
14:30:48 agreement?
14:30:49 >>GWEN MILLER: The clerk had.
14:30:50 >>DAVID SMITH: I will give awe copy then.
14:30:54 If you approved the correct agreement, fine, we don't
14:30:56 need to redo that.
14:31:05 Just for the record it was simply a clarification to
14:31:07 avoid any implication of zoning.
14:31:10 It will come back before the CRA as well.
14:31:14 Centro Espanol, I have for you a document I will pass
14:31:20 out.
14:31:30 You should have received a prior version of that

14:31:32 document earlier in the week.
14:31:34 This has been an ongoing negotiation.
14:31:36 What I would like to do is give you a brief background
14:31:39 and walk you through the document.
14:31:41 Because I am not really sure which version you read.
14:31:44 And this has been an ongoing negotiation with the
14:31:46 various parties.
14:31:51 Briefly the topic we have a resolution today to approve
14:31:53 a memorandum agreement between the urban league, the
14:31:55 City of Tampa, and Wachovia bank.
14:32:00 Back in 1999, the city conveyed this property to the
14:32:03 urban league for a dollar.
14:32:07 The conveyance was intended to have the property used
14:32:10 for certain educational and cultural uses and other
14:32:14 approved uses approved by the city.
14:32:16 Eventually, a first lien to Wachovia in the amount of
14:32:20 $1,825,000 was created. The city's lien which was
14:32:24 595,000 was actually we subordinated, so you have a
14:32:28 first lien of 1,825,000, some paydown but that's
14:32:32 essentially it.
14:32:33 A second lien of 595,000 to the city.
14:32:36 And a third lien of approximately 420,000 to the

14:32:39 county.
14:32:39 The city, in addition to that, provided almost $230,000
14:32:44 of grant money that's not included in the lien.
14:32:47 For reasons that are not necessary to go into, the
14:32:50 project didn't work as anticipated.
14:32:52 The urban league tried a variety of measures to find
14:32:55 other users and other solutions to the problem.
14:32:58 The last effort, as you probably may know, was without
14:33:02 walls contract which ultimately fell through.
14:33:04 I want to make sure, however, that you recognize that I
14:33:07 believe there was a statement to the effect the city
14:33:10 had this option back in 2005.
14:33:12 That's not accurate.
14:33:13 The option in 2005 was considerably different than
14:33:16 today.
14:33:16 The option in 2005 was essentially to pay off the
14:33:19 Wachovia mortgage, put a tenant in the building at
14:33:22 15,000 a month, provide additional relief payable in
14:33:25 the amount of $350,000 and lease a portion of it back
14:33:30 to urban league at 10,000 a year. The version today is
14:33:33 considerably more attractive to the city, given our
14:33:36 scarce resources is one we can afford.

14:33:38 We are literally walking through that agreement and I
14:33:40 will explain it to you.
14:33:42 This won't take as long as you might think.
14:33:45 We have an agreement between the parties that I have
14:33:47 identified. The key factor, paragraph 2, the city
14:33:50 takes possession of the property.
14:33:51 So the city upon taking possession of the property will
14:33:54 be able to take all appropriate measures to protect it,
14:33:59 preserve it and ultimately renovate it.
14:34:02 So having possession and closing is very important.
14:34:06 What the city is actually doing is purchasing the first
14:34:08 mortgage, the Wachovia mortgage.
14:34:10 We are purchasing it for roughly a million dollars but
14:34:13 literally out of that million dollar an IRS lien for
14:34:17 urban league and other judgment lean will be paid by
14:34:20 the bank so they will give us clean title with just
14:34:22 this first mortgage.
14:34:23 That's roughly 50 cents on the dollar.
14:34:25 That's a very good deal for the city in terms of
14:34:27 economics.
14:34:29 We were a little concerned about a pledge of public
14:34:31 credit so we looked at structuring the transaction so

14:34:34 that the fees would be provided to either a nominee or
14:34:39 be held by a fiduciary until the city could deal with
14:34:42 these lien issues.
14:34:44 The contract contemplates, take the deed immediately or
14:34:49 we will take the deed through some other fiduciary.
14:34:53 Essentially, as I said, the payment to the Wachovia
14:34:56 will be approximately $1 million upon transfer.
14:34:59 We will get clean title and a survey.
14:35:01 We have got appropriate representations from the urban
14:35:04 league regarding the status of the property.
14:35:06 The only instrument or obligation outstanding that they
14:35:10 lease a portion of the public parking lot which we will
14:35:13 of course assume.
14:35:16 Closing has to be on or before December 22nd. This is
14:35:21 an opportunity that came up and the city needed to move
14:35:23 quickly to preserve the property.
14:35:26 The administration will work with the community top
14:35:28 address the kinds of educational, cultural programs
14:35:30 that are most in need in the community and will move
14:35:32 forward in implementing those programs as soon as they
14:35:34 can.
14:35:35 But this will allow the opportunity to preserve the

14:35:37 building and to preserve those opportunities.
14:35:39 The city and the county lien basically burns off over
14:35:42 time if the property is used for those purposes.
14:35:46 The property will be used for those purposes. If
14:35:47 there's any questions I would be happy to answer them.
14:35:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council?
14:35:57 >> I'm sorry, Mr. Smith, are you asking the council to
14:36:02 take any action today?
14:36:04 >>> Yes, a resolution --
14:36:06 >> I don't believe the clerk has a copy of the
14:36:08 resolution.
14:36:09 >>GWEN MILLER: We have it.
14:36:12 >>DAVID SMITH: It was in the packet.
14:36:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We have it.
14:36:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Reddick, do you have a question?
14:36:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
14:36:29 Mr. Smith, I want to thank you for taking care of this.
14:36:35 This has been a sore spot in the West Tampa community.
14:36:39 I just have a question and comment.
14:36:40 And my question is, do you foresee any problem with the
14:36:47 lack of cooperation, or cooperation from the county
14:36:51 government, one.

14:36:52 And, two, my question will be, I will hope that the
14:37:00 city, the administration, the staff, other
14:37:02 administration, will get together, and form a diverse
14:37:07 community group in West Tampa to come up with some
14:37:13 suggestions, recommendations, how we can best utilize
14:37:18 that facility with cultural activities, and if that can
14:37:22 be done, I will be more than happy to participate.
14:37:31 West Tampa, will be more than happy to work with them
14:37:34 in that respect.
14:37:36 >>DAVID SMITH: In answering your latter question first
14:37:39 although I am not involved, I have heard the mayor
14:37:40 talking with staff about that.
14:37:41 That is precisely what she intends to do is have an
14:37:45 active community participation especially in
14:37:49 identifying the needs and figuring out how best to
14:37:51 address those given the resources we have available.
14:37:54 The second I have been you, actually your first issue,
14:37:58 I always hesitate to anticipate problems with someone
14:38:01 when I think it's in their interest and in the
14:38:04 community's interest to not have problems.
14:38:07 I doubt seriously we'll have difficulty with the
14:38:09 county.

14:38:10 I think they want what's best for the community as
14:38:12 well.
14:38:12 They want their money spent in a manner which it was
14:38:15 intended.
14:38:17 We have structured the transaction, however, to provide
14:38:20 the city a significant amount of leverage.
14:38:22 But I would not anticipate -- in cooperation with the
14:38:26 county.
14:38:27 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you.
14:38:31 Mr. Smith, I just want to add my gratitude to the city
14:38:38 staff, to Mr. Huey, yourself, everyone for bringing
14:38:44 this memorandum of agreement to us as soon as possible,
14:38:47 because this pretty much allays the fears of the West
14:38:51 Tampa community, knowing that this beautiful building
14:38:54 is going to be taken care of finally by someone that
14:38:58 really, really cares about it.
14:39:00 And I think that the City of Tampa taking it over --
14:39:03 and unfortunately it didn't work out with the urban
14:39:05 league -- but things sometimes turn around and go back,
14:39:13 you know, to the best possible solution.
14:39:16 So I'm really happy with this.
14:39:21 And I would like to work with you all.

14:39:24 Of course, you know I have only a few more months here
14:39:28 but if there is any possible way that I can be involved
14:39:30 in this after I'm gone, I would really appreciate the
14:39:34 opportunity to work on this with you.
14:39:41 And I'm just really happy that we finally saved this
14:39:44 building for the purpose that it was intended for.
14:39:48 And I agree with Mr. Reddick that this should be part
14:39:53 of the diverse community that works in this area.
14:39:58 So again I just want to thank you very much for
14:40:02 bringing this to our attention.
14:40:06 It looks like a good deal.
14:40:07 >>> Thank you.
14:40:07 On behalf of everyone else, lots of people worked on it
14:40:10 as you know. I just want to clarify the action we are
14:40:13 requesting you take today, it's in paragraphs 1, 2 and
14:40:17 3 of your resolution.
14:40:18 First is approving the memorandum of agreement.
14:40:21 Second is authorizing use of the funds from the
14:40:24 accounts indicated to pay for the Wachovia mortgage.
14:40:26 Third is obviously authorizing the clerk, chairperson
14:40:30 and the mayor sign the document.
14:40:32 And the four standard clause taking any appropriate

14:40:36 action necessary to take it out.
14:40:38 That's the resolution.
14:40:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I would like to move the resolution.
14:40:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena has some questions.
14:40:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to share the 25 years ago I
14:40:47 made a film about the Centro Espanol and at that time
14:40:52 the theater was falling apart.
14:40:54 Unfortunately 25 years later, the theater is still
14:40:57 falling apart.
14:40:59 So while we are taking over the wonderfully renovated
14:41:02 front part of the building, we need to all put on our
14:41:05 thinking caps and figure out where to get probably
14:41:07 about $5 million for the theater which would be a
14:41:11 wonderful, wonderful amenity.
14:41:14 This is the first step forth city to have ownership
14:41:17 which puts us in a better position to write grants and
14:41:19 solicit funds, and to perhaps create some kind of
14:41:22 public-private partnership.
14:41:23 But we still need to fix up the theater.
14:41:26 And I'm happy to see that we are embarking on this
14:41:29 step.
14:41:29 >>MARY ALVAREZ: If I may answer some of it -- and you

14:41:32 mentioned some of it would be in historical grants.
14:41:35 I believe that we can get historical grants for this
14:41:37 beautiful building.
14:41:38 It certainly is overdue some tender loving care.
14:41:42 And once they do that, I'm hoping that we could put in
14:41:48 the creative arts department, the Virginia rivers
14:41:54 group, that we -- I have tried for at least eight years
14:41:57 to try to put them in here.
14:41:59 So this would be a step in the right direction, if we
14:42:02 could do that before I leave.
14:42:03 And just a commitment would help.
14:42:10 But I think with them, and maybe some fund-raising from
14:42:13 the community, that would help a lot.
14:42:19 So this is wonderful.
14:42:21 You know, I can't be more excited about this than
14:42:24 anything.
14:42:25 I would like to move the resolution.
14:42:27 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to thank the mayor and all
14:42:30 of her staff that helped her.
14:42:32 Because when I first found out the urban league was not
14:42:34 going to be there I went to the mayor and asked her
14:42:36 would she please do what she can to save this building,

14:42:39 have the city take it over.
14:42:41 I know it was a tough job because so many things,
14:42:45 trying to work things out.
14:42:46 Finally it worked out.
14:42:47 And I know the urban league has services for the
14:42:49 community in West Tampa and I know the city is going to
14:42:52 continue those services because I think it's still in
14:42:55 that area.
14:42:56 And with all the help, everybody is going to work to
14:43:02 make it successful.
14:43:04 I know that building is going to be saved and the urban
14:43:14 league will be proud.
14:43:15 Because the urban league is 125 years old and they
14:43:17 really had some good programs for the citizens of
14:43:19 Tampa.
14:43:19 And now I see that they won't be lost and I'm willing
14:43:25 to do whatever I can to keep it going.
14:43:27 At one time I was on urban league board.
14:43:29 They really worked hard to get the building.
14:43:31 After we got the building it was hard to keep it.
14:43:34 That's hard for one organization to keep it going.
14:43:37 But the city now that they are taking it over it's

14:43:39 going to be wonderful.
14:43:40 And I really appreciate whatever everybody has done.
14:43:42 I want to say thank you again and continue to work with
14:43:46 them.
14:43:47 We have a motion and second for the resolution.
14:43:49 All in favor of that resolution say Aye.
14:43:51 Opposed, Nay.
14:43:52 (Motion carried)
14:43:53 We go back to number 66.
14:43:58 We need to open that.
14:43:59 >> So moved.
14:44:00 >> Second.
14:44:11 >>> John McKirchy, city attorney's office.
14:44:15 This is the second and final public hearing.
14:44:18 With City Council on the proposed brownfiled
14:44:21 designation for the park Westshore site.
14:44:27 This falls in the middle of a brownfield designation.
14:44:30 It was submitted by the applicant.
14:44:33 The applicant is MHG Tampa LLC and McKibbon hotel
14:44:40 group, Inc. It's also the staff report of the city
14:44:44 staff, with the specifics of the proposed designation
14:44:46 area, planned development.

14:44:50 All the statutory notice requirement have been met and
14:44:53 recommend that City Council approve this brownfield
14:44:55 designation.
14:44:57 At the conclusion of the public hearing City Council
14:44:59 will have the opportunity to pass the resolution for
14:45:02 Avian park, a brownfield area as specified in 376
14:45:08 Florida statutes.
14:45:08 Both myself and Mr. Fahey are available for any
14:45:12 questions.
14:45:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public to speak
14:45:14 on number 66?
14:45:15 >> Move to close.
14:45:16 >> Second.
14:45:16 (Motion carried).
14:45:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move the resolution.
14:45:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:45:23 (Motion carried).
14:45:24 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to item 67 and 68.
14:45:27 We are going to open them together since they are all
14:45:31 related.
14:45:32 Motion and second to open the resolution.
14:45:34 Anyone that's going to speak on item 67 and 68 need to

14:45:37 stand and raise your right hand.
14:45:40 (Oath administered by Clerk).
14:45:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder if there are any
14:45:53 ex parte communications or any information to be
14:45:54 received and filed to do so and I would ask each
14:45:56 witness, please, to state for the record that they have
14:45:59 been sworn.
14:46:03 This is an appeal hearing of the decision of the A.R.C.
14:46:07 Council, traditionally the custom of the City Council
14:46:09 is to allow ten minutes for the appellant to make their
14:46:13 case, and ten minutes for the appellee to make their
14:46:17 presentation.
14:46:18 And if there's any staff that has to speak, then that's
14:46:22 done and period of rebuttal for, I believe, five
14:46:26 minutes is the custom.
14:46:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Shelby, war we supposed to be
14:46:44 looking for?
14:46:44 Are we supposed to be hearing this like a de novo, or
14:46:49 just listening to irregularities in the proceedings?
14:46:51 What is our standard of review?
14:46:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Okay.
14:46:54 The standard of review.

14:47:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's changed a couple of times.
14:47:03 >> What is it today?
14:47:12 >> The standard of review, I believe, if I am correct,
14:47:18 27-373, the standard of review is, one, wherever the
14:47:23 board decision was supported by competent, substantial
14:47:25 evidence, whether due process was accorded, and whether
14:47:28 the essential requirements of law have been observed.
14:47:31 And council, to let now, this is going to be returning
14:47:34 to you with other changes in chapter 27 after the first
14:47:36 of the year.
14:47:37 But right now, your options are to either affirm the
14:47:41 board's decision, or remand it back with direction on
14:47:45 how that board failed to comply with the above
14:47:47 standard.
14:47:51 Hargrett: You are not bound by the decision made by
14:47:57 the A.R.C. originally.
14:48:00 This is de novo hearing.
14:48:02 But the record that was received is what you are going
14:48:04 to be relying on.
14:48:05 And there's no new evidence that you should be relying
14:48:10 on.
14:48:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Appellate, you have ten minutes to

14:48:15 present your case.
14:48:18 You will have a short period of five minutes for
14:48:22 rebuttal.
14:48:24 >>> David McCready, 805 South Orleans.
14:48:27 I want to welcome our new council members.
14:48:30 I understand my time is short.
14:48:33 It's a shame we can't delve into the issue a little
14:48:36 deeper but I will try to run through them as quickly as
14:48:38 I can.
14:48:39 And let me know when the time expires.
14:48:42 This is a case at best about the A.R.C. being
14:48:47 unfamiliar, or unaware of the statute governing their
14:48:51 process.
14:48:52 And at worse, this is about the A.R.C. just choosing to
14:48:56 ignore the law.
14:48:58 Either way, we request that this council reverse the
14:49:04 certificate of appropriateness and reverse the
14:49:10 variance.
14:49:10 Now, by way of quick background -- and this is
14:49:13 competent, substantial evidence in the record -- the
14:49:17 petitioner had knowledge of this potential problem
14:49:20 before they bought the property.

14:49:23 And they testified under oath that they went to the
14:49:26 A.R.C. and inquired about the very issue that I'm
14:49:29 appealing.
14:49:30 They testified that the A.R.C. told them it would not
14:49:33 be a problem, in essence pre-judged this issue and made
14:49:38 a commitment to these people that they could build the
14:49:43 garage, which is a regular term for an accessory
14:49:46 structure.
14:49:47 So, again, they went to the A.R.C.
14:49:49 They knew the issue.
14:49:50 And the A.R.C. without any hearing, any guideline, made
14:49:53 a decision, pre-judged this before they bought the
14:49:56 property, and told them they could do what they wanted.
14:50:00 And, in fact, they said they were encouraged by the
14:50:04 A.R.C. to build a larger bigger garage,, and that's the
14:50:11 tune of this entire process.
14:50:12 And since then, the A.R.C. did not address any of the
14:50:17 arguments we made at the hearing.
14:50:19 They didn't address any of the statutes or legal
14:50:22 standards.
14:50:22 All they seemed to care about was making sure that they
14:50:26 had covered themselves by preventing me from being

14:50:29 there, which I want to be clear here, I waived that
14:50:32 argument.
14:50:33 I was not able to be present.
14:50:35 They went through analysis.
14:50:38 I had actual notice.
14:50:38 I think it's required that you have specific notice.
14:50:44 I am waiving argument.
14:50:45 I'm more than happy with the record.
14:50:47 Secondly, they relied and mentioned 15 different times
14:50:52 that it was brought up that something similar had been
14:50:56 passed six years ago.
14:50:57 And again, that's the only two issues that they
14:51:00 analyzed.
14:51:01 Was it okay to go ahead without me being there, that it
14:51:05 had happened six years ago, and it had been approved?
14:51:09 And what I am going to go through now is the laws that
14:51:15 were ignored by the A.R.C.
14:51:17 First is 27-213.
14:51:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where do you live in relationship to
14:51:21 this?
14:51:22 >>> I'm the property behind the 806 Oregon.
14:51:34 Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

14:51:36 With respect to the legal issues and the statues that
14:51:39 were ignored, the first one is 27-213, specifically
14:51:42 states there shall automatically be a time limit of one
14:51:45 year during which the variance must be utilized.
14:51:49 It was not utilized.
14:51:51 Yet 12 times within that short hearing, that's the
14:51:54 argument that they made in support of this.
14:51:57 And there is no other competent, substantial evidence
14:51:59 in the record other than that argument.
14:52:03 The second statute that was ignored is 27-126.
14:52:09 This property is a nonconforming use.
14:52:14 It is an old lot with an old home on a 40 by 130-foot
14:52:19 lot.
14:52:20 It's been zoned RS-60.
14:52:22 It does not comply with the zoning requirements.
14:52:26 Therefore, it is a nonconforming use.
14:52:29 The A.R.C. did not address and ignored our argument
14:52:33 that 27-126 clearly states, expansion of nonconforming
14:52:39 uses by the construction or addition of an accessory
14:52:42 structure shall not be permitted.
14:52:45 So you have a clear statute precluding the action taken
14:52:51 by the A.R.C., and not worse but as part of it they

14:52:57 didn't even address the issue.
14:52:59 Just ignored that.
14:53:01 That is the deal killer.
14:53:02 In addition to that, the A.R.C. ignored 27-292, which
14:53:08 talks about the intent of the statute, and it explains
14:53:12 that the intent is not to let these nonconform uses
14:53:15 grow, but to maintain that in their current status
14:53:18 which would be without an accessory structure.
14:53:22 The A.R.C. also ignored 27-293, which is another intent
14:53:28 statute that explains very clearly that these
14:53:31 nonconformities are not to be extended or grown, but
14:53:35 are to be limited.
14:53:37 Next, the A.R.C. ignored and did not even discuss
14:53:41 27-126.
14:53:43 Even if they could build an accessory structure, it is
14:53:47 restricted to 15 feet, under 27-126, section 1-2, that
14:53:56 statute was also ignored.
14:53:59 Then they went on to the hardship criteria.
14:54:04 And again, they just mouthed the words.
14:54:07 But they do not apply the hardship criteria.
14:54:10 The hardship criteria say that all these elements must
14:54:14 be met.

14:54:15 They include that there's something unique about this
14:54:20 property.
14:54:21 And there's also -- you can't buy a property and know
14:54:24 about the issue and then claim it's a hardship.
14:54:26 But again, the deal killer here is D which says that
14:54:31 the hardship must prevent the owner from using the land
14:54:35 for any purpose -- for any purpose.
14:54:39 And that can't be true, because they live there.
14:54:42 They already own automobiles.
14:54:44 And it's just a legal standard that can't cannot be
14:54:47 met.
14:54:48 If you look at the rationale given in the petition,
14:54:51 it's things like "in Hyde Park, a two-story garage is
14:54:57 almost a necessity."
14:54:59 And in essence it's convenient.
14:55:01 And for their own personal plan, which is specifically
14:55:04 precluded by 27-213.
14:55:09 That's another myth argument.
14:55:11 Those from other districts would have to explain to
14:55:13 your voters in, Hyde Park they don't have to follow the
14:55:16 rules.
14:55:17 Thousands and thousands of Tampa residents, they drive

14:55:21 up to their house, they enter their garage via the
14:55:25 street, driveway, and they pull into a one-story
14:55:28 garage.
14:55:29 Part of the argument here is that that doesn't apply in
14:55:32 Hyde Park, that the statute, the zoning codes, they
14:55:36 apply to the other area.
14:55:38 East Tampa, West Tampa, north Tampa.
14:55:40 But Hyde Park is different.
14:55:42 And the A.R.C. ignored the statute.
14:55:46 Now, as we continue on, it's just -- this is a
14:55:51 subjective issue.
14:55:52 It is not a legal issue.
14:55:53 But if you look at the pictures on page 72 of the
14:56:00 A.R.C. book that David published, you will see this
14:56:07 drawing on the record on page 72.
14:56:09 I can't -- you can't argue this.
14:56:12 You just have to see it.
14:56:13 But if you gave this drawing to a group of grade school
14:56:17 persons, and you said, match these shapes to the shapes
14:56:21 of this tall, thin, soil ar type garage, in view of the
14:56:27 one-story houses on either side of it, and two on one
14:56:31 side of it, they would pick, I a certain, every time

14:56:35 the second line.
14:56:37 The one that says inappropriate.
14:56:40 So in the end if you just look at the basic facts, they
14:56:43 are ignoring their own books.
14:56:45 And so those are the poor argument.
14:56:49 It was pre-judged.
14:56:51 It was pushed through.
14:56:52 They ignored the statutes that are clearly on point.
14:56:55 And even the subjective element, I believe, support the
14:57:00 argument that this is inappropriate.
14:57:01 And again, the core argument is, on nonconforming use
14:57:06 like this, you can't add to it.
14:57:08 Certainly you can't have a two-story garage above
14:57:11 another statute, and seeking a variance to come in the
14:57:15 back way when thousands of Tampans come in through the
14:57:20 street in a one-story garage.
14:57:22 Now as far as the policy goes, you know, this is sort
14:57:28 of a two-edged sword.
14:57:30 If we keep pushing this through, the next step is the
14:57:33 circuit court, and then the second DCA, either one of
14:57:36 two things are going to happen.
14:57:38 Either the A.R.C. is going to lose, and then their

14:57:43 ability to kind of look the other way on these criteria
14:57:47 even when there's no opposition is going to end.
14:57:50 Or if they are successful, then they pretty much put
14:57:54 themselves out of business because there are no rules.
14:57:57 There are no restrictions.
14:57:59 And everyone in Hyde Park can start building, and
14:58:02 building and building till every square inch is covered
14:58:05 by huge two-story garages abutting all their neighbors'
14:58:10 yards.
14:58:10 I'll reserve the rest of my time for rebuttal.
14:58:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you.
14:58:17 Appellee.
14:58:26 >>> Just so we get the order straight, we are thinking
14:58:27 the staff should probably go ahead and give you an
14:58:29 outline.
14:58:30 They should have done that first before Mr. McGrady
14:58:34 spoke.
14:58:34 If you would like to have Mr. Acosta go ahead and give
14:58:37 that presentation, or to continue with the applicant.
14:58:40 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Go ahead, Mr. Acosta.
14:58:45 >>DEL ACOSTA: Manager, Tampa architectural review
14:58:49 commission.

14:58:49 This is regarding the appeal of 806 south Oregon
14:58:55 Avenue.
14:58:59 First of all, I am going to orient you to the site as
14:59:03 it presently exists.
14:59:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you say you were sworn in?
14:59:07 I didn't hear you.
14:59:08 >>DEL ACOSTA: Yes, I was.
14:59:10 I was sworn in with everybody else.
14:59:12 The subject property is located at 806 Oregon Avenue.
14:59:17 This is the location.
14:59:18 This is taken from the 1926 Sanborn map.
14:59:21 The structure was built circumstance a 1912.
14:59:24 And it is on a nonconforming lot.
14:59:27 The use is conforming.
14:59:30 Zoning is RS-60 single-family homes, single-family
14:59:34 home.
14:59:35 The lot is 45, 130.
14:59:39 To the north is Inmanh Avenue.
14:59:42 To the south is Oregon Avenue.
14:59:44 To the south is Morrison Avenue, I'm sorry.
14:59:47 If we start at Inmanh Avenue, this is a two-story
14:59:52 house.

14:59:52 It has been added onto.
14:59:53 But it was built as a two-story house.
14:59:55 This is a one-story structure.
14:59:58 The house in question is a one and a half story
15:00:01 architecture.
15:00:03 Zoningwise it's considered two story architecture or
15:00:05 considered one and a half story.
15:00:09 Next to it to the south is a one-story residence.
15:00:12 And then to the south of that is a two-story apartment
15:00:15 building.
15:00:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order, Mr. Shelby.
15:00:24 It appeared by the standard, the standard of review,
15:00:28 sound like we are in somewhat of a strict appellate
15:00:32 capacity.
15:00:34 I'm looking at the other short and brief transcript.
15:00:41 From the proceeding below.
15:00:44 I think we need to get clarification if there's any new
15:00:48 evidence, if this is all presented below at this
15:00:50 proceeding.
15:00:59 By you?
15:01:01 >>> By me.
15:01:01 >> What date?

15:01:03 I mean, were there various dates on this?
15:01:07 >>> October 4th.
15:01:09 FROM THE FLOOR: I have to say this is rebuttal.
15:01:16 >> Well, they are presenting their case now, sir.
15:01:19 >> In my ten minutes I was required --
15:01:21 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I'm not sure about how long our
15:01:23 standard has been when we have the city staff making a
15:01:26 presentation as well as the property owner make a
15:01:30 presentation.
15:01:31 I mean, actually, and I guess it depends on who is the
15:01:38 appellee here.
15:01:40 Is it the City of Tampa or the property owner?
15:01:44 >>: Normally in these cases, customarily, in the past
15:01:47 it's been the City of Tampa.
15:01:48 In this case, this is appealing an action where the
15:01:52 property owner in this case is the appellee.
15:01:55 So normally, you would have the staff make a
15:01:58 presentation, and taking a position.
15:02:01 But I suspect hear the staff was giving you background,
15:02:04 and it's not toward the appellee's presentation of ten
15:02:07 minutes.
15:02:07 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Acosta, how long is your

15:02:09 presentation?
15:02:11 >>DEL ACOSTA: Probably about three more minutes.
15:02:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My request was more substantive, not
15:02:18 in terms of time.
15:02:19 I just wanted to make sure that everything we have
15:02:21 heard here was heard below, because I don't believe new
15:02:24 evidence would be appropriate.
15:02:29 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Sir, you have had your chance.
15:02:34 We will deal with an appropriate rebuttal period after
15:02:37 we hear from -- that's what we are trying to hear from
15:02:42 right now.
15:02:44 You had your ten minutes, sir.
15:02:45 So we'll let Mr. Acosta have his presentation F.any
15:02:50 additional testimony is given, and the board feels it's
15:02:52 appropriate to give you an additional rebuttal time to
15:02:54 that, then we can take that action at that time.
15:02:58 >> Toyin Hargrett: The true party of interest here is
15:03:05 the applicant who ARC did grant the variance for.
15:03:09 That's -- the order that would have been preferential
15:03:15 would have been for Del Acosta staff to give his five
15:03:18 minute presentation, then Mr. McCreedy would give his
15:03:19 ten-minute argument, then we would hear from the

15:03:22 applicant, with rebuttal.
15:03:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Well, that wasn't clear.
15:03:28 Mr. Acosta, you have five minutes.
15:03:31 >>DEL ACOSTA: This is the subject property.
15:03:34 This is the southern boundary. The northern boundary.
15:03:36 This is where the driveway is at the subject property.
15:03:40 This is the property to the north.
15:03:49 This is a full photograph of the house to the north.
15:03:51 This is the house to the south.
15:03:53 The subject property is located here.
15:03:54 The house.
15:03:56 And this is the building south of the house next door.
15:04:00 This is the alley in question.
15:04:02 It's looking north.
15:04:04 Inman Avenue would be here.
15:04:06 Oregon would be here.
15:04:08 Orleans would be here. The subject property is from
15:04:11 approximately this pole over here.
15:04:14 This subject property now.
15:04:19 The request submitted to the architectural review
15:04:21 commission was for new construction and accessory
15:04:24 structure.

15:04:24 And a variance.
15:04:26 I want to make sure I read it totally correctly.
15:04:30 There were not setback variances.
15:04:32 It was access to the alley of 10 feet to 4 feet.
15:04:37 No height or setback variances were requested.
15:04:54 Oregon Avenue, this is the subject property.
15:04:59 140 by 130.
15:05:00 This is circa 1912 structure.
15:05:06 It is located three feet from the property line
15:05:10 proposed three feet from the property line, 4 feet from
15:05:13 the rear property line, 24.2 feet in height.
15:05:17 In Tampa's historic district.
15:05:22 Permitted use 22.5 feet.
15:05:24 So I wanted to mention to you, there were no building
15:05:27 setback requirements here.
15:05:29 The variance request is access to the alley.
15:05:34 The zoning code at the time requires that it be 10
15:05:36 feet, the variance from 10 feet to 4 feet.
15:05:40 That is variance.
15:05:41 The certificate of appropriateness portion was for the
15:05:50 two-story accessory structure.
15:05:52 It is a one-car garage with stairway on the exterior,

15:06:00 second floor bonus room.
15:06:01 Architecture was composed of materials similar to the
15:06:03 primary structure.
15:06:07 Then the other documents that were submitted, there is
15:06:11 an architectural section, framing section, framing
15:06:16 section in different direction.
15:06:19 Then architecture details, the corner board, the
15:06:23 windows.
15:06:26 Are there any questions, commissioners?
15:06:27 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Questions?
15:06:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Historically, Mr. Del Acosta, has
15:06:35 there ever been a garage?
15:06:37 >>> There was a garage on the other side.
15:06:39 Let me show you the -- in 129, the garage was located
15:06:47 on the south end of the property.
15:06:51 That's right in here.
15:06:52 When the inventory was done in Hyde Park in '88 that no
15:06:57 longer was there but that's not unusual.
15:06:59 A lot of earlier garages were not built of the same
15:07:01 material as the original one.
15:07:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the other thing is the
15:07:08 petitioner has raised these issues, or the appellant

15:07:12 has raised these issues of related to nonconforming
15:07:17 use, and that we shouldn't allow nonconforming uses
15:07:26 structures to grow and becoming nonconforming.
15:07:29 Is that your understanding of 27292, 27293?
15:07:35 >>> Well, I'm not the zoning administrator.
15:07:36 It's my understanding --
15:07:38 >> Was there a zoning administrator present as part of
15:07:42 that?
15:07:43 >>> No, sir.
15:07:43 What we did, when we get petitions in, we review for
15:07:46 zoning requirement, make sure that they comport.
15:07:50 This is a nonconforming lot.
15:07:53 It's RS-60 but it's 40 feet wide.
15:07:59 But the use is single-family residential.
15:08:04 >> So you spoke with the zoning administrator
15:08:06 specifically about this?
15:08:10 >>> In a, I didn't.
15:08:11 All of ours are reviewed by the zoning office.
15:08:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: To the best of your knowledge we
15:08:18 never had a zoning administrator opinion on this one?
15:08:23 >>> On this one we haven't, that I know of.
15:08:25 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Other questions of Mr. Del Acosta?

15:08:30 >> I have a question.
15:08:30 I still want to be clear on the procedural posture
15:08:33 because I am not sure I have quite got that down yet.
15:08:35 Mr. Acosta, this may be for you as well.
15:08:40 We have -- correct me if I am wrong -- looks like we
15:08:44 have two decisions by the A.R.C.
15:08:46 We have got a variance decision, and we have a
15:08:50 certification of appropriateness on the structure.
15:08:54 >>> Right.
15:08:56 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: What is not clear from the
15:08:58 appellant is it appeal from the variance or certificate
15:09:01 or both?
15:09:02 >>> It's for both.
15:09:04 The A.R.C. committed two motions into the record.
15:09:07 One of them was to grant the variance for the access to
15:09:10 the accessory structure from the alley.
15:09:13 Four feet to ten feet. That was one request.
15:09:15 That was one motion.
15:09:16 And the second motion was to approve the certificate of
15:09:19 appropriateness that essentially dealt with
15:09:22 architecture of the building.
15:09:23 And that took into consideration the criteria of scale,

15:09:29 height, materials, and architecture.
15:09:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: All right.
15:09:36 The pal a -- the appellee now has ten minutes according
15:09:42 to our rules.
15:09:43 Is that correct, Mr. Shelby?
15:09:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
15:09:45 >>> Good afternoon.
15:09:46 My name is Cathy Claire and my husband and I are the
15:09:50 appellees and property owners for 806 south Oregon
15:09:53 Avenue.
15:09:53 Initially, I would just like to address that we did
15:09:56 meet the notice requirements in chapter 27 of the code.
15:10:00 Mr. McCreedie was afforded due process because he had
15:10:04 council at the last hearing as well as 16 exhibits into
15:10:10 the record.
15:10:10 And the A.R.C. at the hearing did accept all three
15:10:13 affidavits and the exhibits, reviewed them and weighed
15:10:17 the evidence contained in them and made their decisions
15:10:19 accordingly.
15:10:21 Just because they didn't discuss the affidavit on the
15:10:23 record, I don't think that indicates that they didn't
15:10:25 consider his argument.

15:10:29 We believe that the A.R.C. decision as to decision of
15:10:33 appropriateness and the variance were supported by
15:10:37 competent substantial evidence at the hearing,
15:10:39 specifically with regard to the certificate of
15:10:40 appropriateness at the hearing, the A.R.C. considered
15:10:44 the review criteria, section 27-216 and stated their
15:10:48 findings that the Zane of the accessory structure is
15:10:51 very much in harmony with the features of the main
15:10:54 house.
15:10:54 The scale as it is appropriate to the site and the main
15:10:57 structure, and is otherwise consistent with the Hyde
15:10:59 Park guidelines.
15:11:00 With regard to our application for the variance, we
15:11:04 submitted evidence of the proposed plans as well as the
15:11:10 reasons that we are requesting the variance.
15:11:12 Currently, it's a single driveway.
15:11:16 My husband and I each have a car.
15:11:18 Usually one of us parks in the street.
15:11:20 We plan to have another child.
15:11:22 We currently have one.
15:11:23 And our home is now a three-bedroom.
15:11:25 I currently work part time from home so that's why we

15:11:28 had asked for garage so I may move my personal office
15:11:35 and study out there at some point when we have more
15:11:37 children hopefully.
15:11:38 We did meet with the city staff prior to purchasing
15:11:41 this home.
15:11:42 And I think it's very important that six years ago the
15:11:44 owners did go to the A.R.C., they requested a variance,
15:11:48 which is actually later than what we are requesting,
15:11:50 and they were awarded that variance, as well as the
15:11:53 certificate of appropriateness.
15:11:55 And due to the budget constraints actually build the
15:11:59 structure and said before we purchase the home, city
15:12:03 staff asked them for their recommendations and they
15:12:05 said they did not see that it would be any
15:12:09 noncompliance with the code, it been approved before.
15:12:12 And actually what we are requesting with the variance
15:12:14 is much less than what they requested.
15:12:16 And Mr. McCreedie cited section 27-213-E-4 with regards
15:12:22 to that a variance is only good for one year.
15:12:24 I believe that deals with the construction of it.
15:12:28 And doesn't deal with the fact that you can't refer to
15:12:30 it or consider the fact that a variance was granted at

15:12:33 some time before.
15:12:38 At the hearing the A.R.C., on requesting what request
15:12:42 for the variance, with regard to the five hardship
15:12:45 criteria set forth in 27-213 of the code, to
15:12:48 specifically in the record they found that our lot is
15:12:51 an exceptionally narrow one, the house, as a
15:12:55 consequence, is dimensioned in a very narrow and long
15:12:59 manner, which is for detached accessory structure where
15:13:03 we are requesting it be and they found it is entirely
15:13:06 consistent with historic pattern of the neighborhood
15:13:08 and consistent with the Hyde Park guidelines as well as
15:13:10 the other house as round our area.
15:13:15 With regard to the nonconformity issue, in his
15:13:18 affidavit in the record, there is no evidence that our
15:13:22 house is a nonconforming use, as Mr. Del Acosta
15:13:27 testified, that it could be considered a nonconforming
15:13:29 lot.
15:13:29 And section 27-295 says specifically for nonconform
15:13:34 lots, use of single nonconforming lots for
15:13:38 single-family dwelling.
15:13:39 A single-family dwelling and customary accessory
15:13:43 structure may be erected, occupied and used on a single

15:13:46 nonconforming lot of record that is not in continuous
15:13:50 frontage with other lots in the same ownership, in
15:13:53 accord with other requirements in separate districts.
15:13:57 That's exactly our case here.
15:13:59 It states in an accessory structure may be erected on
15:14:01 our property.
15:14:02 With regard to section 27-292, the intent of
15:14:07 nonconformity, and that says if it's the intent of this
15:14:11 chapter that nonconformity shall not be used as grounds
15:14:16 for other prohibited uses or structures, nor the
15:14:19 enlarging by means of extension or expansion, and I
15:14:24 don't think that's the case here, number one.
15:14:27 If our lot is considered nonconforming, then we
15:14:31 couldn't use that as grounds to erect other prohibited
15:14:34 uses or structures.
15:14:35 And as we just read in 27-295, the accessory structure
15:14:39 is not a prohibited structure.
15:14:41 Secondly, we are not adding -- we are not extending or
15:14:47 expanding the current home.
15:14:48 We are adding the accessory structure which is
15:14:51 permitted by the code.
15:14:53 Regarding the height limit of 15 feet, and 27-126 does

15:14:59 allow an increase of up to 50% of the 15-foot height
15:15:03 limitation, if the proposed structure is limited in a
15:15:06 historic district, which it is.
15:15:08 Also, under section 27-213-E-1, C-2, the A.R.C. has the
15:15:15 authority to hear variances relative to the height of
15:15:19 structures, and the following residential district and
15:15:23 RS-60 which is what we are doing.
15:15:28 Again, with regard to the variance, we did leave the
15:15:32 hardship criteria and the A.R.C. found since our lot is
15:15:36 more narrow than most and how T house extends closer to
15:15:39 the rear lot line than most houses do in the rear
15:15:43 that's why our variance is necessary.
15:15:46 And the staff found that the height and width of our
15:15:48 structures in conformity with the height and width of
15:15:51 our requirement and it was found to be conforming in
15:15:54 design as well with the existing structure.
15:16:12 >>> Jerry Jisclaire, own we are my wife.
15:16:21 We went to discover what we could do with this property
15:16:24 from that standpoint, and to get their guideline.
15:16:27 My understanding is, that's how ideally the staff
15:16:35 should, to give their guidance to what we can do and
15:16:38 what they recommend we do.

15:16:39 That's all our intent was and.
15:16:45 >>> Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
15:16:47 We respectfully request that you approve the A.R.C.'s
15:16:52 approval of our variance.
15:16:56 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Any other questions?
15:16:58 Appellant, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
15:17:03 >>> McCreedie.
15:17:04 The good news is the case remains very consistent.
15:17:08 There's nothing new, nothing different.
15:17:10 Again, I may be confused about the rules and
15:17:13 procedures.
15:17:14 But I don't find any rules that govern an appeal here
15:17:17 that set out the different time limits and who can
15:17:21 speak.
15:17:21 But I do assert this for the record.
15:17:24 This is an appeal, and no new evidence should have been
15:17:28 taken, and no new evidence given here should be in the
15:17:32 record.
15:17:32 This appeal should be decided solely on the record from
15:17:36 the A.R.C. below.
15:17:38 I think that's a universally appellate accepted
15:17:42 argument, so I would object to any of the testimony,

15:17:44 hearsay or otherwise, by the folks that purported to
15:17:48 get up here and testify.
15:17:53 The opinion testimony given here today is equal not
15:17:56 competent, substantial, but in fact it is incompetent
15:17:59 and inappropriate for anyone to give an opinion after
15:18:02 the fact.
15:18:03 The reality is, this record contains nothing about the
15:18:07 zoning commissioner, nothing about a waiver of the
15:18:12 15-foot existing structure rule.
15:18:15 All it contains is a discussion of "too bad for me if I
15:18:20 wasn't there" and mentioning 12 times that this was
15:18:25 passed six years ago.
15:18:26 That's all that's in the record other than the clearly
15:18:28 inappropriate or inadequate excuses or criteria for the
15:18:32 hardship.
15:18:35 Keep in mind they want to come in through the back
15:18:38 alley.
15:18:38 This isn't about coming in through the front of the
15:18:40 street.
15:18:41 In essence the argument is it's an unreasonable
15:18:43 hardship to not get to drive your car in the back of
15:18:45 the garage.

15:18:46 And again, that's done by thousands of folks all over
15:18:49 Tampa.
15:18:49 Hyde Park is no different.
15:18:53 Now, we also want to, because time is short, I want to
15:18:55 incorporate all my arguments and affidavits from below
15:18:59 in case there are some issues that we didn't have a
15:19:02 chance to address today because time is short.
15:19:06 In the end, we need to talk again about the
15:19:09 nonconforming.
15:19:10 This is a nonconforming use. This house is on a lot
15:19:13 these too small.
15:19:14 The house can stay but the statute precludes,
15:19:18 absolutely precludes the accessory structure.
15:19:20 If you want to learn about a nonconforming lot, that
15:19:24 being a parcel of land as it's defined, without a
15:19:27 structure on it, a lot is a parcel of land without a
15:19:30 structure on it, you look to nonconforming lot.
15:19:34 In 27-295, and what it tells you is that you can build
15:19:39 a single-family dwelling, and -- not or, but and,
15:19:47 A-N-D, a customary accessory structure.
15:19:50 If it said "or" you might be able to look at this and
15:19:53 get some comfort.

15:19:54 But it doesn't say you can build an accessory
15:19:57 structure.
15:19:58 It says you can build both together.
15:19:59 It says "and" and it also says customary.
15:20:05 15 feet might be customary.
15:20:07 22 feet is not customary.
15:20:09 While we are on that point there seems to be some
15:20:12 misunderstanding that there's a blanket 22.5-foot rule
15:20:15 in Hyde Park.
15:20:16 You can't find that in any city memo, statute,
15:20:21 regulation, A.R.C. guideline.
15:20:24 That is something that they believe they can do at
15:20:28 their whim, which I disagree with.
15:20:30 But it was not done here.
15:20:31 There was no discussion, no pre-approval, no waiver of
15:20:35 anything.
15:20:36 That's the second reason.
15:20:39 That the statutes preclude this garage.
15:20:42 Now lastly, when we want to get back to the
15:20:44 nonconforming lot versus nonconform use, if you look at
15:20:48 26, 27-126, which governs accessory structures, the
15:20:54 first thing that's in there is the one that I cite to

15:21:00 of nonconforming uses are not allowed as to conform
15:21:06 structures.
15:21:07 The rest of the section deals with the limit on
15:21:09 accessory structures when you are going to put them
15:21:11 with a house.
15:21:12 So a plain reading of this statute is that it's dealing
15:21:16 with whether the house is proper for the lot.
15:21:21 And it uses zoning lots in other places in the statute,
15:21:26 so that it has to be talking about, this is a
15:21:29 nonconforming use.
15:21:30 And as soon as you get there, it is clear that the
15:21:35 addition of an accessory structure shall not be
15:21:37 permitted.
15:21:38 And if you look at that statute in its entirety, it's
15:21:41 clear that they are talking about the situation before
15:21:43 you today.
15:21:45 And if you want to know about nonconforming lots, empty
15:21:48 lots, then you look to the other section, and that one
15:21:51 will tell you you can build the house and the garage.
15:21:55 But it does not say "or."
15:21:57 It doesn't give any authority to build one or the
15:21:59 other.

15:22:00 So at the end of the day, the arguments are consistent.
15:22:04 The A.R.C. is used to doing what the A.R.C. is used to
15:22:08 doing.
15:22:08 And they have lost sight of the statute, they have lost
15:22:13 sight of the hardship criteria, and all they do now
15:22:21 they repeat the criteria, say they are met, but there's
15:22:24 no analysis of what the hardships were.
15:22:26 And when you look on their face, nothing could up hold
15:22:32 these hardship criteria and saying they can't use their
15:22:35 house for any purpose.
15:22:36 That's like the example of a real hardship, a tree in
15:22:39 the middle of a lot and you can't build anything.
15:22:43 That's a true hardship.
15:22:44 Never a hardship when you buy into it with your eyes
15:22:47 wide open.
15:22:47 Thank you.
15:22:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:22:53 >>> Legal.
15:22:53 I just want to clarify what you are actually reviewing.
15:22:56 There was a variance granted for the reducing the
15:23:00 egress from the garage.
15:23:02 That's what you were looking at.

15:23:04 That was from ten feet to four fate.
15:23:06 The zoning issue as far as nonconform use, those would
15:23:11 need to have been appealed to the zoning -- the zoning
15:23:15 administrator.
15:23:16 I would also bring up there was no variance granted
15:23:19 both to the height of the structure and the section
15:23:23 that staff mentioned 127-126, under sub-1-C does
15:23:29 indicate that it shall not exceed 15 feet in height
15:23:33 unless the proposed structure is located in national or
15:23:37 local historic district.
15:23:38 Then you get the additional 50% which is where that
15:23:40 number came from, the 22.5.
15:23:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Question by council members?
15:23:46 Sir, your time is up.
15:23:47 That's it.
15:23:48 Yes, that's it.
15:23:52 Questions?
15:23:52 We need to close.
15:23:55 >>MARY ALVAREZ: So moved.
15:23:56 >> Second.
15:23:57 (Motion carried).
15:23:57 >>GWEN MILLER: What's the pleasure of council?

15:24:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I would like to make a couple
15:24:09 observations.
15:24:10 I have gone through the materials that we were provided
15:24:12 that are our records and what was presented at the
15:24:15 hearing.
15:24:15 And as best that I can tell, it does appear that all
15:24:18 the exhibits that were presented were presented below,
15:24:23 that they were part of the proceeding.
15:24:28 >>> As a point of clarification, I realized the
15:24:31 pictures attached were some of those exhibits.
15:24:33 The numbering on them was not there, though.
15:24:36 But you had to have looked through them and kind of
15:24:39 figure out which went to what.
15:24:40 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: That's what ways trying to do, was
15:24:44 make 2 record enclosure we weren't taking additional
15:24:47 evidence.
15:24:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'll make a stab at this.
15:24:51 First of all, I think that it's always interesting when
15:24:55 attorneys live next to each other because everybody is
15:24:58 very articulate and very informed.
15:24:59 And while there were a mum of issues raised, I felt
15:25:02 that the standard of review -- I want to affirm the

15:25:06 action of the A.R.C. because according to the points
15:25:09 that are listed here, I believe, from what I heard,
15:25:14 that the board's decision was based on competent
15:25:17 beings, substantial evidence.
15:25:20 Due process was accorded.
15:25:22 And the essential elements of law have been observed.
15:25:25 That's what I understood from this hearing today.
15:25:28 And so my motion is to affirm the determination of the
15:25:35 A.R.C.
15:25:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: That's on both 67 and 68?
15:25:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
15:25:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Take them one at a time.
15:25:41 Question on the motion, Mr. Dingfelder?
15:25:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. McCreedie makes some
15:25:48 interesting arguments.
15:25:49 And I think -- they are definitely very persuasive and
15:25:56 well put together.
15:25:57 My problem is, in this appellate role that we are in, I
15:26:01 think our review is very limited.
15:26:03 And when I read commissioner Roberts' motion on page 37
15:26:07 of the transcript, I do believe that in his motion --
15:26:13 and I'll just read it for everybody's recollection --

15:26:16 he says, I move that the variance request for A.R.C.
15:26:22 206 for the property at 806 south Oregon depicted on
15:26:24 the site plan presented at this public hearing for
15:26:27 vehicle entrance reduction from 10 feet to 4 feet,
15:26:30 based upon the petitioner's meeting its burden of proof
15:26:32 with regard to the following hardship criteria set
15:26:35 forth in section 213, 27-213, et cetera.
15:26:40 Therefore, Mr. Roberts made the motion, you know, as
15:26:45 somebody who sat on these kinds of boards before, I
15:26:47 don't think it's necessary for the boards below to go
15:26:50 through each separate one of the hardship criterion in
15:26:54 saying they met -- this hardship criteria because of
15:26:57 this and they met this hardship criteria because of
15:27:00 this.
15:27:00 This is the typical motion of these boards.
15:27:02 They say, we believe they met the hardship criteria
15:27:05 based on the testimony of their bettered burden.
15:27:08 That was Mr. Roberts' motion.
15:27:09 I don't think I am in a position to second guess that
15:27:12 motion.
15:27:12 And it's unfortunate that you weren't there to argue
15:27:17 your position.

15:27:20 But, anyway, I'll support the motion.
15:27:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to up hold
15:27:27 the A.R.C. board for number 67.
15:27:30 All in favor of that motion say Aye.
15:27:32 Opposed?
15:27:33 (Motion Carried)
15:27:34 68, same motion?
15:27:36 Always Alvarez yes.
15:27:38 >> Second.
15:27:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It is the same motion.
15:27:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Second.
15:27:45 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of 68 say Aye.
15:27:47 Opposed, Nay.
15:27:47 (Motion carried)
15:27:48 Now we have to go back to item number 13.
15:28:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can we put this off?
15:28:09 Madam Chairman, we have a meeting tonight at six.
15:28:11 This, I think, is not going to be short.
15:28:13 From my perspective --
15:28:21 >>> Mrs. Saul-Sena, this has been going on for a little
15:28:24 while.
15:28:24 I feel the same way you do.

15:28:26 But this has something to do with the Channel District
15:28:28 and it's a strategic action plan.
15:28:33 That's what it's all about.
15:28:34 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Don't hear from the public anymore.
15:28:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I feel we have already approved
15:28:41 9/10th of everything in the Channel District while
15:28:44 we were waiting.
15:28:46 >>MARY ALVAREZ: would you like to move to send to the
15:28:49 Planning Commission?
15:28:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, I really do --
15:28:54 >>MARY ALVAREZ: That's why we have Mr. Chen.
15:28:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Give us the main points.
15:29:01 Main ingredients.
15:29:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:29:36 For the benefit of the two new council members, I
15:29:38 wanted -- just a brief bullet point history of how we
15:29:43 got to where we are today.
15:29:45 The first thing I handed you, AE, policy AA-1 through
15:29:56 AA-5 to the Tampa comprehensive plan.
15:29:59 This is defined and identifies the central business
15:30:01 district periphery.
15:30:03 And if you note on the Elmo, this is the periphery

15:30:07 around downtown as identified on the future land use
15:30:10 map.
15:30:15 It's on file with the clerk.
15:30:16 These are additional copies.
15:30:18 November 9th.
15:30:20 I just wanted to make sure you all had them.
15:30:26 The Channel District does lie within this periphery
15:30:28 area on the eastern side.
15:30:32 The comp plan does state in policy A-8.1, that floor
15:30:38 area ratio can be bonussed up to 100% of the underlying
15:30:42 land use category.
15:30:44 And the Channel District in particular, the land uses
15:30:47 are RMU 100 which allows 3.5 base floor area ratio that
15:30:52 could potentially, a developer could potentially
15:30:54 receive 7.0 maximum based on the bonus amenities that
15:30:58 they are giving for the development.
15:31:02 And policy A-8.4, the comp plan spells out the 12
15:31:06 different categories of bonus amenities.
15:31:09 They are fairly broad.
15:31:10 The first one is housing, minority and employees,
15:31:14 development, transportation improvements and so on.
15:31:17 What I wanted to make clear, though, if you look at the

15:31:19 rest of the periphery, talking about the Channel
15:31:22 District, wrap around downtown.
15:31:26 You have got the Central Park area, Tampa Heights, part
15:31:30 of the western side.
15:31:40 High school.
15:31:42 The point I want to make clear, 100% of the base floor
15:31:46 area ratio there are many categories that only have a
15:31:48 .5 floor area ratio or 1.0.
15:31:52 So they could never achieve the 7.0 maximum as they
15:31:55 could in the Channel District.
15:31:57 They could only get 100% of the minimum that they have,
15:32:01 at the base that they have.
15:32:04 The bonuses that are spelled out in the comp plan are
15:32:07 supposed to be scored on a point system, which states
15:32:10 very clearly in A-8.4, the glitches that we have never
15:32:14 actually adopted a point system to calculate these
15:32:17 bonuses on.
15:32:19 The strategic action plan for the Channel District was
15:32:22 undertaken and completed in May 2006.
15:32:26 The CRA board, which you sit on council as CRA board,
15:32:30 were adopted May 4th.
15:32:33 The strategic action plan did recommend changes to the

15:32:35 LDR, land development regulations.
15:32:38 And that's essentially what you have in front of you
15:32:40 today.
15:32:41 It's basically blending those recommendations into the
15:32:45 zoning recommendations we have for the Channel
15:32:48 District, as well as the separate section 27-329 which
15:32:52 calls out the methodology and calculation for any
15:32:55 bonuses in the entire periphery.
15:33:01 I can go through them.
15:33:01 I know we had a fairly lengthy discussion at the last
15:33:04 meeting about the lists in each one and how we
15:33:12 calculate them.
15:33:13 It was our contention at that point we did need to
15:33:15 adopt at lowest the broad categories that were in the
15:33:17 comprehensive plan to implement the plan.
15:33:21 From that I'll take any questions.
15:33:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The first thing that I would like to
15:33:25 do is suggest that we only focus on the Channel
15:33:27 District, because we do not have well-developed plan
15:33:33 for the west, the north, the northeast and Harbor
15:33:34 Island in terms of particularly the west, in terms of
15:33:38 people's expectations of density.

15:33:42 They are basically doing this in response to the
15:33:44 Channel District plan.
15:33:48 So I would like to just look at these bonuses for the
15:33:52 Channel District.
15:33:52 But my concern is this.
15:33:55 We are doing this to encourage good development.
15:33:57 And I'm all for encouraging good development.
15:34:01 My concern is that our list is overbroad, that we are
15:34:04 attempting to give people what I think are profoundly
15:34:10 generous F.A.R.'s and heights based on doing things,
15:34:13 that they should do it as a matter of course.
15:34:16 I think that things like many of the things on the
15:34:19 list, you know, from landscaping, to bicycle
15:34:27 accommodation, I think that the developers should
15:34:31 provide as part of their basic development.
15:34:34 We are already, I think, very generous in giving them a
15:34:37 base F.A.R. in the Channel District of 3.5, and I
15:34:40 simply think that we should be much more focused and
15:34:46 conservative in what we are willing to trade off.
15:34:50 So, council members, I think that -- and I appreciate
15:34:55 the amount of work that staff has done.
15:34:57 I think staff has been very sincere in trying to

15:35:00 develop a point system.
15:35:01 Because right now, we are acting in a very ad hoc
15:35:04 position.
15:35:05 This is an attempt to quantify and structure our
15:35:09 response to developers and tradeoffs, and tray to
15:35:12 encourage good behavior, which is all to the good.
15:35:14 I just think that this list is too broad, and I would
15:35:18 like to only focus our conversations on the Channel
15:35:21 District and not these other points of the periphery
15:35:25 until we develop plans for these areas which at this
15:35:27 point we do not have.
15:35:29 And my recommendation would be that we only look at the
15:35:31 Channel District, and we hear from the public and look
15:35:34 at the list and see what are the things that we really
15:35:37 want to have happen and which are the things that
15:35:40 aren't realistic.
15:35:41 I would also point to you specifically to number 15,
15:35:44 the neighborhood serving commercial and retail.
15:35:48 The people downtown, the people in Ybor City, are
15:35:52 supposed to be putting retail downstairs without
15:35:55 getting any financial incentive. This is providing a
15:35:58 financial incentive.

15:35:59 And I don't think that we are necessarily desperate for
15:36:01 retail.
15:36:02 I think what we are desperate for is activity on the
15:36:04 ground level.
15:36:05 And so I don't think that this specific recommendation
15:36:10 is necessarily fair.
15:36:11 And I think that what we really want would be more to
15:36:15 the point is rather than creating it as a bonus amenity
15:36:18 is just to say that 50% of the ground floor of any new
15:36:22 building is built out to be an active use.
15:36:25 It could be child care.
15:36:26 It could be a doctor's office.
15:36:28 It could be an office.
15:36:30 It could be a store.
15:36:33 It could be one of a variety of things.
15:36:34 I think we just want to see life space rather than dead
15:36:39 space.
15:36:41 >>> I would agree with you on that point.
15:36:42 I would like to make a distinction in downtown and Ybor
15:36:45 we don't necessarily require retail on the ground
15:36:50 floor.
15:36:50 It's strongly encouraged as development comes in but

15:36:53 there is no financial incentive dollar for dollar or at
15:36:55 a ratio in downtown, because there is no limited F.A.R.
15:37:00 in downtown.
15:37:01 Because it is a DRI they can come in and ask for a 30
15:37:04 F.A.R. which you had some recently were that high.
15:37:08 Simply draw down to the maximum downtown and people
15:37:10 build 50 story buildings with a lot of square footage.
15:37:14 That's the incentive to building downtown.
15:37:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We require them to have an active
15:37:19 use downtown.
15:37:21 We do.
15:37:22 I mean, we have.
15:37:23 I mean --
15:37:25 >>> You have through the adoption of the rezonings that
15:37:27 you have done over the years.
15:37:28 However, it is not necessarily a specific requirement
15:37:32 in CDB regulations that you have retail on the ground
15:37:35 floor.
15:37:35 It is supposed to be an active space, yes.
15:37:42 The thing I would like to clarify is you are saying not
15:37:44 for the entire periphery because what we are trying to
15:37:46 do is eliminate the glitch from a comp plan to our land

15:37:49 development regulations by adopting the general
15:37:52 calculation for the periphery.
15:37:54 What you are asking to do is essentially combine these
15:37:56 two documents so that the calculations adopted in the
15:37:59 Channel District regulations and not address the
15:38:02 periphery.
15:38:04 Is that correct?
15:38:06 >> Yes.
15:38:06 Thank you for clarifying that.
15:38:08 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
15:38:11 You correctly indicated, councilwoman Saul-Sena, this
15:38:14 originated in the inability of us to have land
15:38:16 development regulations carrying out the comp plan.
15:38:19 You know we have been back and forth about how we do
15:38:21 that.
15:38:21 We are concerned that we fill in that gap, move less
15:38:28 open for things to be driven through including
15:38:30 lawsuits.
15:38:31 If we are not going to do this throughout the entire
15:38:34 periphery, we need to have some reason that explains
15:38:37 why this is.
15:38:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And I have that reason.

15:38:44 The original periphery of idea was developed years ago
15:38:49 when somebody had this crazy idea of doing a
15:38:51 development on the max property called the west bank
15:38:57 development.
15:38:57 That's what the genesis of this whole thing was.
15:38:59 I have been so around so long, I was around then.
15:39:02 And I point out to you that if you were to say to Ruth
15:39:05 McNair, the people who live where the Boys and Girls
15:39:09 Club is, that the ability is on the bank to go up 30
15:39:14 stories, they would freak out.
15:39:16 Nobody knows on the west bank and part of the north
15:39:20 side and northeast side that these densities are even
15:39:23 available, that this is even a topic of conversation.
15:39:26 The only area that this conversation is acknowledged by
15:39:30 property owners is in the Channel District.
15:39:33 So I think that we could specifically tie this to the
15:39:37 Channel District, which is special.
15:39:38 It has a plan.
15:39:40 It is a CRA area.
15:39:42 It's something that we have our structure of
15:39:44 conversation and documentation about.
15:39:47 But I do not believe that the people in these other

15:39:50 neighborhoods are even cognizant that we are having
15:39:53 this conversation.
15:39:54 If you said to them that that they are in a take
15:39:57 periphery bonus area, they would look at you like you
15:40:00 were from Mars.
15:40:00 >>DAVID SMITH: That's a great point but that's not
15:40:03 really my question.
15:40:04 >> Oh.
15:40:04 >>DAVID SMITH: My point is, this is in the comp plan.
15:40:08 And it is in the comp plan using the term central
15:40:12 business district periphery bonus.
15:40:14 Irrespective of how it developed, the point is our comp
15:40:18 plan --
15:40:19 >> Can't we remove from the comp plan?
15:40:21 >>> But we haven't currently done that.
15:40:23 >> Well, we could do that now.
15:40:26 >>> In a, you have to go through a specific process.
15:40:28 You can't literally amend the comp plan that high.
15:40:30 So my point is -- and I think we are going to end up in
15:40:33 the same position.
15:40:35 So you understand the route we are taking.
15:40:37 If we are going to say that we are only going to

15:40:39 address a portion of the periphery area, we need to
15:40:44 have a reason for doing that so that we don't have an
15:40:47 equal protection issue.
15:40:48 So part of what you said were those reasons which would
15:40:53 be, as and when we develop strategic plans for the
15:40:56 balance of the periphery area, A, it makes sense to
15:41:00 develop bonus density approaches, you need
15:41:05 individualized to those areas.
15:41:06 So what I am trying to do is get you to where you want
15:41:08 to be but I want to get through in a way that's more
15:41:12 legally defensible.
15:41:13 I think Cathy's point is the one I was addressing which
15:41:16 is what we were before you with today which is
15:41:18 something we address the issue generally, provide some
15:41:20 kind of definiteness, and therefore defensible, and
15:41:24 enforceable land development regulations.
15:41:27 I don't have a problem, although we are kind of
15:41:29 thinking about this on the fly.
15:41:31 We are having an underlying plan, that's significant in
15:41:34 supporting how that works.
15:41:35 But we don't have it right now.
15:41:37 And I'm a little concerned.

15:41:39 I think this has been going on since I have been here
15:41:41 which wasn't that long but quite awhile.
15:41:44 And the other thing I wanted to mention, we need to get
15:41:47 clear direction from council.
15:41:48 I understand Ms. Saul-Sena's point, it may be council's
15:41:52 point as well.
15:41:53 So if you guys will have that preliminary discussion,
15:41:56 and then decide what you want to direct us to do, it
15:42:00 would inform what we do, because we have been back and
15:42:04 forth a lot.
15:42:04 And it does take a lot of time and a lot of energy.
15:42:07 So we would really kind of like to get to the point and
15:42:10 get it done.
15:42:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith, suppose we sed sent this
15:42:14 over to the Planning Commission and let them look at it
15:42:17 and then come back to us with suggestions.
15:42:19 Is that a viable question?
15:42:22 Or am I flying through the loop here?
15:42:27 >>DAVID SMITH: Well, your question probably has a
15:42:29 couple components that are behind it.
15:42:30 If we sent it to the Planning Commission and they sent
15:42:34 back their recommendation, are we bound by it?

15:42:37 No.
15:42:37 I think that's part of what you are asking.
15:42:40 >> Yes, I am.
15:42:40 >>> So the Planning Commission will make
15:42:42 recommendations as to whether they think what we are
15:42:44 doing is consistent with our plan and consistent with
15:42:46 chapter 163.
15:42:48 Obviously, if they are correct about 163 we have a
15:42:51 problem.
15:42:51 But I don't think we are going to have a consistency
15:42:53 issue.
15:42:54 And I doubt seriously that Planning Commission will be
15:42:56 making any recommendations to what we do.
15:43:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Smith, it would be better for us to
15:43:02 do the whole periphery than taking a section one at a
15:43:07 time?
15:43:13 >>> From an equal protection issue we would rather you
15:43:16 do that.
15:43:17 One thing I would suggest, and this is the point Cathy
15:43:19 just mentioned, always take items out as you go through
15:43:21 the formal adoption process.
15:43:23 This is a transmittal discussion today.

15:43:25 So when it comes back, to the Planning Commission, the
15:43:27 very issues that Ms. Saul-Sena is talking about is
15:43:30 literally, as a council, talk about each one of you,
15:43:34 decide whether they belong or should be removed so it's
15:43:36 a consensus of the council.
15:43:37 So what I would prefer from a legal standpoint is that
15:43:41 we do the periphery area, and I think I also understand
15:43:46 how you want to have your planning folks help you
15:43:49 develop specific plans that are unique to each areas
15:43:51 because that's different needs, different planning
15:43:53 constraints and different objectives.
15:43:55 And that can be tailored, and that will be part of what
15:43:59 you will be having to do.
15:44:00 But I think you can move forward with the process
15:44:02 without losing any of your additional discretion down
15:44:05 the road.
15:44:06 >>GWEN MILLER: So what would you lake for us to do
15:44:09 today?
15:44:09 What steps do we need to take to go from there?
15:44:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We are actually requesting that you
15:44:14 transmit both documents for the February cycle for the
15:44:16 Planning Commission.

15:44:17 And exactly what Ms. Saul-Sena is saying is that if it
15:44:21 ends up that council, a majority, want to pair this
15:44:27 down just to the Channel District when it comes back
15:44:29 for adoption you can do that.
15:44:30 If you want to eliminate things from the list for
15:44:32 adoption you can do that.
15:44:33 We are kind of stuck in the process right now.
15:44:35 We just want to transmit, find consistency with the
15:44:38 comp plan and come back with you to pair down exactly
15:44:41 what you gays want.
15:44:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I had a conversation with Mr. Smith.
15:44:47 There were two concerns that I have, that I would raise
15:44:50 with council.
15:44:51 It's already been discussed but there hasn't been any
15:44:54 direction to the administration, or to staff, with
15:44:56 regard to that.
15:44:57 And that's the review procedure.
15:44:59 One concern I have is I don't want to see the City
15:45:02 Council placed in a position where it has no
15:45:04 discretion, where if a formula is followed, and a
15:45:08 matrix is met, then what happens is it comes to
15:45:12 council, you must grant the bonus density, and there is

15:45:14 no discretion in your eyes as to -- I just want to be
15:45:19 clear at least the legal department would opine that
15:45:22 council does have that discretion that they will not be
15:45:24 put in -- you will not be put in a position of not
15:45:27 having the right to review the amenities that have been
15:45:32 provided, and to determine whether or not that's
15:45:34 adequate for the density increase.
15:45:37 The second thing is the concern about a buy-out
15:45:41 provision.
15:45:41 And if one -- you know, fulfill the amenities that they
15:45:45 pay cash, which in effect would be to actually, you
15:45:47 know, buy increased density.
15:45:49 I don't know whether that's council's intention or not.
15:45:52 And I just want to be clear that there are protections
15:45:55 legally for council in that regard.
15:45:57 And I haven't had an opportunity to really review this
15:45:59 with Mr. Smith but I would just be concerned that when
15:46:02 it does come back that those issues, if council
15:46:04 wishes -- if council has that concern, that they
15:46:07 express that concern, and give direction accordingly.
15:46:11 >> You are saying we need to transmit it so when it
15:46:13 comes back he --

15:46:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It would be changed there.
15:46:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We would still like to change.
15:46:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't know if legally that can be
15:46:24 done.
15:46:24 I'm concerned that previously when that was discussed
15:46:26 that issue of council discretion was raised there, was
15:46:29 never consensus there. Was discussion, to refresh your
15:46:32 recollection, to allow the chairman of the Building,
15:46:33 Zoning and Preservation Committee to be sort of like
15:46:35 part of the design review.
15:46:36 But that didn't work out.
15:46:38 So you are still left with the fact that there is
15:46:40 really no provision.
15:46:41 And I was just concerned from where I sit that whatever
15:46:45 council serves hear, they are not put in a position of
15:46:48 saying, I'm sorry, council, but a previous council
15:46:50 passed this and now there is no discretion.
15:46:53 You have to grant whatever bonus density has been
15:46:55 provided.
15:46:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's not the way it is.
15:46:58 >>GWEN MILLER: That's what it Cathy Coyle just said, we
15:47:01 have a transmittal, it comes back, if we want to deal

15:47:05 with Channelside, we deal with Channelside.
15:47:07 If we want to pull something out --
15:47:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The review procedure cannot be changed
15:47:11 when it comes back to the -- from the Planning
15:47:13 Commission?
15:47:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
15:47:15 Way want to make the distinction is when it's really
15:47:18 discretion is we are really trying to lock in with
15:47:21 these regulations and come to agreement on is the is
15:47:23 the way that we calculate these items.
15:47:25 It's true the methodology and the calculation itself.
15:47:29 That's where the discretion doesn't necessarily come
15:47:31 in.
15:47:32 The items that are chosen, that's where council has
15:47:36 discretion in approving a project.
15:47:38 And that negotiation in the public hearing.
15:47:40 We'll come forward to you on a project and say the
15:47:42 numbers work out, calculation may follow in the correct
15:47:45 methodology.
15:47:46 But they have asked for these specific amenities.
15:47:50 You may or may not like those specific amenities.
15:47:53 They still need to come up with the same dollar amount

15:47:55 in the end.
15:47:56 And that's where that negotiation comes in at the
15:47:58 public hearing.
15:47:59 That's where you will always have the discretion
15:48:00 because you adopt it in the end.
15:48:02 The methodology is what we are locking in right now,
15:48:04 the actual calculation.
15:48:10 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I hate to interrupt, but what I'm
15:48:11 concerned about is that council sometimes is placed in
15:48:15 a position, will this be a subject of a me go, of a
15:48:18 site plan, when comes to a public hearing?
15:48:22 That's the concern that I have.
15:48:23 In other words, if council does not feel as if the
15:48:25 amenities merit increased density, is council's option
15:48:31 only, therefore, to suggest that you continue it if
15:48:34 they choose to or to vote it down but not to horse
15:48:37 trade?
15:48:39 Council being in a position of horse trading bonus
15:48:42 density amenities?
15:48:47 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I hate to say horse trading.
15:48:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I guess it does have a negative
15:48:54 connotation.

15:48:55 >>> To coincide with 27 that we are going to review
15:48:58 these amenity items, with all the stakeholders,
15:49:01 including the public and developers, to make sure that
15:49:04 these items are adjusted accordingly, to address any
15:49:08 market changes.
15:49:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't I hear from Mr. Smith and
15:49:15 then ask my question?
15:49:19 >>DAVID SMITH: Try to back up.
15:49:20 Part of what we are trying to do, and part of the
15:49:23 process you are trying to establish, is to provide some
15:49:25 answers and some direction both to the community and
15:49:29 the applicant to come before you.
15:49:30 You are going to have a process by which in
15:49:32 consultation with the community and the neighborhood,
15:49:35 what are our priorities?
15:49:37 That will be known.
15:49:39 So an applicant comes through and is seeking bonus
15:49:42 density knows that this council, in that community, has
15:49:45 decided parks, public art, and parking, or whatever it
15:49:50 is you decided or what we really want to see out there,
15:49:53 so you are communicating to the applicant pool at
15:49:56 large, so they can plan accordingly.

15:49:58 There's a tremendous amount of expense involved in
15:50:00 planning the project.
15:50:01 You don't want to be going back and forth.
15:50:03 They don't want to be going back and forth.
15:50:05 So we are trying to provide you a process by which you
15:50:08 can at least quantify the value of the credit.
15:50:10 Then pursuant to the other overlay process, you're
15:50:13 setting the operators.
15:50:14 So it provides you a tremendous amount of flexibility
15:50:17 in working with the neighborhood and the community to
15:50:19 determine those priorities.
15:50:20 But at least there's a certain degree of certainty or
15:50:24 specificity with what it's going to mean to somebody
15:50:26 who is planning the project.
15:50:28 We think it's the best combination for you.
15:50:30 You have a staff that has incredible amount of skill to
15:50:33 do this.
15:50:34 So they come in with a site plan that has four
15:50:39 different potential uses, and it's not now consistent
15:50:43 or no longer this council's view, you say that use, you
15:50:46 know, the extra green space or whatever it is, we don't
15:50:49 think that warrants a bonus density credit in this area

15:50:52 because we have got plenty of green space now, we are
15:50:55 not giving you a credit for that.
15:50:56 It comes off the site plan.
15:50:58 One of the things we are going to do -- I mentioned
15:51:00 this to several of you about you maybe not all of you
15:51:02 and Julia is working on this -- is we are going to
15:51:04 clarify your site plan alteration process so that this
15:51:07 council can alter a site plan, and we don't get into
15:51:10 the kinds of things we had previously.
15:51:15 So in conjunction we are changing the way that will
15:51:18 work.
15:51:18 We think that gives you more tools to shape the
15:51:20 character and the quality of the neighborhood you work
15:51:25 in as a board.
15:51:26 So we really think it's a good idea.
15:51:28 That's what we are trying to accomplish.
15:51:29 Not to say it's perfect.
15:51:31 I am not even conversant with it.
15:51:33 But I just think, I think that's what we are getting
15:51:38 to.
15:51:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That sound good.
15:51:39 I have an important legal question.

15:51:40 If we transmit this to the Planning Commission, what I
15:51:44 would plan to do before comes back or after it comes
15:51:48 back, is to hold some public meetings to do two things.
15:51:51 Number one, to hear from the public which things on the
15:51:53 list they think are important things that should be on
15:51:55 the list.
15:51:56 And secondly, if you all think we have to put all the
15:51:59 other peripheral neighborhoods, let them know that they
15:52:02 can share their thoughts on that.
15:52:04 But while it's going through this process of going to
15:52:07 the Planning Commission and coming back before us,
15:52:11 would the pending ordinance doctrine kick in meaning
15:52:14 would a developer be able to say, well, you're working
15:52:17 on this, and bicycle accommodations on the list, so,
15:52:21 therefore, even though that might not make the final
15:52:24 cut, they would be able to claim, well, it was kind it
15:52:27 in the works and I have accommodated bicycles to get
15:52:31 another ten stories.
15:52:32 >>DAVID SMITH: I understand the question.
15:52:35 I think by virtue of the way it's been constructed, it
15:52:38 can be used as a shield to address some of the issues
15:52:41 we were trying to solve, but not as a sword by the

15:52:44 applicant.
15:52:45 So I think we are literally in that position of
15:52:47 improving our case vis-a-vis protecting what we have in
15:52:51 the comp plan, and not enhancing the leverage of maybe
15:52:55 an applicant.
15:52:56 So I really think this works out well both ways.
15:52:59 Then in regards to the -- as long as we start the
15:53:02 process in those other areas, I will be happy if we are
15:53:05 trying to do this throughout the appropriate area, he
15:53:07 would don't have any discussion issue, there's a in the
15:53:12 Channel District just by virtue of what's happening.
15:53:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Having a plan.
15:53:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a change I want to suggest.
15:53:21 Two changes.
15:53:22 On page 22 of the handout, and this addresses a couple
15:53:26 of questions that have been raised.
15:53:31 >>> 22 of the Channel District?
15:53:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 27.459, bottom of page 22 for us.
15:53:40 It says: In order to receive any bonus in F.A.R.,
15:53:44 David, I just want you to run with me hear.
15:53:47 In order to receive any bonus in F.A.R.
15:53:51 It's a very flat statement and to me it indicates what

15:53:55 Marty was alluding to that perhaps they create the
15:53:57 right.
15:53:58 And what I would suggest, soften that up a little bit,
15:54:04 is than stead of that, I would add in, in order to
15:54:08 receive -- and then add in -- consideration from City
15:54:12 Council to receive any bonus in F.A.R.
15:54:16 So, in other words, it gives us the latitude, it gives
15:54:19 us a little bit of discretion.
15:54:21 Okay.
15:54:21 That's number one.
15:54:23 Go down to the third line in that same paragraph.
15:54:26 The property owner and/or developer shall -- and then I
15:54:31 would say, rye right now it says the developer selects
15:54:35 the items.
15:54:36 What I would say is, the property owner shall work with
15:54:40 city staff to select the items.
15:54:50 Then that way City Council is assured city staff is
15:54:53 aware of that process before it comes to us so at the
15:54:56 end of the day the developer will bring to us what they
15:54:57 want to bring to us but at least that they are going to
15:55:00 try to work with city staff to do it.
15:55:02 Let me just give you my third one.

15:55:10 The property owner and or developer shall, I say, work
15:55:13 with city staff, and I would plug in one more thing, to
15:55:17 select items that are needed in the subarea of the
15:55:21 Channel District or in the particular periphery
15:55:23 district.
15:55:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's not actually the right place
15:55:31 to put that.
15:55:32 Would you put that in the main ordinance for the entire
15:55:34 periphery.
15:55:35 This is specific to Channel District only.
15:55:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If there's a better place to put
15:55:41 that, that's fine.
15:55:43 >>DAVID SMITH: Let me ask you this, councilman
15:55:46 Dingfelder.
15:55:46 The language you are talking about, you don't think
15:55:48 that would be captured in the process by which this
15:55:51 list will be created? I think what you're saying is
15:55:53 conceptual how that list is to be prepared.
15:55:56 >> Right.
15:55:56 Both for the Channel District and for the periphery
15:55:59 area.
15:55:59 And we could put it in wherever it's appropriate.

15:56:02 What was your language?
15:56:06 Shall work with city staff.
15:56:07 And then the other one, shall select items that are
15:56:10 needed in the subarea of the Channel District, or in
15:56:15 the particular periphery district.
15:56:20 >> In whose determination?
15:56:22 In whose determination?
15:56:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ultimately it's our determination.
15:56:27 But at least it gives us the ability to be able to make
15:56:30 that determination and say, you know what?
15:56:32 We don't think that in this particular subquadrant of
15:56:37 the Channel District southwest corner, whatever, that
15:56:41 we have got plenty of -- and therefore when don't
15:56:45 believe any more are needed because the last five
15:56:48 buildings have given us those bike paths, okay?
15:56:51 So at least the person 100 years from now who is doing
15:57:00 this.
15:57:00 But that's what we do when we write ordinances.
15:57:03 We don't write them for us today.
15:57:04 We write them for the next, you know.
15:57:10 >> I guess my question is does council think that bonus
15:57:12 density should be given as a matter of right or --

15:57:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In a.
15:57:19 >>> That's why I say that.
15:57:21 >> My first change addresses that.
15:57:23 It says in order to receive consideration from City
15:57:25 Council to receive the bonus density.
15:57:26 I think that automatically implies that mere
15:57:32 consideration is an opportunity to receive those bonus
15:57:34 densities and it's not automatic.
15:57:35 And I'm glad you pointed it out.
15:57:38 Then the next part says to what Linda has been saying,
15:57:41 is those amenities, not just a function of the
15:57:45 developer in selecting them, the developer needs to
15:57:48 work with staff to select the appropriate ones.
15:57:50 And then it would give us a little bit of discretion at
15:57:52 the end of the day to strike some of them if we
15:57:56 conclude that they are not necessarily needed in that
15:58:01 particular periphery area northwest, northeast,
15:58:03 et cetera, or in that particular subdistrict of the
15:58:06 Channel District.
15:58:07 And that's the intent of my suggestion.
15:58:11 >>> If staff is amenable that's a great idea.
15:58:15 Take what your suggesting and make it apply throughout.

15:58:18 If you look under the purpose and intent and under
15:58:20 27-239, the purpose and intent of this section is to --
15:58:27 329?
15:58:28 27-329, subpart A.
15:58:33 Should be rate on are your front page.
15:58:37 >> It says 11-9-06 draft.
15:58:40 You have two different sets.
15:58:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I passed it off.
15:58:44 >> Okay.
15:58:46 The intent of the section is to ensure the words -- we
15:58:51 might put it after insure.
15:58:54 We'll look at the language.
15:58:55 To establish a message, to quantify bonus, amenities,
15:59:03 bonus amenities?
15:59:04 Is that what it says?
15:59:06 However, does not mandate the award of the benefit.
15:59:15 We are establishing a method but not mandating the
15:59:17 award.
15:59:19 Which is I think what you're saying.
15:59:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Stated up front, this is the list.
15:59:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's council's intention to do it
15:59:36 in the form of a motion.

15:59:38 Mr. Dingfelder.
15:59:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is this something that we would
15:59:42 change and bring back next week, to get it done with?
15:59:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If you're comfortable with the
15:59:52 changes requested, could you motion to transmit with
15:59:54 the requested change.
15:59:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm comfortable.
15:59:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm comfortable with it and I'll
16:00:01 give you my notes as well.
16:00:02 There's one other thing that I wanted to say on the
16:00:05 actual list under transit support.
16:00:07 I just wanted to modify that slightly, item H on page
16:00:10 23.
16:00:15 I guess for the record, 27-459-B-1-H.
16:00:20 And that's transit support.
16:00:21 It says contributions to streetcar, trolley, bus
16:00:24 shelter.
16:00:25 I think the intent of that that is contribution to the
16:00:30 operation of buses, street car, trolley or the
16:00:35 construction of bus shelters.
16:00:37 And I just want to clarify that.
16:00:39 Because I think it's important that we try and get

16:00:41 these new biddings to contribute to the operation of
16:00:44 our transit facilities.
16:00:47 >>> That's true.
16:00:47 I can clarify that.
16:00:48 The way it's calculated in the other one, 329, the
16:00:54 other handout, transit support, it is based on per
16:01:02 household, compilation of the building.
16:01:05 Then you get the current cost for that facility.
16:01:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just wanted to make sure that
16:01:11 operation slips into H somewhere.
16:01:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can do that.
16:01:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's all I have.
16:01:17 I'll move to amend the graft of those two to
16:01:23 accommodate those changes addition to the changes that
16:01:26 David Smith read.
16:01:30 And a motion to transmit.
16:01:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to compliment -- oh, we
16:01:35 need to hear from the public.
16:01:43 I wanted to compliment the staff on the suggestions
16:01:46 that they have come up with, and also Mr. Dingfelder's
16:01:49 discussion.
16:01:49 And I want to share that there's been concerns about

16:01:55 the public being engaged in this, that I will schedule
16:01:59 meetings for all the public after it comes back from
16:02:03 the Planning Commission, actually before, so that we
16:02:06 can come up with a really tight focus for things.
16:02:12 >>> For the record I did attend the Tampa Heights civic
16:02:14 association meeting several months ago, probably four,
16:02:17 five months ago and I had copies, sort of explained to
16:02:21 them why there is a periphery and why it's calculated.
16:02:28 >>FRANK REDDICK: What kind of feedback did you get from
16:02:30 the residents?
16:02:31 >>> Well, really, when we go to meetings like that, the
16:02:35 initial feedback is what is zoning?
16:02:36 What the heck is F.A.R.?
16:02:38 So --
16:02:39 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What are you talking about?
16:02:42 >>> I went to LENA young afterwards.
16:02:45 And they got it.
16:02:46 Their question is how does this parallel our
16:02:48 neighborhood plan?
16:02:49 And ultimately what they want is amenities in their
16:02:52 neighborhood.
16:02:52 And these bonuses could get that for them so that is

16:02:56 pretty much the consensus that this generally wouldn't
16:02:59 harm them.
16:03:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
16:03:02 floor.
16:03:03 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
16:03:04 Opposed, Nay.
16:03:07 (Motion carried).
16:03:08 >>DAVID SMITH: I was going to remained council the
16:03:10 obvious.
16:03:11 This has to go through an entire public hearing
16:03:13 process.
16:03:14 You are going to hear from the public.
16:03:15 We are going to hear from the public.
16:03:16 There will be a lot.
16:03:18 Anybody who is watching, there will be plenty of
16:03:20 opportunity to be heard on this issue.
16:03:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One other thing real quick.
16:03:28 I asked Mr. LaMotte to come here for a specific reason.
16:03:31 And I wouldn't want him to think he was just sitting
16:03:34 here enjoying this conversation.
16:03:36 Before we finish up on this issue, Roy, if you could
16:03:40 give us a time line on the traffic and transportation

16:03:43 study, the big study that's occurring downtown.
16:03:50 I know you're working on funding it and that sort of
16:03:53 thing.
16:03:56 Lot
16:03:57 >>ROY LAMOTTE: Transportation manager.
16:03:59 The study that you are referencing is the circulation
16:04:02 and downtown model that we are attempting to work on as
16:04:06 a tool to help us with the development process.
16:04:09 We were in the preparation scope at this time, able to
16:04:13 submit it out.
16:04:13 And we are hopeful it will be completed within two
16:04:16 months and get it out on the street.
16:04:20 >> And then what happens then?
16:04:22 And does it include the periphery areas that you have
16:04:24 seen on these maps?
16:04:26 >>> Yes, it will include all of the area in the
16:04:28 downtown and the adjoining area.
16:04:32 Including Channelside.
16:04:33 And we will evaluate a model, to be able to put in
16:04:40 links and take out links and assess development and
16:04:42 make evaluations from it.
16:04:46 I don't have closure on the actual time of our

16:04:49 completion.
16:04:49 But I would anticipate that it would be done within a
16:04:52 six-week period.
16:04:57 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to information from council
16:04:59 members.
16:04:59 Mr. Reddick, do you have anything?
16:05:01 >>FRANK REDDICK: Yes.
16:05:03 I don't know if this is the proper way of doing it but
16:05:06 I just want for our CRA meeting coming up on the
16:05:09 21st, wanted to have discussion about the East
16:05:12 Tampa neighborhood project included as an agenda item.
16:05:20 >>GWEN MILLER: 8:30 next week.
16:05:22 >> MARY ALVAREZ: How long did you want it?
16:05:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Five minutes.
16:05:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I second that.
16:05:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
16:05:30 (Motion carried).
16:05:31 >>FRANK REDDICK: That's it.
16:05:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know if anybody heard about
16:05:36 Plant High School.
16:05:39 >>GWEN MILLER: I was there.
16:05:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You went to Miami?

16:05:44 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
16:05:44 I went to the rally.
16:05:46 >>> Plant High School defeated Osceola, Winter Haven,
16:05:48 Armwood, Booker T. Washington, Nease and marched onto
16:05:52 the state 5-A football championships.
16:05:54 In addition, coach Weiner won for the second year in a
16:05:59 row the Coach of the Year Award in the Tampa Bay area.
16:06:01 And I wanted us to go ahead and give the coach and his
16:06:05 seniors a commendation for both of those achievements.
16:06:09 >> That was already done at the rally.
16:06:11 Mary and I were there to give the proclamation.
16:06:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We gave them a commendation?
16:06:22 >>GWEN MILLER: He says it has to be in January.
16:06:26 They are too busy.
16:06:27 Can't do it till January.
16:06:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Along those same lines, we have a
16:06:32 wonderful city facility right there at Plant High
16:06:34 School, the water tower.
16:06:36 And the water tower used to get painted ad hoc where
16:06:38 kids would climb the tower and write PHS Go Panthers.
16:06:44 But I think we need to do a little more formal.
16:06:46 So my motion is to request that the city administration

16:06:51 and specifically the water department, who by the way
16:06:54 happens to be a proud father of a plant hey football
16:06:57 player, so I don't think he has a problem with this.
16:07:00 And Steve Daignault is a graduate plant.
16:07:02 But if the administration would work with the booster
16:07:05 club to see what we could do about painting some
16:07:08 appropriate recognition, not only for the football team
16:07:11 but also for the girls volleyball team.
16:07:13 Girls won state this year as well.
16:07:15 So they can come back to us in 30 days with a report on
16:07:20 their meeting.
16:07:21 And the booster club, I would suggest the booster club
16:07:23 could and would pay for this.
16:07:25 It would not be a city thing.
16:07:28 So that's number two.
16:07:29 Then finally, that was a motion.
16:07:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I second it.
16:07:35 (Motion Carried).
16:07:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
16:07:37 Then finally, on a more somber note, we all read about
16:07:43 the tragedy in Brandon with the high school student and
16:07:47 crosswalk issue and getting killed, very tragic for the

16:07:50 whole community and the family.
16:07:54 Candy Olsen has made a motion over at school board to
16:07:57 work on this issue and to work on it with us.
16:08:01 Is Roy still here?
16:08:03 >>CHAIRMAN: He's gone.
16:08:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Anyway, my motion is to request that
16:08:08 right now the state law mandates that you have all
16:08:11 sorts of control devices around elementary and middle
16:08:14 school but not about around the high schools.
16:08:16 But it doesn't mean that we can't improve on that and
16:08:18 do it around the high schools.
16:08:20 So my motion would be that Roy work with the school
16:08:23 board over the next 60 days to see what kind of
16:08:26 improvements we can make around all the high schools
16:08:29 that are within the city limits.
16:08:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
16:08:33 (Motion carried).
16:08:34 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just to remained everybody that West
16:08:39 Tampa is having -- Sunday December 13th from 12 to
16:08:45 5 p.m
16:08:46 Enjoy yourselves.
16:08:48 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Madam Chair.

16:08:50 First I would like a commendation for deputy chief Mike
16:08:54 Gonzalez next Thursday.
16:08:55 He obtained a if FEMA grant on his own of approximately
16:08:58 half a million dollars so that they can do remote
16:09:02 training for the new firefighters from different
16:09:05 locations.
16:09:06 So I think we ought to say thank you for that.
16:09:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
16:09:12 (Motion carried).
16:09:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: We read in the paper this morning
16:09:16 that the Moffitt cancer center, and Mr. Huey is still
16:09:22 here and he is quite aware of this situation -- is in
16:09:27 the middle of quite a bidding war, it sounds like,
16:09:30 between Pasco County and Hillsborough County.
16:09:32 And as that is in the middle of my district and employs
16:09:37 several people in my district and is on the campus of
16:09:40 my old alma mater, I would like my colleagues to allow
16:09:43 me to represent the City Council to the extent that Mr.
16:09:46 Huey and the administration feel there's anything out
16:09:49 there that we can be of service of at the council
16:09:52 level, and I would like to be involved in that.
16:09:56 That's a major employer in my district.

16:09:58 And we have got to make sure that we protect Moffitt
16:10:00 cancer center, and we work cooperatively with
16:10:03 Hillsborough County.
16:10:04 >>DAVID SMITH: I would just like to make sure because
16:10:09 it's in your district, council is not appointing him
16:10:11 any special power, a sunshine meeting because we do
16:10:16 have that.
16:10:16 I know that's not what you are doing.
16:10:18 I just want to clarify that.
16:10:19 We have people calling us all the time about alleged
16:10:21 violations.
16:10:23 So we are just being clear that's not the case.
16:10:28 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I don't really know what that means,
16:10:30 David.
16:10:31 [ Laughter ]
16:10:38 >> Not there to take official action on behalf of the
16:10:40 city.
16:10:41 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Not taking action on behalf of the
16:10:42 administration.
16:10:46 That's correct.
16:10:46 But to the extent -- I'm just representing us.
16:10:59 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Do we need a motion?

16:11:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I second it.
16:11:05 (Motion Carried).
16:11:05 >>SHAWN HARRISON: One more thing, Mary, before you go.
16:11:09 I attended the National League of Cities this past week
16:11:15 in Nevada.
16:11:15 And my colleagues couldn't join me but I did bring a
16:11:17 little one-cent wristband back for everybody that we
16:11:22 got.
16:11:23 And actually there was a contingency from the mayor's
16:11:25 youth corps there.
16:11:27 And if they are interested, I would love for them to
16:11:32 come in maybe next week or sometime in January and tell
16:11:34 us how it went and what they learned and if they think
16:11:37 it's a worthwhile organization.
16:11:39 That's not a motion.
16:11:40 Just the invitation is out there.
16:11:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Not a motion.
16:11:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's definitely worth less than a
16:11:48 dollar.
16:11:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
16:11:53 There was a reason for you to stay.
16:11:55 Did you want to discuss this issue, Mary?

16:12:00 I think this is Ms. Alvarez' issue actually.
16:12:03 >>GWEN MILLER: She forgot it.
16:12:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I think I made a motion a few weeks ago
16:12:08 that the people, the get together with the residents
16:12:13 that have been there, and do something about the rat
16:12:16 situation in that project that they are planning in
16:12:20 West Tampa.
16:12:21 And I had a call from Ms. Ruth McNair a few weeks ago.
16:12:26 And she's still at it.
16:12:28 She said that the buildings that they have torn down
16:12:32 have created a rat population out there, and that one
16:12:35 of her neighbors has killed five rats.
16:12:39 And so I was going to talk to Mr. Sykes but I never got
16:12:43 a chance to do that.
16:12:45 So I think I would like somebody to please follow up
16:12:52 because it's a really bad problem.
16:12:54 They are talking about now, talking about not only the
16:12:57 rats but the other creatures that are running around.
16:13:01 They don't have a home anymore.
16:13:03 So they are looking for homes.
16:13:05 And we want to help them.
16:13:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You care about the homeless?

16:13:13 >>> I care about the homeless.
16:13:14 I don't care about rats or creatures that go bump in
16:13:16 the night.
16:13:17 So I would appreciate that, Mr. Huey.
16:13:20 Thank you.
16:13:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I made a tour the other day of the
16:13:25 federal courthouse down the street.
16:13:27 And I have been there a few years ago.
16:13:28 A few years ago it was less moldy than it is now.
16:13:32 It's ours.
16:13:33 We need to do better by it.
16:13:35 I would like to move we get a report in 60 days on what
16:13:37 the city is doing to address the environmental hazard
16:13:40 of the federal courthouse.
16:13:43 Perhaps looking for -- we need to clean it up and clean
16:13:46 it out.
16:13:47 Secondly, would like to know what we are doing -- it's
16:13:51 one of our amenities, I think we took a hiatus.
16:13:54 We need to get back on it.
16:13:56 That's a motion.
16:13:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
16:13:58 (Motion carried).

16:13:58 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just one brief item.
16:14:04 After last week's council meeting, I attended an event
16:14:07 that was put together in preparation for the Gasparilla
16:14:12 film festival, international film festival that's being
16:14:15 launched this year as part of our annual Gasparilla
16:14:18 celebration.
16:14:19 And I'll be circulating information on when and where
16:14:22 those events are.
16:14:23 I would just encourage folks to find the time to attend
16:14:26 that.
16:14:26 It's going to be a really excellent week of events and
16:14:30 showing films from across the United States, some
16:14:34 excellent local films and number of international films
16:14:36 as well.
16:14:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is that based out of Tampa Theatre?
16:14:40 >>> They will have events at Tampa Theatre, events at
16:14:43 other locations including an open air oriented event
16:14:47 downtown.
16:14:47 So it's really going to be an excellent series of
16:14:49 eventing all week long.
16:14:52 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to announce the mayor is
16:14:54 sponsoring a rally tomorrow at 12:30 in the courtyard

16:14:57 for Plant High School football team, for their
16:15:00 championship.
16:15:02 If any council member would like to go, it's right over
16:15:04 there in the courtyard at 12:30 to 1:30.
16:15:09 In case it rains we are going to go to the Tampa
16:15:11 convention center.
16:15:12 You are welcome to attend.
16:15:14 And I want to say go panthers again.
16:15:17 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Go panthers.
16:15:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion to receive and file.
16:15:19 (Motion carried)
16:15:21 Clerk, do you have anything?
16:15:24 We have to finish up.
16:15:25 Mr. Shelby, have you got anything?
16:15:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
16:15:28 Just I understand that Mr. Michelini wishes to bring an
16:15:30 issue before you.
16:15:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Michelini?
16:15:33 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Yes.
16:15:33 We had a wet zoning hearing to be set.
16:15:35 Staff has approved the application.
16:15:37 We had a scrivener's error.

16:15:39 We will need a description which required it to be
16:15:42 changed.
16:15:42 Because of that, it missed the doc agenda.
16:15:44 But we are requesting that 2202 west Kennedy wet zoning
16:15:49 07-14 be scheduled for January 18th.
16:15:55 >>GWEN MILLER: What time, 10 a.m.?
16:15:57 >>STEVE MICHELINI: 10 a.m.
16:15:59 Staff is here to concur.
16:16:01 >>BARBARA LEPORE: The application was reviewed.
16:16:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
16:16:11 All in favor say Aye.
16:16:12 (Motion carried).
16:16:13 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have one second request, that when
16:16:16 you are looking at the CBD periphery area, there's a
16:16:19 small triangle that occurs from Hyde Park to Platt
16:16:24 Street, that the boundary line actually runs Do down
16:16:29 the middle of the Crosstown expressway.
16:16:31 I request that you have them look at extending that
16:16:34 boundary to Platt Street and then run from plat down to
16:16:38 Bayshore oh into the downtown.
16:16:40 Excluding a couple of properties that potentially could
16:16:43 be redeveloped.

16:16:47 It's a map amendment.
16:16:49 You are going to be doing that anyway with your plan.
16:16:52 >> The plan update?
16:16:54 >> With the plan update and your position on the CBD.
16:16:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We could address that.
16:17:05 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
16:17:08 Anything else coming before council?
16:17:09 We go to our audience portion.
16:17:11 (Meeting recessed at 4:17 p.m.)
16:17:12