Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
9AM meeting
Thursday, March 15, 2007

10:28:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
10:28:58 The chair will yield to Ms. Mary Alvarez.
10:29:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
10:29:03 It gives me great pleasure this morning to introduce
10:29:05 the Monsignor Laurence Higgins to give our invocation
10:29:10 this morning.

10:29:11 Please stand for the invocation and stay standing for
10:29:13 the pledge of allegiance.
10:29:15 Monsignor, you're on.
10:29:20 >> Let us pray.
10:29:21 Almighty God, we pray for our City Council.
10:29:26 Send your spirit of wisdom on each one to help them
10:29:29 make right decisions which are at times difficult
10:29:32 ones.
10:29:34 So that all the people of our community will work
10:29:38 together for the greater common good.
10:29:39 Let us all strive to live together in harmony, good
10:29:44 will and peace.
10:29:45 Amen.
10:29:48 (Pledge of Allegiance).
10:29:56 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to make an announcement.
10:30:07 The city attorney for the council is not here today,
10:30:10 Marty Shelby, because his father passed, and he's
10:30:13 away.
10:30:13 I don't know where he is but we'll be hearing from him
10:30:16 later.
10:30:17 Arrangements for the funeral have not been made so if
10:30:20 we can bow for a moment of silence, please.

10:30:25 (moment of silence)
10:30:28 Amen.
10:30:29 Roll call.
10:30:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
10:30:32 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
10:30:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ:
10:30:36 >>FRANK REDDICK: Here.
10:30:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
10:30:37 >>GWEN MILLER: At this time Mary Alvarez will present
10:30:41 our police Officer of the Month.
10:30:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: It gave me great pleasure to introduce
10:31:13 officer David MENSCH, police Officer of the Month.
10:31:27 Chief Hogue, would you do us the honors?
10:31:29 >> Thank you once again for honoring our police
10:31:32 officer of the month of March 2007 is our officer
10:31:37 David MENSCH, and he's standing to my right.
10:31:41 We are very proud to present him as Officer of the
10:31:43 Month.
10:31:44 I believe your wife is here and you have some family
10:31:46 and friends.
10:31:46 Why don't you have them come up, too?
10:31:49 And you have your young son here.

10:32:03 >> We have a police department of a thousand an we
10:32:08 pick 12 a year to be Officer of the Month.
10:32:10 So each one of them is special person for the police
10:32:16 department.
10:32:16 And David is no exception to that.
10:32:20 But one thing that they all have in common is work
10:32:24 ethic.
10:32:27 Everyone that you see in here is a hard worker that
10:32:29 does something extra.
10:32:31 And David is a police officer, obviously, works
10:32:39 patrol, and normal specialized unit but he has a
10:32:45 specialty, and that is stolen vehicles.
10:32:46 And one of the things in the police D business that we
10:32:49 understand is a stolen vehicle is a gateway crime,
10:32:53 really, to other crimes.
10:32:55 Because people steal a cared and then they think they
10:32:59 are immune from being caught because when somebody
10:33:01 gets a tag number when they use to the break into a
10:33:04 car or rob somebody, it just comes back to a stolen
10:33:07 car that's not registered to them, so then they'll
10:33:10 steal a car and go on crime waves.
10:33:15 Sometimes we have had people do as many as 100 crimes

10:33:17 in one stolen car.
10:33:19 So auto theft, if you want to reduce crime in the
10:33:24 city, it's one of those crimes you have to
10:33:25 aggressively attack.
10:33:27 David has done just exactly that.
10:33:30 One month he recovered over $131,000 worth of stolen
10:33:34 vehicles.
10:33:35 He's got a knack for it.
10:33:38 It's not easy to pick out a stolen car because there's
10:33:42 thousands of cars on the road every day that you drive
10:33:45 by and it's constant work running tags through the
10:33:48 computer and finding a stolen car.
10:33:50 And, unfortunately, in a sense, I don't think that I
10:33:58 have ever seen a stolen car that just pulled over and
10:34:00 gave up.
10:34:01 Once you put the lights on, usually you have to chase
10:34:03 them.
10:34:06 And David had one month two vehicle pursuits with
10:34:11 stolen cars.
10:34:13 Vehicle pursuits are dangerous, no way around it.
10:34:16 But there are ways to conduct them.
10:34:19 It makes them considerably less dangerous.

10:34:22 And when we saw the videos of his pursuits, we want to
10:34:26 use them as training videos, they are so good.
10:34:29 Because when you start a pursuit, there's a whole
10:34:33 litany of things you have to go through, not only do
10:34:35 you -- are you chasing a wanted felon at this point
10:34:39 because he's stolen a car, in possession of a stolen
10:34:42 car, you have to give a description of all the
10:34:44 occupants in the car, you have to tell what direction
10:34:46 you are going, tell what speed you are going, you have
10:34:48 to tell what traffic conditions are so that
10:34:50 supervisors will know how many cars are out on the
10:34:54 street, what the weather conditions are, so that
10:34:56 supervisors can make decisions to hem the patrol
10:34:58 officer continue or discontinue a pursuit.
10:35:02 And you have to give that changing direction all the
10:35:04 time.
10:35:06 You have to do all this and stay calm.
10:35:10 And it's more difficult than it sounds, because you
10:35:13 get a little excited when you know you are chasing a
10:35:16 wanted felon and he's running from you.
10:35:21 David is superb in all those things and conducting
10:35:24 them safely or as safe as they can be conducted.

10:35:27 But he's even got a better quality than that, because
10:35:29 in both of these cases, once they decided they weren't
10:35:33 going to outrun him, they jumped out of the car and
10:35:35 thought they might outrun him on foot.
10:35:37 If you notice he's got a little gray around the
10:35:40 temples, which I can relate to.
10:35:48 And the fiscal condition as well as the meant a.m.
10:35:50 condition to do a pursuit and to catch people.
10:35:53 He also has the physical abilities to do it and we
10:35:55 appreciate that.
10:35:59 Tampa is clearly a safer city because of what David
10:36:04 has been doing out there every day.
10:36:05 We would like to congratulate him.
10:36:07 And we are very proud to announce him as our Officer
10:36:09 of the Month.
10:36:10 Thank you, David.
10:36:11 [ Applause ]
10:36:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: With that we would like to give the
10:36:23 commendation to David MENSCH, police Officer of the
10:36:27 Month.
10:36:29 He has been select as police Officer of the Month of
10:36:32 March 2007.

10:36:34 His outstanding skills and intuition leading to more
10:36:37 than 30 arrests and 872 self-initiated calls, with his
10:36:44 specialty for catching car thieves, for dedication and
10:36:48 keeping the city safe, the Tampa City Council hereby
10:36:50 commends you on a job well done.
10:36:53 Congratulations.
10:36:54 [ Applause ]
10:36:55 I believe we have a few gifts for you.
10:37:05 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm her on behalf of a variety of
10:37:09 different folks who would like to acknowledge you and
10:37:12 congratulate you on a job well done.
10:37:14 The chief and I were talking earlier out in the lobby,
10:37:18 and I can tell you that under the chief's leadership
10:37:20 with the fine men and women in the police department
10:37:23 we have done a great job, and we owe them a great debt
10:37:26 of gratitude for what they have done and what you are
10:37:28 doing for us out there in the community.
10:37:31 On behalf of all those people, I would like to
10:37:34 congratulate you.
10:37:35 Bryn Allen studios will provide you with a
10:37:37 photographic package and we'll have your family
10:37:40 portraits done.

10:37:42 David lapser and list development is providing you
10:37:46 with a $100 gift certificate to go enjoy Bern's.
10:37:49 The Hillsborough County towing association is
10:37:51 providing with you a $50 gift certificate to go to
10:37:54 Carrabas or Outback, your choice.
10:37:56 And Stepp's towing, I think they might have been here
10:37:59 earlier, but they are also going to provide with you a
10:38:01 $50 gift certificate, and a nice statute with your
10:38:06 name on it.
10:38:07 And I think that Danny Lewis and Bill Currie Ford will
10:38:11 provide you with a watch with your logo on it from the
10:38:13 Tampa Police Department.
10:38:14 That's a limited edition that only police officers of
10:38:16 the month receive.
10:38:17 So congratulations.
10:38:20 Again thank you and thank your family.
10:38:22 [ Applause ]
10:38:37 >> I want to thank everybody.
10:38:41 It means a lot to me.
10:38:44 A little more than 4 years ago I came home and told my
10:38:47 wife I wanted to be a police officer in Tampa.
10:38:51 She asked me only one question.

10:38:53 Do you want to do this?
10:38:56 That may seem like a very simple exchange of question
10:38:59 and answer.
10:39:01 Up to that point, however, I was a chemist, not a
10:39:04 police officer.
10:39:05 I had no background at all in police work.
10:39:07 My wife had just given birth to our first child, and
10:39:10 she quit her job to be a full-time mom.
10:39:22 And she is the greatest person I ever knew.
10:39:27 I'm happy and blessed every day that I wake up I'm at
10:39:30 her side.
10:39:31 I want to thank the chief for running a great
10:39:34 department, hiring great people, like major TEE.
10:39:42 She let's us do what needs to be done to enforce the
10:39:45 laws, put bad people in jail.
10:39:47 She has a great sergeant working for her, sergeant
10:39:51 Jimmy Myer, who is my sergeant, who taught me a lot
10:39:54 about being a police officer, and what the right thing
10:39:58 is to do in the situation.
10:40:00 I would also like to thank one other person on our
10:40:03 squad, Jim Reiser.
10:40:08 During both these pursuits, was very calm, very

10:40:13 collected, and one of them he actually called the
10:40:15 other district.
10:40:15 We were one street north, had no idea I was in pursuit
10:40:18 of a vehicle.
10:40:19 He got off our frequency lines with another frequency,
10:40:21 told them we were in pursuit, those individuals from
10:40:24 the district 3 were able to come up and assist us in
10:40:28 apprehending two individuals.
10:40:30 Without that, there's no way we could have caught the
10:40:32 individual.
10:40:32 I had to stay on the frequency to make sure we
10:40:36 monitored the pursuit.
10:40:37 Did he a great job.
10:40:40 And I want to thank him very much.
10:40:44 I thank the City of Tampa for the recognition of me.
10:40:46 It means everything to me.
10:40:48 And I promise to keep doing a great job.
10:40:54 Thank you very much.
10:40:55 [ Applause ]
10:41:04 >>MARY ALVAREZ: One of Tampa's finest.
10:41:07 Thank you.
10:41:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.

10:41:11 We now go to our sign-in sheet.
10:41:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, under approval of
10:41:17 the agenda --
10:41:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We aren't there.
10:41:20 Not yet.
10:41:21 >> Approval of agenda is before the sign-up sheet.
10:41:23 >>GWEN MILLER: No, we did that first.
10:41:29 Is a representative from EPC still here or did he
10:41:32 leave?
10:41:33 Because he had to leave at ten, and if he's here I
10:41:36 would take you now for item number 8 so he can leave.
10:41:41 Okay.
10:41:42 Cindy Miller.
10:41:45 >> Cindy Miller, director of growth management,
10:41:49 development services here for both sign-up sheet items
10:41:53 for Homer Hesterly as well as number 8 regarding the
10:42:00 Palmetto beach area.
10:42:02 I'll start with those items so that we can finish that
10:42:07 for the gentleman from EPC to do his report.
10:42:10 I have a memo for distribution.
10:42:28 What I would like to report is last week an inspection
10:42:31 team which included code enforcement representatives,

10:42:33 as well as representatives of our construction
10:42:35 services division under my department, made a site
10:42:39 visit to the dock structures located on Bermuda
10:42:44 Boulevard in Palmetto Beach.
10:42:45 This was last Thursday.
10:42:48 Structures that were constructed on pilings over the
10:42:50 water were inspected by the entire staff. Three were
10:42:55 in use as existing crab shacks and one is considered
10:42:58 new construction.
10:42:59 Code enforcement staff indicated they would be --
10:43:01 would be issuing and order to vacate two of these
10:43:04 structures and they have determined that both ever
10:43:05 unfit for human habitation.
10:43:08 A third structure contains numerous safety violations
10:43:10 such as unsafe electrical wiring, and this property
10:43:14 will be issued a citation by code enforcement staff.
10:43:17 I understand that since that time those citations have
10:43:19 been issued.
10:43:21 The fourth structure which is on Bermuda, 1022 Bermuda
10:43:28 is considered new construction.
10:43:30 A stop work order has been issued and the owner has
10:43:32 been issued a notice of violation for construction

10:43:34 work without permit.
10:43:36 Inspection reports prepared by both the code
10:43:40 enforcement department and construction service staff
10:43:44 are also attached.
10:43:46 We do intend to continue working together and pursue
10:43:50 compliance.
10:43:50 I believe a report a couple weeks ago indicated this
10:43:53 was new information for us.
10:43:54 We thought that another jurisdiction was responsible
10:43:57 for the structures, to continue to pursue enforcement
10:44:02 just as we would any other structure on land within
10:44:04 the City of Tampa.
10:44:06 And that concludes my report, unless you have any
10:44:08 other questions.
10:44:11 >>FRANK REDDICK: Question.
10:44:13 Did you determine how many of those businesses
10:44:15 operating without a permit?
10:44:18 >>> How many were doing construction without a permit?
10:44:20 >> Or operating without a permit.
10:44:23 >>> From an operations standpoint, the code
10:44:25 enforcement department, we are looking as to unsafe
10:44:29 conditions for existing facility.

10:44:32 There was one structure that was new construction, and
10:44:36 that is the structure that my division put a stop work
10:44:39 order on for any further construction until they come
10:44:42 back to us with appropriate application.
10:44:45 >> Once code enforcement sites them, how much time --
10:44:56 >> I'm sorry, that's not my department.
10:44:57 I would have to have somebody else address that but I
10:44:59 know they are granted a specific amount of time to be
10:45:01 able to come into compliance.
10:45:05 They are given some number of days.
10:45:06 And then sidewalk inspections.
10:45:09 But we do intend to be very diligent with my
10:45:12 department as well as code enforcement to make sure
10:45:14 they comply during this T time period authorized under
10:45:17 the code.
10:45:18 >> Is it possible that we can get the proper
10:45:23 department, give us a report on that within a week?
10:45:27 >>> Well, what I will be very happy to do is get back
10:45:30 with Mr. Doherty, or Mr. Lane, and identify what that
10:45:33 is, and we'll have something back to you before the
10:45:35 end of this council meeting.
10:45:37 >>FRANK REDDICK: Thank you.

10:45:38 >>GWEN MILLER: The representative from EPC, do you
10:45:41 want to speak?
10:45:46 >> My name is Danny Alberti with the Environmental
10:45:52 Protection of Hillsborough County.
10:45:53 We were aware of the construction, requested to appear
10:45:56 before this council just recently.
10:45:59 We investigated this week, and we issued a warning
10:46:01 notice, which is a notice of alleged violation against
10:46:05 the properties that I believe is 902 and 1022 Bermuda
10:46:10 Boulevard, for unpermitted construction in wetlands.
10:46:14 We do have jurisdiction over the wetlands and any
10:46:18 potential water quality concerns.
10:46:20 We are investigating it currently.
10:46:23 If you all have any questions,.
10:46:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How quickly?
10:46:33 You said you are investigating.
10:46:34 Will you get back to us?
10:46:36 >>> Yes.
10:46:36 >> Two weeks?
10:46:37 >>> Like I said, we did issue a warning notice so
10:46:39 basically the ball is in the gentleman who owns the
10:46:42 property's court to respond.

10:46:48 They built some decking which we would consider an
10:46:51 impact over vegetation.
10:46:52 There are we really don't have any information to
10:46:59 investigate other than its unpermitted construction.
10:47:01 When I say unpermitted, I mean under the rules of the
10:47:04 EPC.
10:47:05 And we are going to wait for his response.
10:47:11 >> What is the time frame on that?
10:47:13 >>> Typically, I think they have 30 days.
10:47:15 We can respond to you at any time you like.
10:47:16 I believe it says respond within 30 days but we will
10:47:27 be happy to keep you apprised of everything going on.
10:47:30 >>> Cindy Miller, growth management development
10:47:32 services.
10:47:33 We did just confirm 30 days is also the time period
10:47:36 that from a code enforcement standpoint that is also
10:47:39 the same time period for construction services so 30
10:47:45 days to show compliance, and at least show progress in
10:47:49 correcting the action.
10:47:53 If I may, I have another.
10:47:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: you are going to know in 30 days if
10:48:01 we can put this on the agenda for staff report on

10:48:04 April 6th and it will be a staff report.
10:48:08 >>> We will be happy to get with code enforcement.
10:48:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion to hear back from staff.
10:48:13 >> Second.
10:48:14 (Motion carried).
10:48:14 >> Written report is fine.
10:48:21 >>> If that concludes that item.
10:48:36 I had asked the chair to authorize me to give a 3
10:48:39 minute presentation on the status of the fort Homer
10:48:45 Hesterly project.
10:48:46 I have not discussed this in the last few months.
10:48:48 And there has been discussion in the media so I
10:48:50 thought I needed to just lay out for you where we
10:48:52 stand on that particular matter.
10:49:01 They are owned by the National Guard.
10:49:02 The city does have a reverter for some portion of that
10:49:04 property which is how we became partnered with the
10:49:07 National Guard.
10:49:08 Back in August of last year, the armory board
10:49:13 presented us with a review committee comprised of
10:49:16 community representatives than National Guard
10:49:18 representatives, and evaluation of proposals.

10:49:21 Six were received, three were determined that they
10:49:25 would not go any further, and three were presented to
10:49:29 the board to be able in a ranked order to going
10:49:34 forward with further due diligence and negotiation
10:49:37 with the parties.
10:49:40 Those three were presented to the armory board at that
10:49:42 meeting, and what they request of their staffer is to
10:49:45 pursue negotiations for due diligence with all three
10:49:49 at the same time.
10:49:50 In the intervening months we basically met with
10:49:52 National Guard staff by telephone, and in both cases
10:49:57 city staff and the National Guard staff were sort of
10:50:00 at a stalemate, because we couldn't determine how do
10:50:03 you that with three people.
10:50:05 So, therefore, the question was placed in the National
10:50:08 Guard as to how would they like to proceed?
10:50:12 Two key issues.
10:50:13 One is, it requires the relocation of the National
10:50:15 Guard.
10:50:16 It has to be a turn key operation.
10:50:18 Lock the door one day, open it in another location the
10:50:21 next day.

10:50:22 Also, all three proposers would take a land use change
10:50:26 in the comprehensive plan as well as rezoning.
10:50:28 So those are two critical areas that will take time.
10:50:32 The National Guard hired a local attorney here in
10:50:37 Tampa, Mr. Mark Bentley from gray Robinson.
10:50:41 I presented to you information from the armory board
10:50:43 showing the type of steps that are necessary for the
10:50:46 National Guard through their legal representatives to
10:50:49 go forward, we have due diligence in negotiation.
10:50:52 The board asked that they go in the prioritized order
10:50:55 presented by the review committee.
10:50:56 And I thought it would be helpful for you to see that
10:51:00 you would have a full outline.
10:51:02 It's a 4-page list with a lot of details. At this
10:51:05 point the National Guard will continue with their
10:51:07 negotiations, and it will be some time before they
10:51:12 will be back really before this council from a
10:51:15 standpoint of a comprehensive plan or rezoning.
10:51:17 That I believe would be the next step for when this
10:51:19 council would see the matter.
10:51:22 If there's any questions I would be happy to address
10:51:24 them.

10:51:25 >>GWEN MILLER: no.
10:51:26 Thank you.
10:51:27 >> I do want to let you know that an issue has been
10:51:33 raised relating to -- forgive me because I am not Marty
10:51:38 and I am not as familiar with your rules of procedure
10:51:40 as he would be.
10:51:42 Whether or not the most appropriate thing to do now
10:51:44 would be to do the approval of the agenda versus going
10:51:47 to the sign-in sheet.
10:51:48 I did want to let you know that I looked at your
10:51:50 rules.
10:51:50 There really isn't a place specifically for your
10:51:54 signing up and speaking on the agenda.
10:51:57 So it's not something you necessarily have to waive
10:52:00 your rules to do.
10:52:01 I in order to ensure that we are doing things
10:52:05 properly, you may want to consider just asking for a
10:52:08 vote on the waiver of the rules.
10:52:09 I have the off-agenda item and the sign-up sheets to
10:52:14 be heard first.
10:52:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby has had me go to the sign-in
10:52:19 sheet first, then approve the agenda and continue the

10:52:21 agenda from there.
10:52:22 We always do the sign-in sheet before the approval of
10:52:24 the agenda.
10:52:25 >>> I wanted to raise the issue and make sure --
10:52:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Doing the right thing.
10:52:30 Not on the wrong track.
10:52:31 >>> Wanted to make sure everything was being done
10:52:33 correctly.
10:52:34 Thank you.
10:52:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Donna Wysong.
10:52:42 >> Good morning.
10:52:43 Donna Wysong, assistant city attorney, here to speak
10:52:45 to you very briefly on number 12 on your agenda.
10:52:50 I sent a memo to you the other day indicating that for
10:52:56 some reason, the actual doc agenda description does
10:53:00 not include the historic preservation.
10:53:02 It includes the A.R.C. but left off the actual
10:53:08 designation.
10:53:09 That was inadvertent.
10:53:14 And the memo to be -- the draft ordinance, that was
10:53:18 the ordinance sent to you the other day.
10:53:19 So just want to clear up that confusion about the

10:53:22 agenda.
10:53:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All the council members have
10:53:29 received a number of e-mails from the preservation
10:53:31 community requesting additional time to perfect these
10:53:35 two ordinances that you have been working on for seven
10:53:38 years, and based on the number of e-mails that we
10:53:42 received requesting that the A.R.C. and HPC ordinances
10:53:47 be continued, Madam Chairman, fellow council
10:53:49 members --
10:53:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Wait for the agenda and then approve
10:53:54 it.
10:53:54 >> I thought since she brought it up.
10:53:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Correcting an error.
10:53:57 This is not the time.
10:53:59 Thank you. Mindy Snyder.
10:54:02 >> Mindy Snyder, Tampa Television manager with the
10:54:20 office of cable communication.
10:54:21 I have Janet Hamilton, Debby Ward and Janette Fenton.
10:54:25 On behalf of the Women's History Month Planning
10:54:27 committee, we invite to you our eleventh annual
10:54:31 Women's History Month celebration which takes place
10:54:34 March 16th from 11 a.m. till noon.

10:54:36 Our keynote speaker is Mary Ann Massolio, who is the
10:54:41 executive director of the Children's Cancer Center.
10:54:43 I am also very pleased to announce we are honoring
10:54:46 assistant chief Jane Castor of our Josephine Stafford
10:54:51 Memorial Award recipient.
10:54:53 Also Gwen Miller will be there to provide greetings
10:54:54 from Council.
10:54:55 Entertainment will be provided by the University of
10:54:57 Tampa Women's Glee Club.
10:54:59 The celebration is free.
10:55:00 And it's open to the public.
10:55:02 And it will be held at the Tampa Convention Center in
10:55:04 rooms 20 and 21.
10:55:06 The committee -- and this is a very small part of the
10:55:09 committee.
10:55:10 It's a huge committee.
10:55:11 We have worked very, very hard this year to bring you
10:55:13 the very, very important celebration.
10:55:15 And we hope we can see you all there tomorrow on March
10:55:18 16th.
10:55:18 Thank you.
10:55:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We'll be there.

10:55:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Bonnie Wise.
10:55:30 >> Bonnie Wise, director of revenue and finance.
10:55:32 I'm here today to speak on item number 27.
10:55:41 This is an item on consent, the city's September
10:55:43 30th, 2006 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,
10:55:46 the CAFRS, we call it.
10:55:47 This is a receive and file item.
10:55:52 On the doc agenda process but because of the size we
10:55:56 also had hard copies delivered to you.
10:55:58 In addition the auditors are required to transmit
10:56:01 information to you.
10:56:02 That was in their doc agenda item as well.
10:56:05 In addition, the lady from KPMG when she speaks to you
10:56:09 will also be required to physically hand that same
10:56:12 item to you.
10:56:13 I would like to thank my staff, Lee Huffstutler, the
10:56:16 chief accountant and Bill Ladd, and also to other
10:56:20 departments because they are so actively involved with
10:56:23 a multitude of questions and analysis that our
10:56:26 auditors perform. With that I am going to quickly
10:56:29 turn it over to Lee Huffstutler for you.
10:56:31 >>> Good morning.

10:56:32 I am Lee Huffstutler, your chief accountant.
10:56:36 We are bringing this item to you this morning for your
10:56:38 acceptance.
10:56:39 I just wanted to quickly publicly thank Bill Ladd and
10:56:42 Jane Grover in my office who prepared it, Sharon
10:56:47 Welch, Stewart Campbell from the housing office,
10:56:50 Barbara Burkehorst from the budget office who were all
10:56:55 instrumental in this report, and also Lori Nixon, Lisa
10:56:56 Connor, John Fry, Deanna Wilkins from the auditing
10:57:00 firm who did a thorough, thorough, thorough job.
10:57:03 I am pleased with the effort that everyone put forth
10:57:05 in this production, and just to cut it short, I also
10:57:09 want to point out that this audit that you have before
10:57:12 you requires -- fulfills a requirement for the CRA
10:57:16 audit as well.
10:57:17 With that I will turn it over to Lori Nissan of KPMG.
10:57:27 Thank you.
10:57:35 >> As Bonnie mentioned, Lee is distributing something
10:57:37 that you actually already physically received in your
10:57:41 package that I am required to didn't to you
10:57:43 personally.
10:57:44 I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you this

10:57:45 morning and to discuss the results of our audit at the
10:57:50 city's September 30th, 2006 annual financial
10:57:52 report.
10:57:54 I know each of you has received a copy.
10:57:56 I am not sure if you had an opportunity to actually
10:57:59 read this.
10:58:00 Quite voluminous document but I will just point out
10:58:03 that if you haven't had a chance yet to read the MGMA,
10:58:10 for those of you who may be more familiar with the
10:58:12 public setting, it is something similar.
10:58:15 A very good summary of the overall city results for
10:58:18 the 2006 year.
10:58:20 There's also on the back of the document some
10:58:23 statistical information that you may find helpful.
10:58:27 We have met a few weeks ago with the finance director
10:58:30 and her staff to discuss the audit results in detail,
10:58:35 everything that you received, we have gone over with
10:58:37 them at length.
10:58:38 I passed out to you what we call our required
10:58:41 communications.
10:58:43 Those are required under our professional standards.
10:58:45 And that's really going to be the focus of my

10:58:47 presentation here this morning.
10:58:51 Our responsibility as your auditor is basically to
10:58:54 issue an opinion on the city's financial statements.
10:58:57 As a result of our audit procedure, we are able to
10:59:01 issue what we call an unqualified or a clean opinion,
10:59:04 which means that the financial statements are
10:59:07 materially correct at that point in type.
10:59:09 Under government auditing standards, we have some
10:59:12 additional responsibilities to issue an opinion on the
10:59:15 city's internal controls over financial reporting.
10:59:19 Again we have issued what we call an unqualified or a
10:59:22 clean opinion.
10:59:23 And that basically indicates that we did not identify
10:59:27 any reportable conditions or material weaknesses in
10:59:30 your internal controls.
10:59:34 Our last responsibility is the recipient of grant
10:59:37 funds.
10:59:37 We also have to perform form specific audit procedures
10:59:42 over those state and federal dollars that the city
10:59:44 receives.
10:59:45 We audited this year a total of nine federal and state
10:59:48 programs.

10:59:49 We issued an overall clean opinion on those programs:
10:59:55 And whim we did continue to have some audit findings,
10:59:57 if you compared our report this year versus last,
11:00:00 there's noticeable improvement in that area.
11:00:05 In prior years we identified two reportable conditions
11:00:08 and material weaknesses and none this year.
11:00:11 And lastly, as required by the auditor general, we did
11:00:14 issue a management letter which had certain
11:00:16 recommendations for improvement.
11:00:19 We met with management and received their responses
11:00:22 and have accepted those responses as to how they are
11:00:24 handling this in the coming year.
11:00:26 And if there's anything else specific that I haven't
11:00:28 covered, I would be happy to answer questions.
11:00:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions from council members?
11:00:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
11:00:36 The last item that you just addressed some issues, and
11:00:40 then they addressed them back.
11:00:41 Is that in the --
11:00:43 >>> That actually -- I haven't seen actual bound
11:00:46 documents.
11:00:46 It should be in the back of your packet under the

11:01:03 audit section.
11:01:06 Page 150 in your printed document.
11:01:10 Most of the comments we had were I.T. related and
11:01:14 focused on documenting existing policies and
11:01:16 procedures that they have in the department.
11:01:29 Thank you.
11:01:29 We appreciate it.
11:01:30 Mr. Steve Daignault.
11:01:34 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT:Ed administrator public works and
11:01:59 utilities services.
11:02:01 I'm passing out two documents here today.
11:02:04 One, the bigger document you have seen before.
11:02:07 It's a resolution in the contract that you approved
11:02:10 previously.
11:02:10 You are probably more interested in the second single
11:02:13 sheet document, which is a schedule.
11:02:17 I want to speak on item number 4, which is an update
11:02:21 of the Ashley street project.
11:02:29 You all have them?
11:02:31 Tab number 1 is just the resolution.
11:02:33 And tab 2 is the beginning of the contract.
11:02:37 If you look at tab 3, you would see that the purpose

11:02:41 of this is to identify streetscape enhancement that
11:02:46 improves the aesthetic appeal of the city's major
11:02:49 downtown entryway, increases pedestrian accommodation,
11:02:52 and interferes with other -- excuse me, interfaces
11:02:56 with other city design projects located along the
11:02:59 project corridor, public involvement through community
11:03:01 design workshops will be integral part of the
11:03:05 development of the design solutions.
11:03:07 That continues to be the purpose of this agreement.
11:03:11 And our goal here.
11:03:14 As you know, there are lots of other projects that are
11:03:16 being done in that area, the park, the museums,
11:03:20 et cetera, and these all have to come together so
11:03:22 timing is important and coordination is important.
11:03:25 If you look at tab 4, it says the project shall
11:03:29 include active public involvement.
11:03:31 Again, we did have a meeting early on that was an
11:03:37 involvement for the public to provide comment, both of
11:03:42 the park and Ashley.
11:03:45 It was a little premature on the Ashley part but we
11:03:49 have had that one public hearing.
11:03:52 We will have more.

11:03:53 In a minute I'll talk about the -- about the schedule
11:03:56 that will address those things.
11:03:58 And then item number 5, tab number 5, you will see
11:04:02 where EDAW, the urban designer in this process and
11:04:07 livable streets, had really not been brought to bear
11:04:10 yet on this contract or this project.
11:04:12 So we have a piece of information.
11:04:14 The Kiddleson report is a piece of information.
11:04:18 But it is just that.
11:04:19 We have not come to the public or to the counsel or to
11:04:23 the administration yet with a plan and a proposal.
11:04:28 The schedule, I will be glad to go over that schedule
11:04:31 just quickly, shows now that we have again some times
11:04:36 that we can coordinate with the other projects, it
11:04:39 shows the time to brief the administration, the City
11:04:42 Council, and public input time, and then after
11:04:46 schematic design is completed, we'll come back and do
11:04:49 that sequence again.
11:04:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My concern is this.
11:04:58 And you don't need to answer.
11:04:59 But I really need you to hear this.
11:05:05 If you take the kiddle son report, which doesn't

11:05:08 explore mobile alternatives, which doesn't explore the
11:05:12 majority of cut-through traffic downtown using other
11:05:15 streets than Ashley, then the entire process will be
11:05:19 flawed.
11:05:20 That is a first step.
11:05:21 It's the basic premise.
11:05:23 And I don't think that the program -- excuse me --
11:05:27 that the program provided to Kiddleson, the scope of
11:05:31 work, fully addressed the creation of alternative
11:05:36 routes.
11:05:36 I think that you have got to go back.
11:05:39 I'm not asking for an additional study.
11:05:41 I'm asking for a rethinking of Ashley.
11:05:46 With the alternative routes but then hire kiddle son.
11:05:53 I think if you take that as your startling point,
11:05:56 everything that comes after it, all the input, council
11:06:00 to provide input, it will not be a satisfactory plan.
11:06:03 You state in here what when all want, that this be
11:06:06 pedestrian friendly, and aesthetic.
11:06:08 There is nothing -- nothing in either the Kiddleson
11:06:12 report or the cover letter from HDR that says the
11:06:16 first thing about pedestrians or transit.

11:06:18 It's all about cars trying to get through downtown as
11:06:21 quickly as possible.
11:06:22 It would be irresponsible for us as a city to spend
11:06:25 over $100 million on the west side of Ashley if people
11:06:28 couldn't safely and comfortably walk across, on
11:06:35 pedestrian walkways, to get over to the investments we
11:06:38 are making.
11:06:39 So I really urge you to not take the kiddle son report
11:06:45 as gospel but to further expand the consideration of
11:06:48 putting Ashley on a road diet to make it safer and
11:06:51 more comfortable for pedestrians.
11:06:55 Thank you.
11:07:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Anything else?
11:07:01 Thank you for bringing us that report.
11:07:03 We appreciate it.
11:07:04 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Okay.
11:07:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Steve, I heard Ms. Saul-Sena give
11:07:10 this type of plea several times.
11:07:15 And I'm just wondering, what is the administration's
11:07:17 response?
11:07:18 I'm not hearing back.
11:07:22 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Well, what I trade to show on that

11:07:24 schedule is, we are not there yet.
11:07:26 So we certainly hear Ms. Saul-Sena's concerns.
11:07:30 We have heard from the downtown partnership.
11:07:33 We look forward to getting everyone engaged.
11:07:36 We don't have opportunities or options and suggestions
11:07:42 from our consultant yet to even look at.
11:07:44 So this is going to be a process to look at things,
11:07:51 see how we can adjust to things that are causing us
11:07:54 problems it again, it is certainly our goal to make
11:07:57 Ashley pedestrian friendly.
11:07:59 We certainly recognize the importance of that park and
11:08:02 museum, and --
11:08:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Who runs that show?
11:08:07 I have heard different opinions in terms of -- is it
11:08:10 federal?
11:08:11 Is it state?
11:08:14 Do they have strict control over Ashley and we are
11:08:16 just a bit player in regard to that?
11:08:20 Because I've heard people say, you know, Ashley is an
11:08:23 exit ramp, officially an exit ramp, you know, for X
11:08:26 number of feet.
11:08:28 And I don't know if that's true or not.

11:08:31 Who is in charge of that?
11:08:33 >>> First of all, I don't think we should deal in any
11:08:36 absolutes.
11:08:37 If there are issues, we are going to have to go deal
11:08:39 with them.
11:08:40 And deal with the agencies that are involved.
11:08:42 And if that's a federal agency, or a local agency,
11:08:46 then we'll deal with it.
11:08:47 But again I think we need to allow this process to
11:08:54 move forward, look -- develop and look at the
11:08:57 possibilities and see what the encumbrances are and
11:09:00 see how we work around it.
11:09:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you through?
11:09:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess for now.
11:09:09 When does the process come back to us?
11:09:11 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: We plan to have a briefing back to
11:09:18 the administration in April and back to the council in
11:09:20 May time frame.
11:09:25 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Mr. Daignault, I want to thank you
11:09:27 for coming down today and engaging council on this.
11:09:29 Obviously this is a very important issue to, I think,
11:09:32 all the council members.

11:09:33 The investment in the park and the riverwalk is
11:09:36 substantial.
11:09:37 And I personally think it's going to be a tremendous
11:09:39 benefit to the city.
11:09:41 However, I agree with councilman's Saul-Sena's concern
11:09:47 for those new residents we have downtown that are
11:09:49 going to be critical to making that investment work.
11:09:51 They need to have that pedestrian access there.
11:09:57 And what I heard you say, I think, is very helpful,
11:10:03 that this is an iterative process.
11:10:06 And I would encourage you to keep that in mind as we
11:10:09 go through here and keep the council members engaged,
11:10:11 because I think I, the public and the council,
11:10:16 together, in this effort, it's going to be very
11:10:19 important.
11:10:20 And I think finding creative solutions to this
11:10:26 apparent loggerhead between traffic and with ability
11:10:29 is going to be very important, require some really
11:10:32 creative thought.
11:10:33 And I'm hopeful that with the consultants you have,
11:10:36 you will be able to do that, and if necessary redesign
11:10:41 the transportation study, so that ultimately we can

11:10:43 convince D.O.T. that changing traffic patterns in
11:10:46 downtown is worthwhile and productive, and get their
11:10:53 buy-in, either willingly, or kicking and screaming as
11:10:58 the case may be.
11:10:59 I think it's a very complex situation.
11:11:01 I think councilman Dingfelder asked a very good
11:11:04 question that I don't know the answer to, and I'm
11:11:07 hoping that you're going to continue to explore.
11:11:10 But I think the key here is going to be communication.
11:11:15 And another key is going to be getting buy-in from all
11:11:18 the stakeholders as you talked about, and I encourage
11:11:21 you to continue with that process so that we really
11:11:24 get the full value of the investment in the riverwalk
11:11:26 and the park area.
11:11:32 >> I think another key is having the involvement that
11:11:36 our urban designer Tom Balsley, who is sorry seeing
11:11:42 the design, to get the scope into the engineering
11:11:44 look.
11:11:44 I know he wasn't involved before.
11:11:46 I know Roy LaMotte wasn't involved before.
11:11:48 We need to make sure that when the questions are
11:11:50 asked, and the scope is created, that an urban

11:11:54 designer is a participant, at the highest level at the
11:12:01 beginning.
11:12:01 And I'm very sorry that Mr. Balsley hasn't been
11:12:04 included at all until this point but I hope in the
11:12:06 future going forward that he is there either at the
11:12:09 table or on the phone making sure that design
11:12:13 considerations are part of the thinking, not just how
11:12:15 many cars can get through this intersection, because
11:12:18 that wouldn't do us full service.
11:12:21 >> I understand.
11:12:22 Just so you know, Mr. Balsley is involved in this
11:12:24 process.
11:12:24 Mr. Balsley has been identified to be the one to make
11:12:28 sure that the museum design, the children's museum
11:12:31 design, and the Ashley design are all compatible, that
11:12:36 they all work together, and the folks from HDR were at
11:12:39 the meeting last week with Mr. Balsley and the rest.
11:12:42 He is involved and will continue to be involved in
11:12:44 this process.
11:12:47 >>CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
11:12:49 Ms. Julie K.
11:12:53 >> Julie Kabougeris, legal department.

11:12:59 I'm requesting a 30 day continuance on this item.
11:13:01 It was originally transferred to me.
11:13:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number what, 3?
11:13:08 Item 3.
11:13:09 >> So moved.
11:13:10 >> Second.
11:13:10 (Motion carried).
11:13:11 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to approve the agenda.
11:13:24 >> So moved.
11:13:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Hold on.
11:13:26 I am going to get to you.
11:13:29 Now do you have an item you would like to pull from
11:13:31 the agenda?
11:13:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:13:32 >>GWEN MILLER: I asked you to wait a second.
11:13:35 Do you have something you would like to pull, council
11:13:37 members?
11:13:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
11:13:40 All the council members have received a number of
11:13:43 e-mails from people from the preservation community
11:13:47 who attended a number of meetings over seven years on
11:13:49 the A.R.C. and HPC ordinances.

11:13:53 They requested additional time for a few more
11:13:55 meetings.
11:13:55 We are almost there but we are not quite there, to
11:13:57 make this -- to move these forward.
11:14:00 Therefore, I would like to ask that we pull item 12
11:14:03 and reschedule it for April 19th at 10:00 which
11:14:07 will allow us additional time to have another special
11:14:10 discussion meeting on this.
11:14:14 >>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
11:14:15 I would like to be heard on that issue.
11:14:18 And a couple of things that I think are relevant for
11:14:21 your consideration in this regard.
11:14:23 The Planning Commission has reviewed this, and has
11:14:26 found it consistent.
11:14:28 The HPC has reviewed it.
11:14:30 And essentially, I found it okay with the exception of
11:14:33 a couple of changes they want to make, all of which we
11:14:36 think are good changes, and can be very easily made.
11:14:39 There are some other discussions that we are having
11:14:41 with some other stakeholders, all of which changes we
11:14:44 think can also be made.
11:14:46 There's just clarifications of a couple of points.

11:14:48 We can elaborate if you go forward with the public
11:14:50 hearing today.
11:14:52 My primary suggestion for moving forward -- and that's
11:14:55 what it is, it's your prerogative to move forward or
11:15:00 not -- is to bring closure to something that we have
11:15:02 been working on since I have been here three years,
11:15:05 and I know Ms. Saul-Sena has been working on it for
11:15:07 probably about 12.
11:15:08 And the idea that we can address the issues that have
11:15:12 been raised to date between the first an second
11:15:16 reading.
11:15:16 And if there is anything additional that needs to be
11:15:19 tweaked by the subsequent council, it can be addressed
11:15:21 by the subsequent council in the next of amendments.
11:15:25 So my argument is partially -- and I need to make sure
11:15:28 those of you who weren't here understand the context.
11:15:31 I don't think Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Reddick were.
11:15:34 What the legal department was responding to is the 5-2
11:15:37 vote by City Council to create an opt-out provision.
11:15:43 We, legal department, felt it implicated some issues
11:15:49 and we suggested a different approach.
11:15:51 So what we have before you now, which we have

11:15:53 discussed several times -- I know many of you have
11:15:55 been participants in those discussions -- is something
11:15:58 considerably less than that.
11:16:04 So what I think from what we are hearing the
11:16:06 difference between now and what some other advocates
11:16:09 would like to see is not significant difference, the
11:16:11 primary points that have been raised, some of which
11:16:14 are very good points, we can address those, and are
11:16:17 willing to address those, and would be willing to
11:16:20 elaborate those if you go forward with the public
11:16:23 hearing.
11:16:25 That's my position on moving forward.
11:16:28 If you have any questions I would be happy to answer
11:16:29 them.
11:16:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am not going to support that motion.
11:16:32 We have been working on this a very long time and the
11:16:34 issue is the opt out provision which is not there.
11:16:37 Its owners consent.
11:16:38 And I think that's the basic premise of this, wanting
11:16:43 to move it off of this council to the next council.
11:16:47 And that's what you're thinking about.
11:16:49 And I'm not going to support that.

11:16:50 We have been working very hard on this.
11:16:52 I think we have got a good ordinance in front of us.
11:16:54 And if it needs to be tweaked it can be tweaked when
11:16:58 the new council comes in.
11:16:59 I am not going to support it.
11:17:00 And the Planning Commission has already approved it.
11:17:02 The HPC, you said they were okay with it.
11:17:06 I think it should move forward.
11:17:09 And that's all I'm going to say about that.
11:17:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Smith, you say there are minor
11:17:15 adjustments that you think are appropriate.
11:17:17 Could you elaborate quickly on what those minor
11:17:21 adjustments are?
11:17:23 >> Yes.
11:17:23 Essentially what the HPC did was they said there were
11:17:27 four areas that they thought needed to be addressed.
11:17:29 And we have a memorandum.
11:17:33 Did we provide an extra copy to council on that?
11:17:35 If not I can walk you through it.
11:17:37 The first is they wanted to amend the language
11:17:40 regarding the discrepancies between Historic
11:17:42 Preservation Commission and A.R.C. commission with

11:17:45 respect to membership affiliation.
11:17:47 Meaning the same membership affiliation guidelines
11:17:50 would apply to both types of entities.
11:17:52 Not a bad suggestion.
11:17:54 That's fine.
11:17:55 That's easily made.
11:17:56 We don't think that requires you go back to the
11:17:59 Planning Commission.
11:18:01 The second change was if you have the statute in front
11:18:03 of you -- that's why it's difficult to explain
11:18:06 outside -- there's section 27-231-4-C.
11:18:11 When we talk about the factors to be considered, the
11:18:13 language says whether a landmark site or property
11:18:19 December for example nation meets that's criteria. So
11:18:23 the language was whether.
11:18:24 They want to substitute the following factors for.
11:18:27 That's not a substantive change.
11:18:32 The third change they want to do is add a new
11:18:35 paragraph 7 in 27-231-F-6-7 in which the issue of
11:18:41 neglect -- and this is where we are attempting to get
11:18:43 at the issue of neglect -- is building and comes in
11:18:47 for a hardship, we can look at that neglect, and what

11:18:52 is suggested, I think even by one of the property
11:18:55 owner attorneys, is that we get an affidavit from the
11:18:58 City of Tampa building official with respect to
11:19:00 whether that property is in compliance or not.
11:19:09 So the evidence of neglect would be providing that
11:19:12 affidavit so just establishes the basis for that
11:19:14 determination.
11:19:15 And lastly, they wanted to take a couple of the
11:19:17 provisions in the economic hardship criteria that we
11:19:23 divide it into mandatory and optional.
11:19:26 And they wanted to move a couple of the criteria from
11:19:29 optional to mandatory.
11:19:30 Again, we are fine with that, because what we trade to
11:19:33 do in here -- and this is what I primarily responded
11:19:35 to -- is I got the direction from council.
11:19:38 Council wanted to have a meaningful role in this
11:19:40 process, that it didn't come to you as a fait
11:19:42 accompli.
11:19:43 That you have the ability to look at the evidence,
11:19:45 make your own decision and move forward.
11:19:48 So it's okay that they are mandatory versus optional
11:19:51 because you are going to evaluate those criteria.

11:19:53 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So these are not substantive
11:19:56 changes.
11:19:57 The legal department says let's move forward.
11:19:59 HPC says let's move forward.
11:20:03 Planning Commission says let's move forward.
11:20:05 We have been wrestling with this for quite some time.
11:20:11 What is the argument for not moving forward, Mr.
11:20:13 Smith?
11:20:14 >>DAVID SMITH: I think you are about to hear it.
11:20:22 There's an additional issue that's been raised that I
11:20:24 think is a good point.
11:20:25 That is in looking at the economic hardship criteria,
11:20:28 we use the same criteria in the HPC ordinance as we
11:20:32 are using in the A.R.C. ordinance.
11:20:35 I also understand council's direction to have been we
11:20:38 are addressing landmarks, not district.
11:20:41 By making those criteria parallel with one another, we
11:20:45 have affected districts.
11:20:46 And affected districts I think in the way of
11:20:50 preservation standpoint is -- I don't think that was
11:20:54 the direction of council.
11:20:55 I don't think it was our intent.

11:20:56 I think looking for cemetery, we -- symmetry, we
11:21:03 simply do not change the economic hardship criteria
11:21:06 for A.R.C. if -- if my recollection to your
11:21:10 instruction is correct.
11:21:11 And I think that's what you said.
11:21:16 >> The instruction is what we are doing is only for
11:21:19 landmarks, not impact, and so --
11:21:22 >> That was an error on our part, in trying to have
11:21:25 the parallel approach to not recognizing as an
11:21:29 unparalleled concept.
11:21:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: So we go forward.
11:21:33 And the next round of Planning Commission
11:21:36 discussion --
11:21:38 >>> Yes, sir.
11:21:39 You asked me a question, it's always a little hard to
11:21:41 answer and that's that is what's the argument for not
11:21:43 going forward?
11:21:44 I suggest you hear from those people who have that
11:21:46 argument.
11:21:47 But I think their concern is that they are not
11:21:51 completely comfortable, that they understand the
11:21:53 implications of the ordinance.

11:21:59 I'll let them make those arguments.
11:22:01 I think what I've done is followed what I understand
11:22:03 council's direction to be, and I think the issues that
11:22:06 have been raised that are specific and substantive, in
11:22:10 the sense of going back to the Planning Commission,
11:22:12 but -- and if there are more issues that come up,
11:22:17 obviously I am open to address those as well and we
11:22:19 can make changes between first an second hearing. If
11:22:22 you go through first hearing and you get your input
11:22:24 and you go, it's a little more than I thought, you can
11:22:27 continue it and pass it to the next council.
11:22:29 If we go through the hearing and we can address all
11:22:32 the issues, then we can go forward with the second
11:22:34 hearing.
11:22:35 So one of the arguments with going forward today is I
11:22:38 think you will get a lot more input from the public
11:22:40 hearing process, at least the first reading process.
11:22:43 If we open it up to public hearing.
11:22:53 >>> This is first reading so technically there is not
11:22:56 a public hearing on first reading.
11:22:57 You have to wait to hear from folks.
11:22:59 I did want to let you know with the kind of changes

11:23:01 that we are talking about, and potentially an
11:23:03 additional change to the A.R.C. ordinance to remove
11:23:07 the parallel economic hardship criteria, those kind of
11:23:11 changes in my opinion, we could have first reading
11:23:14 today, talk about those changes.
11:23:16 Those kinds of changes.
11:23:18 We are talking about more significant changes.
11:23:19 I know some issues have been raised as relates to
11:23:23 burdens of proof.
11:23:24 That may be a different story but with the kinds of
11:23:26 changes we are talking about that Mr. Smith has
11:23:28 outlined, we could hold first reading today. That
11:23:32 would be up to council to decide to open that up to a
11:23:35 separate public hearing certainly, members of public
11:23:41 would have a chance to speak at the 3 minute time
11:23:44 frame at the beginning of the agenda.
11:23:47 It's when changes become necessary over and above that
11:23:49 we may have to consider whether or not it becomes an
11:23:51 issue.
11:23:51 >>DAVID SMITH: And I have been advised I misspoke.
11:23:54 I think I said it would go back to Planning
11:23:56 Commission.

11:23:56 I didn't intend to say that.
11:23:58 If I did I'm sorry.
11:23:59 If you go forward with the changes we are talking
11:24:00 about, those changes do not require that you go back
11:24:04 to the Planning Commission.
11:24:06 As such.
11:24:07 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Just so I'm clear.
11:24:09 This issue of the manned lark having an effect on the
11:24:19 process, if I understood you right, how do you propose
11:24:23 fixing that problem?
11:24:24 Is that something you think is a minor problem you
11:24:26 think you can fix?
11:24:28 >>: Glad you asked that.
11:24:29 And some of us have much more familiarity with this
11:24:32 process.
11:24:34 If there's something not clear please let me No. you
11:24:37 really have two different sections of the ordinance.
11:24:39 One, we follow Historic Preservation Commission
11:24:43 ordinance.
11:24:44 It deals with designation.
11:24:45 You have got your A.R.C. provision that is deal with
11:24:48 the implementation and the process.

11:24:51 And it is in the A.R.C. portion that the regulations
11:24:54 affecting districts is contained.
11:24:57 We intended to change the landmark designation process
11:25:01 to make the economic hardship procedure less
11:25:03 burdensome.
11:25:04 What we did was we went ahead and asked Rebecca to
11:25:08 make the same changes in A.R.C.
11:25:11 And that had the consequence of affecting the
11:25:14 districts and that was not the intent, and not the
11:25:17 intent of council.
11:25:17 >> So from a drafting standpoint it's affirm simple.
11:25:20 >> It's he is.
11:25:22 Not only do you have not have to go back to Planning
11:25:24 Commission, it stays as it was originally.
11:25:27 >> Mr. Dingfelder?
11:25:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
11:25:30 I don't know, I can't speak for the rest of council
11:25:33 but I know that I have not had a chance to discuss any
11:25:37 of these changes, including the proposed changes with
11:25:41 staff or with legal.
11:25:43 And I don't know if everybody is in the same boat or
11:25:45 not.

11:25:48 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I did.
11:25:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's good.
11:25:50 I'm glad.
11:25:51 But I didn't.
11:25:51 And the bottom line is, we have letters and e-mails
11:25:55 here, including one from Jason, written on behalf of
11:26:00 Gus Paris, Vivian, Roger, Kim, all of whom are
11:26:07 architects that Dale in this field along with Nelson,
11:26:12 Garcia, victor, Garcia, we have heard from Doug
11:26:16 Johnson of Hyde Park, Bruce Gibson of Seminole heights
11:26:21 will there seems to be a lot of folks who have been
11:26:23 deeply involved in these issues who feel that a little
11:26:26 bit of prunes and want to raise some issues.
11:26:31 And I know many of them are here to tell us.
11:26:33 So I think once again, I don't know why we are in this
11:26:36 rush to get things forward when they have been sitting
11:26:39 around for the last year or more.
11:26:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I spent two hours in a special
11:26:48 discussion meeting three weeks ago.
11:26:49 I spent two hours at the HPC meeting on Tuesday.
11:26:53 And the other council members for the most part,
11:26:56 except for Mr. Dingfelder, did not participate in

11:26:59 those other meetings.
11:27:00 I'm attempting, other council members, to spare you a
11:27:04 long conversation which ultimately those meetings
11:27:07 ended up in a variety of good changes.
11:27:08 We are close.
11:27:10 We are not there yet.
11:27:11 If you want to sit through these long discussions,
11:27:14 feign.
11:27:14 What I'm suggesting is that we have yet another
11:27:17 special discussion meeting, and then bring back
11:27:19 something that is truly a Kum ba yah document.
11:27:23 I want to thank Mr. Grandoff who participated and came
11:27:27 up with the HPC PAC that was like the winning
11:27:31 suggestion on making things better which is a specific
11:27:33 report from code enforcement on whether or not a
11:27:36 building is in compliance.
11:27:37 It's really been a very productive, constructive and
11:27:40 time consuming process.
11:27:41 And what I'm saying is after all these years a little
11:27:43 more time will result in better ordinance.
11:27:49 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Smith said that we could go ahead
11:27:52 and pass this ordinance on first reading.

11:27:55 And if anybody has a problem with that, getting
11:27:58 together with Mr. Smith and Ms. Wysong in the next two
11:28:02 weeks, then that would be your problem.
11:28:04 But the offer is for him to talk about it in the next
11:28:11 two weeks.
11:28:11 >> And if you have changes you have to start over at
11:28:14 first reading again.
11:28:15 >> No.
11:28:15 If they are substantive changes, yes.
11:28:18 If they are not going to the Planning Commission or
11:28:20 anywhere else, then you do something at the second
11:28:27 reading.
11:28:27 I want to go ahead with it.
11:28:29 This has been on the books for a very long time now.
11:28:31 We have been rehashing and hashing this same problem
11:28:35 for always.
11:28:35 And it's time to get off the dime, people.
11:28:39 You know, two more weeks, yes, we pass at first
11:28:42 reading, and then if you have a problem with it, then
11:28:45 we worry about it on the second reading.
11:28:47 But everybody is on board, except for you two.
11:28:51 >> Except for those citizens that want to address us.

11:28:56 >> They had a chance to read it too.
11:28:57 I'm sure it's been online.
11:29:00 >>> Madam Chairwoman, if I could I did not mention the
11:29:04 fact it's relevant and I should have mentioned it and
11:29:06 that when do as you know have a pending litigation in
11:29:10 which judge Levens has ruled against our ordinance.
11:29:14 Among other things he has said basically that 27-77
11:29:18 controls, and what that means is zoning controls.
11:29:23 So if you have an area that has a zoning permitted,
11:29:27 that trumps our historic preservation ordinance.
11:29:30 We don't agree with his interpretation.
11:29:32 We think he was in error.
11:29:33 This is on appeal.
11:29:34 That's one of the things we are appealing.
11:29:37 It's been out for six months now.
11:29:40 I thought for awhile, I was afraid we would get a PCA
11:29:43 because the appellate court -- I'm sorry, procuring
11:29:46 fund which means the judge's opinion would then be
11:29:49 binding.
11:29:49 Since it's been out so long we may be getting an
11:29:52 opinion but there's in a guarantee on that either but
11:29:54 my point is this.

11:29:55 These ordinance versus some provisions in them that
11:29:57 attempts to address that issue.
11:29:59 Specifically in the A.R.C. ordinance we make it
11:30:03 abundantly clear that zoning is a factor that the
11:30:09 historic preservation guidelines in fact govern in the
11:30:12 historic districts.
11:30:13 So that is a factor that I think is relevant to your
11:30:16 consideration.
11:30:18 I don't know how long it would take if we don't go
11:30:21 forward now.
11:30:24 I generally avoid having a dog in the fight.
11:30:26 My only concern is also efficiency.
11:30:29 I know that what we have ahead of us coming up and we
11:30:32 are having a hard time keeping up with all of that.
11:30:35 Anyway, that being said I think the litigation is an
11:30:38 important fact for you consider as part of the
11:30:40 decision making.
11:30:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before we do anything I would like
11:30:48 to hear from the public.
11:30:49 >>CHAIRMAN: We'll come back.
11:30:51 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Under an ordinance.
11:30:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to take it off the agenda

11:30:57 but since we did not take it off the agenda I want to
11:31:01 hear from the public.
11:31:01 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to approve the agenda.
11:31:04 Motion and second.
11:31:04 (Motion carried).
11:31:05 We now go to unfinished business.
11:31:07 Item number 2.
11:31:08 Need to move the resolution.
11:31:10 >> So moved.
11:31:10 >> Second.
11:31:11 (Motion carried).
11:31:13 >>THE CLERK: I believe on item number 2 there was a
11:31:17 substitute resolution.
11:31:20 >>SAL TERRITO: I want to make a substitution.
11:31:22 As you know this was continued from last week.
11:31:24 All we have done on the substitution which I will be
11:31:26 handing out now is.
11:31:53 >> Move the substitute resolution.
11:31:54 >> Second.
11:31:55 >> We had an exhibit which is now included in the body
11:31:58 of the document.
11:32:01 There really was in a substantive change.

11:32:05 We have a motion an second.
11:32:06 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
11:32:07 (Motion carried).
11:32:08 Item number 5 need to move the resolution.
11:32:11 We can move that.
11:32:12 >> So moved.
11:32:12 >> Second.
11:32:13 (Motion carried).
11:32:13 >> Item number 6.
11:32:17 Move that resolution.
11:32:17 >> So moved.
11:32:18 >> Second.
11:32:18 (Motion carried).
11:32:19 >> Number 7.
11:32:23 Anyone here for item number 7?
11:32:26 Catherine Coyle.
11:32:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
11:32:33 I'll be brief.
11:32:33 This particular motion was a result of the December
11:32:36 14th hearing, when the crematorium was originally
11:32:40 proposed on Florida Avenue.
11:32:41 Subsequent to the holiday season it moved into the

11:32:44 Ybor area, which triggered all of the other motions.
11:32:48 There is a motion that has been made, and I'm working
11:32:51 on the date for the special discussion scheduled for
11:32:53 March 30th.
11:32:55 And that is where we agree that we would bring back
11:32:59 potential changes to the language that's in our code
11:33:01 today.
11:33:01 All I wanted to give you so far is the table that
11:33:04 shows the other cities and jurisdiction that is we
11:33:07 have researched, and the zoning categories, that
11:33:10 crematories are allowed in and where there are special
11:33:12 uses.
11:33:12 This is what we are working from.
11:33:14 And then we'll be tailoring our language for the March
11:33:18 30th discussion to have at noon on that day.
11:33:22 67 question from council members?
11:33:24 Thank you, Ms. Coyle.
11:33:26 Item number 9.
11:33:29 Mr. Shelby is not here.
11:33:42 >>SHIRLEY FOXX-KNOWLES: City clerk.
11:33:51 Item number 9 has to do with the date for the
11:33:57 swearing-in ceremony.

11:34:01 I pass out a couple of pages from the charter.
11:34:04 And it notes that after the election, the swearing in
11:34:11 will take place on April 1st.
11:34:14 Also it's noted that immediately, this is in section
11:34:18 2.03, on the organization, that immediately upon
11:34:22 taking office, the City Council members shall meet for
11:34:26 the purpose of organization and at such meeting
11:34:32 through the chair and chair pro tem.
11:34:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thanks for looking into this.
11:34:37 I believe you clarified that.
11:34:38 It looks like our hands are tied on that issue so we
11:34:40 are going to meet, we are going to do it on a Sunday,
11:34:43 and so be it.
11:34:45 Thanks for looking into that.
11:34:46 >> The swearing in will be April 1st, 2007,
11:34:49 2 p.m., at the Tampa Convention Center ballroom A.
11:34:55 >> Approximate followed by our organizational meeting.
11:34:58 >>> Yes.
11:34:58 >> Thank you.
11:34:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Ms. Foxx-Knowles.
11:35:05 We go to our committee reports.
11:35:08 We go to number 11, ordinance.

11:35:18 Is there anyone that wants to request for legislative
11:35:21 reconsideration?
11:35:22 We go to our audience portion.
11:35:26 Anyone in the public that would like to speak to any
11:35:29 item on the agenda not set for public hearing.
11:35:31 You may come up and speak now.
11:35:37 >>> Julian Samson, I reside at 3307 Granada street,
11:35:42 here to speak about the stormwater drain coming down
11:35:45 Granada.
11:35:46 I live there with my wife and my two young children.
11:35:48 There was an article about this matter last week in
11:35:52 the city times section of the St. Pete Times and an
11:35:54 article today in the South Tampa section of the Tampa
11:35:58 Trib.
11:35:59 Granada street is a very narrow street.
11:36:02 The storm --
11:36:05 >>GWEN MILLER: You can't talk about that now.
11:36:07 It's not --
11:36:10 >>> I thought you said --
11:36:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Under agenda.
11:36:13 I said on the agenda.
11:36:15 >>> I'm sorry.

11:36:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
11:36:20 I have a question.
11:36:21 Since you have been hear so patient and been here a
11:36:23 couple hours waiting for this, I understood that you
11:36:26 all wanted to get a report.
11:36:31 Preferably I think the neighborhood deserves a meeting
11:36:34 on this and I have been urging the administration, Mr.
11:36:36 Daignault, to come have a meeting to hear the
11:36:39 neighborhood concerns.
11:36:39 I just talked to Mr. Daignault ten minutes ago, and
11:36:44 asked him if they are going to have a meeting, that
11:36:48 they still weren't sure, it might be premature
11:36:50 according to him, blah-blah-blah.
11:36:52 I disagree with that.
11:36:53 I think they should be having a meeting.
11:36:54 But instead of that, would you all like to put
11:36:57 something on the agenda for him to report what the
11:37:01 status is and for you all to ask questions?
11:37:04 >> Yes, we are not sure what the vehicle is to do that
11:37:07 but we would like to address the concern, somebody
11:37:10 with some authority, or knowledge over that project.
11:37:14 >> So since these folks are here I will just go ahead

11:37:16 and make a motion that two weeks from now on the
11:37:19 29th that Mr. Daignault and his staff give a
11:37:22 report on the Granada/palma Ceia, you know, drainage
11:37:31 project.
11:37:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
11:37:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it was the Neptune/Dale
11:37:38 Mabry project but extends through Granada. But do a
11:37:41 report on that and this gentleman and their families
11:37:44 will at least know when Mr. Daignault may be here to
11:37:46 talk about that.
11:37:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I have a friendly addition
11:37:48 though that?
11:37:49 And that is that Mr. Daignault consider the potential
11:37:56 impact of construction in this neighborhood on the
11:38:00 infrastructure including brick streets, granite curbs,
11:38:03 and trees.
11:38:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You can report on that as well.
11:38:09 So it will be two weeks from now at 10 a.m. is
11:38:12 appropriate, Madam Chair?
11:38:14 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
11:38:15 (Motion carried).
11:38:18 >>JULIA COLE: Before when move forward with public

11:38:22 comment, I want to remind everybody in the audience
11:38:25 and council that the historic preservation item
11:38:28 earlier for first reading, that they are not set for
11:38:31 public hearing, so unless council to chooses a
11:38:35 different way for folks who wish to speak to that,
11:38:37 would be during agendaed public comment.
11:38:39 I just want to make sure everybody is aware of that.
11:38:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's a good point.
11:38:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else that wants to come up now,
11:38:47 you may come up and speak.
11:38:50 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
11:38:53 Street three nights a week and I just thank God for
11:38:57 his grace and his mercy.
11:39:00 I can't make it without his grace and mercy.
11:39:03 A lot of people can but I can't.
11:39:05 And I want to speak on article 7.
11:39:11 And it was mentioned about -- I don't know if you all
11:39:21 know about it or not.
11:39:23 She was the one that helped me.
11:39:30 I want to speak on this article 7 this morning.
11:39:32 And the reason I'm doing that, I want to speak on the
11:39:34 overall picture.

11:39:38 Mr. Dingfelder, I appreciate you this morning.
11:39:40 I wish I could have voted for you.
11:39:42 And also wish I could have voted for a couple more
11:39:45 people.
11:39:45 But this morning, I am going to speak on article 7 to
11:39:48 say what I want to say.
11:39:54 Back in the days, you all politicians, when you all
11:39:56 were running for a seat, you say we want to grow
11:40:00 business, now, and people getting jobs in this town
11:40:03 and this and that.
11:40:04 And all that has changed.
11:40:09 Like this cremation thing here.
11:40:11 I am using this for an example.
11:40:14 And I often accuse you all, like brought up this
11:40:17 morning in the CRA meeting about the zoning.
11:40:22 But it doesn't look like this town took a complete
11:40:25 detour.
11:40:25 Now everybody -- talk about building brand new houses.
11:40:39 We want to tear this building down, want brand new
11:40:43 houses, this and that.
11:40:45 I appreciate you brought that up this morning because
11:40:46 it's a serious matter.

11:40:48 I mean it's a serious matter.
11:40:49 It happened to me and thousands of other peoples.
11:40:57 We can change everything.
11:40:58 We are going to build brand new houses.
11:41:10 I mean, you know, got to be four, five, six, like
11:41:16 that, now.
11:41:17 And I disagree with you all running this thing but I
11:41:21 hope the new politicians coming on, business is what
11:41:32 makes this town.
11:41:33 Business is what gives people jobs.
11:41:35 And you be surprised how many people in this town
11:41:38 don't have no jobs, I mean homeless people, all
11:41:42 because of this type of thing.
11:41:43 And a person can't even live in no home, because they
11:41:51 just can't make it in that business.
11:41:53 But you politicians coming on, and I see here on this
11:41:57 article 9 where they are going to be sworn in on the
11:42:02 9th and I don't know who is going to be sweared
11:42:04 in.
11:42:04 But right now just can't wait, you know.
11:42:06 I thought going to be a pleasure for me to stick
11:42:13 around and see how City Council operates.

11:42:16 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Knotts.
11:42:18 Next?
11:42:18 Anyone else who would like to speak to any item on the
11:42:20 agenda not set for a public hearing?
11:42:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If anyone from the preservation
11:42:30 commission wants to speak, now is the time.
11:42:33 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Did we take a vote on waiving it?
11:42:36 >>SHAWN HARRISON: It's on the agenda right now.
11:42:41 It's not a public hearing.
11:42:42 So this is the proper time for everyone to speak.
11:42:47 >>JULIA COLE: I do want everyone to know, 15 minutes
11:42:52 coming up on the noon hour and I suspect you are
11:42:54 probably going to go past that.
11:42:59 >>> Elizabeth Johnson, Richardson place.
11:43:02 And I respectfully ask that you postpone consideration
11:43:06 of this.
11:43:07 One issue that has not been talked about is the notice
11:43:09 issue.
11:43:09 When I look at item 12 on the agenda, only the A.R.C.
11:43:14 provisions are up for first reading, not the HPC
11:43:18 provisions.
11:43:19 And I realize, actually, I think Ms. Wysong did

11:43:22 address that.
11:43:23 But I would state for the record that that is a major
11:43:26 notice issue because we are talking about two
11:43:28 ordinances, and we have only got one that's been
11:43:30 noticed here for first reading.
11:43:34 In the event you even go forward, I think that there
11:43:37 are some sentimental concerns that require a bit of
11:43:40 caution, and council member Alvarez, I fully respect
11:43:49 your feeling that we have beaten this almost to death
11:43:51 but there are some fundamental issues.
11:43:53 As Mr. Smith indicated we have a major appeal in a
11:43:56 historic district matter with the second district
11:43:59 court of appeal.
11:44:00 Changes are being made to 27-216, many of which I can
11:44:09 I think they are moving in a positive direction, very,
11:44:12 very positive.
11:44:12 But I'm kind of in asleep deprived state because I
11:44:15 just had a baby.
11:44:16 But I'm kind of worried that I'm missing some things,
11:44:20 or that we may be missing some things that could
11:44:23 affect what happens in the event that we win that
11:44:26 litigation.

11:44:28 And I need to remind you that all the council members
11:44:32 were well behind Hyde Park on that issue, and that in
11:44:36 the amicus brief that was filed, it was not only the
11:44:40 Hyde Park neighborhood association, but all the other
11:44:42 historic neighborhood associations, I believe, I think
11:44:45 there were some that were missing.
11:44:47 But the national trust, the Florida trust, and Tampa
11:44:50 Preservation, Inc., all these players filed an Amicus
11:44:56 brief agreeing what with what you all did.
11:44:58 So I get very concerned, even when I believe the
11:45:01 changes are good, but that the changes are done
11:45:06 correctly.
11:45:06 Finally this parallel issue about not affecting
11:45:08 districts is not just a minor issue, but a fundamental
11:45:13 issue.
11:45:13 I'm glad we may be going back to resurrect the
11:45:16 district but it makes me believe, you know, I had this
11:45:20 discussion with Mr. Smith about the impact of having
11:45:22 these parallel provisions on our existing historic
11:45:25 districts, and it makes me wonder, are we missing
11:45:28 something else?
11:45:29 These are our established districts.

11:45:32 On a positive note, we just had our tour in Hyde Park.
11:45:36 We make a lot of money every year because people want
11:45:39 to look at our historic homes.
11:45:41 And it's because people have worked hard in Hyde Park
11:45:45 renovating their homes.
11:45:47 A change almost occurred that could have made it
11:45:49 easier to demolish homes in established historic
11:45:54 districts.
11:45:55 Now I'm really glad that we caught that.
11:45:57 But it does make me concerned.
11:46:01 Are we going too fast and are we violating your pledge
11:46:04 that we were not going to Tampa with existing
11:46:07 districts?
11:46:10 The brochure like this and the number of people that
11:46:13 came last week.
11:46:14 Thank you so much.
11:46:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:46:15 Next.
11:46:26 >>> Good morning, council.
11:46:27 My name is Gus Parison, 3809 San Miguel.
11:46:34 We had a meeting of the architectural heritage
11:46:36 committee on Tuesday, concurrently with a meeting that

11:46:40 was going on to discuss the issues related to the HPC
11:46:45 and the A.R.C. ordinances.
11:46:48 At that meeting, a number of people who deal with
11:46:52 these ordinances daily and who have been working with
11:46:55 them for years indicated that they had not had enough
11:46:59 time to review the changes because they occurred at
11:47:09 the same time that we were having our meeting.
11:47:12 And there just wasn't time from Tuesday until today
11:47:15 for us to meet again and discuss any of those issues.
11:47:22 So we wrote a letter and sent an e-mail to each of you
11:47:25 and indicated it was our feeling that we work so hard,
11:47:29 so many people have worked so hard on both sides of
11:47:31 this issue, it was important that we be granted just a
11:47:35 little bit more time to be sure that everybody was on
11:47:39 board, and that we all agreed that this was the right
11:47:42 thing to do.
11:47:43 So we urgently ask you today to give us that little
11:47:46 bit more time to make this for the betterment of the
11:47:57 community and for all those involved.
11:48:02 >>MARY ALVAREZ: What did you see in that ordinance
11:48:04 that you didn't like?
11:48:05 >> There were a number of issues.

11:48:07 I'm not prepared to discuss those today.
11:48:10 >> Uh-huh.
11:48:10 >>> I just came prepared to tell you that there were a
11:48:12 number of people with different issues, and we were
11:48:15 also concerned that the last changes were made on the
11:48:19 very same day that we were having our meeting and we
11:48:25 had in a opportunity beyond that point to discuss them
11:48:28 as a group.
11:48:29 >> Was the HPC staff in your meetings?
11:48:31 >>> No, they were not.
11:48:33 >> They were not.
11:48:33 Do you abide by the HPC rules?
11:48:38 >>> Of course.
11:48:38 >> Okay.
11:48:39 Do you abide by what they said that they like the
11:48:43 ordinance except for a little few things that they
11:48:45 needed to change?
11:48:48 >>> Well, I think that's not the issue.
11:48:50 >> Well, what is the issue?
11:48:52 >>> What you're asking me is do we abide by the HPC.
11:48:56 Of course when we deal with HPC we do.
11:48:59 But you're asking me if we abide by various opinions

11:49:06 which they may have, and of course those are the
11:49:09 opinions that we are discussing today, and have been
11:49:12 discussing in the past.
11:49:14 And there are different opinions from different folks.
11:49:17 >> Well, have you ever heard of an ordinance that
11:49:20 everybody agreed to?
11:49:24 It was always going to be 50% yes and 50% no?
11:49:28 Well, we have got to do the best we can.
11:49:31 >>> Ma'am, I didn't imply that everyone was going to
11:49:33 agree.
11:49:35 >> Okay.
11:49:35 >>> I didn't say that.
11:49:36 >> Thank you.
11:49:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Paris, how many years have you
11:49:43 served, or did you serve.
11:49:48 You're on the A.R.C.
11:49:50 Were you also on the HPC?
11:49:51 >>> No, I was not.
11:49:53 >> How many years did you serve?
11:49:54 >>> Over five, I believe.
11:49:56 >> As a volunteer?
11:49:57 >>> Yes.

11:49:57 >> And how many hours would you believe you put into
11:50:00 that?
11:50:03 >>> Innumerable.
11:50:04 Over a thousand, I would guess.
11:50:05 Visiting sites, and reading the documentation.
11:50:10 >> And Mrs. Alvarez and the rest of council, I think
11:50:15 this is the key issue here, that these folks know this
11:50:18 ordinance.
11:50:21 The ordinances Fords and backwards a lot better than
11:50:24 the search of us actually.
11:50:26 And I say that with great respect.
11:50:29 That these folks put in hundred ifs not houses of
11:50:33 hours of their volunteer time serving on A.R.C.,
11:50:38 serving on HPC.
11:50:39 They care about this issue and they are asking for our
11:50:41 respect to come back to them and granting a
11:50:44 continuance, and whatever it is, a few weeks for them
11:50:47 to look at it and comb through it because these
11:50:50 documents are ever changing.
11:50:52 Thom Snelling will get up here and tell us that these
11:50:54 documents have continued to change little by little as
11:50:58 you got input, as Thom got input they changed and they

11:51:02 changed and they changed.
11:51:03 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Exactly.
11:51:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And this last week when the
11:51:06 architect got together they said, now what?
11:51:08 We are not even sure what these final changes are.
11:51:11 We need a little bit of time to comb through them and
11:51:13 make sure that we are all comfortable with them.
11:51:15 And I think that we should give them that respect.
11:51:17 But anyway we'll hear more.
11:51:19 Thank you, guys.
11:51:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:51:21 Next.
11:51:27 >>> Good morning.
11:51:28 My name is Stephanie Farrell, I'm an architect.
11:51:31 I reside at 1501 -- in downtown Tampa and I'm an
11:51:38 architect who practices in the area of historic
11:51:40 preservation.
11:51:40 I deal with both boards, the architectural review
11:51:43 commission and the Historic Preservation Commission on
11:51:46 a regular basis, presenting projects that I would like
11:51:52 to see landmark designations for, and former with the
11:51:57 A.R.C. and the Barrio Latino commission.

11:51:59 I bring projects forward the for design review.
11:52:02 And my one point that I want to make clear this
11:52:05 morning is that this is the first time I've seen this
11:52:07 draft of this ordinance this morning.
11:52:10 The last draft that I saw is about six weeks old.
11:52:13 And I'm not sure what you are reviewing.
11:52:16 If you did review it today.
11:52:18 And so I ask for some time for us to get together and
11:52:22 make sure we understand what these proposed changes
11:52:25 mean before they are approved for first reading.
11:52:29 Thank you.
11:52:30 >>GWEN MILLER: thank you.
11:52:31 Next.
11:52:37 >>> Merrill Lockett, 836 South Dakota.
11:52:41 And I have sat on the HPC for six years and recently
11:52:44 concluded my term.
11:52:45 I just want to echo the sentiments of the prior
11:52:48 speaker.
11:52:48 We put a lot of time and effort in this over the
11:52:51 years.
11:52:51 I was personally put hundreds of dollars in drafting
11:52:56 the ordinance and while I respectfully understand the

11:53:02 owners consent, I this I the changes that have been
11:53:04 made go beyond that.
11:53:05 And I think that there's been an inadequate amount of
11:53:08 tame to evaluate how those changes meet about the
11:53:12 changes in the A.R.C. ordinance.
11:53:14 I was at the HPC workshop.
11:53:16 There was great confusion over what draft, what
11:53:18 changes, what has been changed.
11:53:22 I will just tell you that it was not a -- there just
11:53:27 has not been time to develop a consensus.
11:53:30 And Mr. Smith and staff has done a very good job over
11:53:33 the past year.
11:53:34 We have had a number of workshops, small workshops to
11:53:37 address this.
11:53:38 When it came down to the end, this last round of
11:53:40 changes didn't have the benefit of that collaboration.
11:53:43 And I think it would be like the last chord on a pan
11:53:50 O.we all worked very hard and to come down to the end
11:53:53 and just rush it, when we are so close to coming up
11:53:56 with something that I think everyone could feel good
11:53:59 about, it's just a terrible mistake.
11:54:02 I'm just asking you to continue it.

11:54:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Next.
11:54:11 >> Paula Macly, on the board of the Tampa
11:54:13 Preservation.
11:54:14 Of course, we don't want this thing to change at all
11:54:17 but we have been a partner and we have been working
11:54:18 very hard with the city attorney's office, and people
11:54:22 to make the changes that obviously everyone thinks
11:54:26 need to be made.
11:54:27 And just between two days ago at the HPC and now we
11:54:32 found additional things that were changed
11:54:34 inadvertently by accident, and if that happens, 24
11:54:38 hours to 48 hours, we just want to make sure that this
11:54:42 is right.
11:54:42 There's some very positive things that are happening
11:54:44 here.
11:54:46 We are really happy to see we are all moving in the
11:54:48 right direction.
11:54:50 It is becoming an ordinance that I think can live
11:54:53 with, but there are some additional things we need to
11:54:55 look at and we are really requesting a little more
11:54:57 time.
11:54:57 Thank you.

11:54:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
11:54:58 Next.
11:55:06 >>> Good morning.
11:55:07 John Grandoff.
11:55:08 My address is suite 3700 bank of America plaza.
11:55:12 To give you some background on this process, February
11:55:14 of 2006, you passed a motion 5-2 directing your staff
11:55:19 to prepare a revision to the historic preservation
11:55:23 curve and the architectural revision, architectural
11:55:28 review code, also.
11:55:29 Drafts were prepared.
11:55:30 I prepared a draft myself, submitted it in August,
11:55:34 distributed it to all parties.
11:55:38 Planning Commission is available for all parties to
11:55:40 review.
11:55:43 The draft was rejected and subsequent draft prepared
11:55:48 by the city attorney's office in the mid fall.
11:55:50 What I have before you this morning was the result of
11:55:51 that initial draft.
11:55:54 That draft has been vetted many times by all parties
11:55:56 involved.
11:55:57 It has been approved by Planning Commission staff, by

11:55:59 the Planning Commission board.
11:56:01 That was Hillsborough preservation.
11:56:03 The Historic Preservation Commission board.
11:56:06 Your attorney has given you an opinion that the draft
11:56:08 that is before you this morning comports with the
11:56:10 motion that was passed February of 2006.
11:56:15 I can tell you that nothing is perfect.
11:56:18 That you will never achieve perfection in legislation.
11:56:22 You will achieve compromise.
11:56:25 We have achieved compromise.
11:56:26 I ask that you pass the ordinance this morning without
11:56:30 any further delay.
11:56:31 Thank you.
11:56:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
11:56:34 Mr. Grandoff, do you specifically know what item the
11:56:38 last the five people are concerned with?
11:56:41 >>> A couple of them, yes.
11:56:43 >> You do?
11:56:44 Because what I heard them say is that they need to
11:56:47 look at it, and then they need to transmit those
11:56:50 thoughts to us, okay.
11:56:51 Because maybe you know because you have been attending

11:56:53 a bunch of these meetings.
11:56:54 But I know I don't know.
11:56:55 And I also know that I haven't had a chance to speak
11:56:58 with Mr. Smith, or his able counsel about this
11:57:03 ordinance at all.
11:57:04 So, you know, why would counsel move forward when we
11:57:08 don't know what their concerns are, and frankly, I
11:57:11 believe that there are probably several of us up here
11:57:13 who haven't been personally briefed by our legal
11:57:16 counsel.
11:57:17 It's a rhetorical question, John.
11:57:19 Thank you.
11:57:22 >>> In response to your question, four major issues
11:57:25 came up Tuesday morning.
11:57:29 Those issues have been summarized by Mr. Smith this
11:57:35 morning, having to do with the administration on the
11:57:37 board of the HPC, and the A.R.C.
11:57:41 Two section changes that were very basically form
11:57:51 changes and an objective criteria whether it's in
11:57:54 compliance with the code or not which created a bright
11:57:57 line standard in the demolition by neglect issue which
11:58:01 is a concern of mine.

11:58:03 >> So you know every single one of the concerns that
11:58:06 those five people had and you are just he nuns
11:58:09 rating -- enunciating --
11:58:11 >> No, I don't know them all.
11:58:13 They don't know mine.
11:58:14 >> Well in that case we need to hear more from you and
11:58:17 from them.
11:58:18 Thank you.
11:58:19 >> We have been discussing that with the legal staff
11:58:21 and HPC since mid fall.
11:58:25 Those issues have been on the table.
11:58:26 Clearly on the table.
11:58:28 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Ms. Wysong, someone made the comment
11:58:31 that there might have been changes made from the first
11:58:35 draft to the second draft.
11:58:36 Could you tell me if there are any changes made?
11:58:38 >> No.
11:58:39 Speaking about the HPC ordinance, the provision I
11:58:45 think Ms. Lockett was referring to was the HPC with
11:58:48 the agenda packet that they received, they received a
11:58:51 February 28th version of the ordinance.
11:58:58 Which we thought at the time was the final and it was.

11:59:00 Except the very next day Lindsey from the Planning
11:59:03 Commission called and asked me if I would change one
11:59:06 word only, and that is if I would change the word
11:59:08 "initiate" to "consider."
11:59:09 And I said I would.
11:59:13 That was fine.
11:59:13 So only one word change between the February 28th
11:59:18 version and the March 1st version and that is the
11:59:20 change you got.
11:59:21 And there have been no changes to the ordinance since
11:59:23 March 1st.
11:59:25 >> Did everybody in the historic preservation
11:59:29 community get a draft of these?
11:59:33 >>> They got the February 28th draft and they got
11:59:35 the March 1st draft.
11:59:38 >> Okay.
11:59:38 >> The fact that some of them showed up at the HPC
11:59:41 commission meeting on Tuesday with the February
11:59:43 28th draft, well, I don't know about that.
11:59:45 That was probably the first one they got so that's the
11:59:47 one they printed out.
11:59:49 >> Thank you.

11:59:50 >> I just want to clarify.
11:59:51 She didn't mean to say everybody in the preservation
11:59:53 community.
11:59:54 Those that were communicating with us, we sent to the.
11:59:57 I'm just trying to make sure --
12:00:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Thank you very much.
12:00:01 I appreciate it.
12:00:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
12:00:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes but I'll wait till after the
12:00:07 public hearing.
12:00:09 >>JULIA COLE: We are at the noon hour so we need to
12:00:12 vote.
12:00:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Want to make a motion?
12:00:15 >>SHAWN HARRISON: No.
12:00:16 I was going to make sure -- we do have folks that have
12:00:20 been waiting.
12:00:23 So these folks from Temple Crest won't have to keep
12:00:27 waiting.
12:00:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Come back with public comment?
12:00:31 >> if that's the will of council.
12:00:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone else want to speak?
12:00:38 Let's hear from her.

12:00:40 >>> Vicki Pollyea, South Moody Avenue.
12:00:42 I have been following this.
12:00:44 I have not attended meetings.
12:00:46 I have read the proposed changes.
12:00:54 I keep hearing there's disagreement that they are not
12:00:56 completely clear on this.
12:01:01 This is too important of a document.
12:01:03 Although I understand the impetus to get it done.
12:01:06 If there's this many learned people that aren't
12:01:09 completely sure what the final results of this very
12:01:12 complicated document -- I mean, when I first
12:01:14 downloaded it and it was, what, 96 pages long, I
12:01:18 printed it, so did a lot of other people.
12:01:23 You know, it's on the table.
12:01:26 There's good discussion going on.
12:01:28 It just seems like there's some very crucial points
12:01:30 that there's some disagreement on.
12:01:33 And I think that they are more than minor changes that
12:01:36 can just be tweaked.
12:01:38 >> I would really love to know what the changes are.
12:01:41 I mean, what is the problem?
12:01:43 I really would like to know what the issues are.

12:01:45 Maybe we could do something about it this afternoon
12:01:50 when we come back from lunch.
12:01:51 But has just been going on.
12:01:55 And I know what it is.
12:01:56 You don't have to tell me.
12:02:04 Owners consent.
12:02:12 It's easy to take care of.
12:02:17 Whatever it is, thank you very much.
12:02:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA:
12:02:25 >> The two big issues are delegation of duties to
12:02:27 staff, some of which some people think should remain
12:02:32 with the board.
12:02:33 And the definition of undue burden.
12:02:37 And those are two big substantive points of discussion
12:02:43 that people didn't get into today because they thought
12:02:45 maybe people could deal with it in a special
12:02:47 discussion meeting rather than hashing it out here.
12:02:49 That's why Mrs. Alvarez, you didn't hear the specific
12:02:52 discussion.
12:02:52 But if it turns out that you put this on first reading
12:02:55 today, I encourage everyone in the preservation
12:02:58 community to absolutely spell everything out for

12:03:02 council what the problems are, and I will schedule
12:03:05 another special discussion meeting as we -- if we move
12:03:11 ahead today.
12:03:15 >>DAVID SMITH: I know you need to get going so I'll be
12:03:18 brief.
12:03:18 Mrs. Saul-Sena just summarized the two key issues.
12:03:21 I thought those are issues you need to decide. The
12:03:25 question is whether we change from the current
12:03:26 standard.
12:03:27 Current standard is the taking standard. That is if
12:03:29 you have no beneficial use, not for your property.
12:03:31 The regulation has gone too far.
12:03:33 What this ordinance does, and what I thought it was
12:03:35 doing, was implementing council's view, which was we
12:03:38 are not going to use a taking standard.
12:03:40 Obviously we can't violate the Constitution.
12:03:42 We want a standard that's a little less burdensome on
12:03:44 the property owner.
12:03:45 So we have a standard that's a little less burdensome
12:03:47 on the property owner.
12:03:49 It's an inordinate burden standard.
12:03:52 There is some case law that addresses it.

12:03:55 If you don't want to go to that standard and the
12:03:57 preservationists don't want to go to that standard
12:03:59 then you are going to have to send it back.
12:04:01 Actually, in a you won't because the current standard
12:04:03 is in a beneficial use.
12:04:05 But I think that's a big issue that you need to
12:04:07 address.
12:04:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Was that our motion back whenever
12:04:11 we made the motion, to change the standards?
12:04:14 I don't remember that; David.
12:04:17 >>DAVID SMITH: What I indicated --
12:04:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
12:04:20 Mr. Dingfelder.
12:04:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question on the floor.
12:04:25 Mary went on.
12:04:27 So go ahead.
12:04:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Smith --
12:04:35 >>> I was going to respond to the question.
12:04:36 No one specifically said I want to change the standard
12:04:38 from a taking standard to an inordinate burden
12:04:41 standard.
12:04:41 What the discussion was about was why our department

12:04:46 was not willing to go as far as you had directed us.
12:04:49 And you have directed to us go to an opt out.
12:04:52 We felt that implicated Constitutional issues
12:05:02 The improper delegation case law can be delegated.
12:05:06 We didn't.
12:05:06 We recommended that we receive them, and the
12:05:08 discussion dealt with how do we bring owner consent
12:05:12 into this process as much as possible, and how do we
12:05:15 eliminate -- or alleviate the burden?
12:05:18 How do we make an economic hardship less burdensome?
12:05:24 That was the general direction.
12:05:26 I was involved in changing that standard because I
12:05:29 don't think a taking standard.
12:05:31 That's like saying we are going to do everything we
12:05:33 can short of taking your property. What kind of
12:05:35 standard is that?
12:05:35 I don't think that's a standard.
12:05:37 And I don't think it's a standard that you are
12:05:39 articulating for us to do. If I am wrong and I am
12:05:41 going beyond what you wanted me to do then you won't
12:05:43 vote for it.
12:05:44 But I think that is your decision to make.

12:05:46 >>GWEN MILLER: let him finish.
12:05:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think this is why we need to have
12:05:51 some interim steps between when especially on
12:05:55 something that controversial and hot as this topic
12:05:59 between when we have that vote and when it comes to us
12:06:02 for first reading.
12:06:04 And not only workshops downstairs.
12:06:08 I mean workshops right hear.
12:06:09 And the kind of discussions that are policy weighted,
12:06:18 not to get your document and vote it up or down.
12:06:20 And, you know, I think we have a process problem in
12:06:23 that regard.
12:06:24 And it brings its head right here and right now.
12:06:28 Because here we are right now, at what I consider to
12:06:32 be the eleventh hour with pushing, pushing, pushing to
12:06:35 adopt this, when you and I haven't even had a chance
12:06:38 to discuss it privately or publicly.
12:06:41 >> well.
12:06:42 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Well, I'm pushing to adopt it because
12:06:46 I have been involved in this thing from the very, very
12:06:48 beginning.
12:06:49 And I know -- and I've read the document.

12:06:53 You can see my papers.
12:06:54 And I have had discussions with Mr. Smith.
12:06:58 And so I feel that it's a good document.
12:07:00 And he did say you can tweak it.
12:07:02 It's gone to the Planning Commission.
12:07:04 It's gone to the HPC.
12:07:05 You know, people that are a lot more learned than I am
12:07:11 say yes this is a good document and we can tweak it.
12:07:15 It's not that it's written in stone again.
12:07:17 It's a guideline.
12:07:19 So, you know.
12:07:22 >>DAVID SMITH: Just briefly.
12:07:23 Because --
12:07:24 >> I'm hungry.
12:07:26 >>> I feel a little bit like I let council down by not
12:07:29 following the 5-2 direction that I received but I felt
12:07:32 it was incumbent upon me to advice you of a more
12:07:36 moderate course which is what I did.
12:07:38 I this think is a more moderate course dip ding when
12:07:43 you said may 2nd --
12:07:45 >>> Excuse me.
12:07:46 >> Was the first vote.

12:07:47 But then we had a subsequent vote that gave you change
12:07:49 in direction.
12:07:50 >>> Actually, I did not mention any dates.
12:07:52 >> I thought you said 5-2.
12:07:54 >>> I think that was John.
12:07:55 5-2 vote.
12:07:57 >> Oh, 5-2.
12:07:58 I thought you meant May 2.
12:08:00 5-2 vote.
12:08:02 Didn't we have a subsequent vote?
12:08:04 >>> I don't know that you ever voted again.
12:08:06 You may have.
12:08:06 I know we came back and had some discussions.
12:08:09 We have literally discussed this a lot.
12:08:12 And I think there are some issues.
12:08:14 And it is uniquely your call.
12:08:16 It's the council's purview, not mine.
12:08:18 I trade to bring up a proposal that I thought was
12:08:20 responsive.
12:08:23 Off of the standard to try to provide some
12:08:27 participation.
12:08:27 And I will elaborate when we go through that what I

12:08:30 think some of these other provisions do.
12:08:32 Like what the owner consent provision does.
12:08:34 Because I think it's been misinterpreted as well.
12:08:37 So the point is, what we try to do in our department
12:08:42 is discern as best we can not always is the direction
12:08:45 from council precise or elaborated.
12:08:47 Nor should we expect you to be precise.
12:08:49 I don't expect you to tell me what Constitutional
12:08:52 standard or what case law you want to apply.
12:08:55 You have got to give me a general direction, and we
12:08:57 try to be responsive to that.
12:08:58 If we have not then you won't vote for it.
12:09:01 If we have, then you will.
12:09:03 And I think that you all -- you heard input today.
12:09:08 We have met with these people numerous times.
12:09:10 We provided copies to whomever has indicated an
12:09:13 interest and we have had that dialogue on going.
12:09:21 Neither side is happy with this but I think it's
12:09:23 responsive without going too far.
12:09:24 If you agree you vote for it.
12:09:26 If you don't, you don't.
12:09:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith.

12:09:29 I need councilmen to waive the recalls so we can do
12:09:32 item 10 under committee reports.
12:09:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Wait S.that clarifying what we are
12:09:37 going to do?
12:09:38 >>GWEN MILLER: We haven't gotten to it yet.
12:09:42 >>JULIA COLE: We need to be able to go on through
12:09:44 lunch and then waive the rules to deal with item
12:09:46 number 10.
12:09:47 We don't really need to waive the recalls to do that.
12:09:50 We need to go back to number 10 and then we need to
12:09:53 move forward.
12:09:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We need a motion.
12:09:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Make a motion.
12:10:02 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Whether or not to have the
12:10:03 hearing?
12:10:03 >>JULIA COLE: You are well beyond the lunch hour.
12:10:10 >> So moved.
12:10:12 >> Second.
12:10:12 (Motion carried).
12:10:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In a lunch?
12:10:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, we are going to have lunch.
12:10:20 Do this, number 10.

12:10:21 We have a motion by Mr. Harrison and we didn't have
12:10:25 enough members to have a quorum -- to vote it up or
12:10:29 down.
12:10:29 We need to go back and vote on it again.
12:10:31 >>JULIA COLE: Item number 10 is an item that you heard
12:10:34 at your last zoning meeting which was not adopted.
12:10:38 There was a motion to deny based upon compatibility.
12:10:42 In section 27-100 of the City of Tampa code of
12:10:45 ordinances, it was a 3-3 vote no. Action was taken.
12:10:49 I have discussed this with Mr. Fletcher and he has
12:10:51 indicated to me that he has reviewed the record.
12:10:54 We request that you take this vote on the motion to
12:10:57 deny the rezoning, which motion was based upon
12:11:00 compatibility in section 27-100 of the City of Tampa
12:11:05 code of ordinances.
12:11:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Motion was to deny.
12:11:13 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion was to deny.
12:11:14 It's on the record for the same reasons that we heard
12:11:17 last week.
12:11:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:11:20 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
12:11:22 All in favor of the motion to deny say Aye.

12:11:24 Opposed?
12:11:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Hand vote?
12:11:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's do it again.
12:11:30 All in favor of denial say Aye.
12:11:35 Those opposed say Nay.
12:11:46 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Motion passes. The petition is
12:11:47 denied.
12:11:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's go to committee reports.
12:11:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to deal with number 12.
12:11:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am going to move that we continue
12:11:56 item 12 for two weeks.
12:11:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:11:59 >> So our staff can get with the community and make
12:12:01 sure all questions are resolved so our staff and legal
12:12:04 staff can get with each council member and make sure
12:12:06 all of our questions are resolved and we bring it back
12:12:09 two weeks from now, which is prior to the transition,
12:12:12 and still give a chance for first reading.
12:12:14 That's my motion.
12:12:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:12:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
12:12:24 >>THE CLERK: Motion failed with Harrison, Miller --

12:12:27 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
12:12:29 We are on 12.
12:12:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion on 12 is to continue for
12:12:35 two weeks.
12:12:36 >> All in favor of the motion say Aye.
12:12:38 Opposed Nay.
12:12:39 >>THE CLERK: Harrison, Alvarez and Reddick voting no.
12:12:44 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Mr. Dingfelder, what would be the
12:12:46 purpose in continuing it for two weeks?
12:12:47 Because you will have an old council and then a knew
12:12:51 council taking up.
12:12:54 So if we are going to continue it, may as well
12:12:56 continue it for three or four weeks or however long it
12:12:59 would take.
12:13:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Hello?
12:13:04 >>DAVID SMITH: It's a murky area but I think it would
12:13:07 be better if it's going to be finally voted on by the
12:13:10 new council --
12:13:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't want to jerk it up and not
12:13:13 have you vote on it but if that's your pleasure, Mr.
12:13:16 Harrison, I respect that.
12:13:17 >>SHAWN HARRISON: I think it just creates all kinds of

12:13:20 confusion in that transition period.
12:13:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll make a new motion which will
12:13:25 effectively supersede the last motion.
12:13:26 >>JULIA COLE: I would like to make a comment.
12:13:29 Item number 12 is the A.R.C. ordinance.
12:13:32 If you recall correctly, Ms. Wysongs brought up the
12:13:36 HPC ordinance as an add-on item.
12:13:38 I want to make sure what your motion does is include
12:13:40 both of those items, if that is the intent.
12:13:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was the intent.
12:13:45 So my new motion, which would I guess supersede my
12:13:50 last motion, would be actually to continue this item
12:13:53 for five weeks.
12:13:57 And then that way we'll have everything.
12:13:58 The dust will be settled and that will be both items,
12:14:02 the A.R.C. and the HPC ordinances.
12:14:10 >>JULIA COLE: I think you can consider that as an
12:14:12 amendment.
12:14:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.
12:14:15 >>DAVID SMITH: Do you want to clarify the motion?
12:14:18 I believe inherent is that legal staff will obviously
12:14:21 meet with council.

12:14:22 We will also meet with the various stakeholders again
12:14:25 to make sure we have all of their input.
12:14:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's what I said.
12:14:30 And legal and staff meet with all the stakeholders and
12:14:33 to meet with council, and we will all be bet every
12:14:37 prepared five weeks from now.
12:14:38 That's the motion.
12:14:39 >> Motion and second.
12:14:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
12:14:43 (Motion carried).
12:14:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Committee reports.
12:14:46 Let's go to public safety.
12:14:47 Ms. Alvarez.
12:14:55 >> Move item 14.
12:14:58 >> Second.
12:14:58 (Motion carried).
12:14:59 >> Parks and recreation, Mr. Frank Reddick.
12:15:07 >> Move 15 and 16.
12:15:12 (Motion Carried).
12:15:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move item 17.
12:15:15 >> Second.
12:15:15 (Motion carried).

12:15:15 >>CHAIRMAN: Finance Committee, Mr. Charles Fletcher.
12:15:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Fletcher, I need to recuse
12:15:21 mason 28 through 31.
12:15:28 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Move items 18 through 27.
12:15:32 And 32 and 33.
12:15:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
12:15:35 (Motion carried).
12:15:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On number 24, he used to be a city
12:15:45 attorney and it's nice to see he will be on the human
12:15:49 rates board.
12:15:49 It's wonderful.
12:15:52 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Move 28 through 31.
12:15:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think I need to recuse myself.
12:15:57 As I mentioned last week my wife is working on festive
12:16:00 Italiano, which will be April 1st in Ybor City,
12:16:04 and therefore it would go to personal benefit of our
12:16:08 family.
12:16:10 >> Second.
12:16:10 >>GWEN MILLER:
12:16:13 (Motion Carried)
12:16:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning.
12:16:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move resolution 34.

12:16:21 >> Need a second.
12:16:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
12:16:24 (Motion Carried).
12:16:26 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Transportation, move item 35.
12:16:34 >> We have a motion.
12:16:36 And second.
12:16:36 (Motion carried).
12:16:37 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move to set new business items 36
12:16:43 and 37.
12:16:44 >> Second.
12:16:44 (Motion carried).
12:16:45 >>GWEN MILLER: We will be adjourned for lunch until
12:16:47 1:30.
12:16:49 (Meeting recessed at 12:17 p.m.)
12:17:40


















Tampa City Council
Thursday, March 15, 2007, 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.


13:43:24 [Sounding gavel]
13:43:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Roll call.
13:43:29 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Here.
13:43:31 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Here.
13:43:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
13:43:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:43:36 We need to go back to item 11 on our agenda, ordinance
13:43:40 for first reading.

13:43:48 Mr. Reddick, would you read that, item number 11.
13:43:55 >> Move an ordinance of the City of Tampa amending
13:43:58 City of Tampa code chapter 7 cable communications by
13:44:01 repealing article VI, cable advisory committee,
13:44:05 providing an effective date.
13:44:05 >> Second.
13:44:05 (Motion carried).
13:44:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 13 we need to do for first
13:44:11 reading, Mr. Harrison.
13:44:12 >>SHAWN HARRISON: Move an ordinance authorizing the
13:44:14 installation and maintenance of certain encroachment,
13:44:16 canopy, subsurface footers and architectural features
13:44:20 over a portion of the public right-of-way known as
13:44:23 east Madison street and north Morgan street, as more
13:44:27 particularly described herein, subject to certain
13:44:29 terms, covenants, conditions and agreement as more
13:44:32 particularly described herein providing an effective
13:44:33 date.
13:44:34 >> Second.
13:44:34 (Motion carried).
13:44:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We now go to item number 38.
13:44:49 Anyone in the public the to speak on item number 38

13:44:51 you need to raise your right hand to be sworn in.
13:44:54 38.
13:44:58 >>SHAWN HARRISON: If there's nobody to be sworn in
13:45:00 I'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
13:45:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open it.
13:45:03 >> Move to open.
13:45:04 >> Second.
13:45:04 (Motion carried).
13:45:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We had asked Mr. Michelini to
13:45:09 consider making some changes to the site plan.
13:45:11 I just wondered if they have been made and if we can
13:45:14 go over that.
13:45:15 And I don't know where our staff is but we should have
13:45:19 staff.
13:45:19 I would like to hear from city staff, I guess.
13:45:34 >>> I want to remind that you have been sworn giving
13:45:39 to your testimony and I would request that any written
13:45:41 communication be placed on part of the record as well
13:45:44 as any verbal communication that was made prior to the
13:45:47 public hearing on this matter be disclosed on the
13:45:49 record.
13:45:49 Thank you. jive not been sworn.

13:46:09 >>> You want to know about if I spoke with Starbuck's?
13:46:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
13:46:16 >>> I did not.
13:46:17 I was not given them the opportunity to talk to them
13:46:20 directly.
13:46:20 Mr. Michelini did.
13:46:21 They have already given up four parking spaces and
13:46:25 they do not really want to give up the other two.
13:46:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
13:46:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: A question for Ms. Cole.
13:46:37 I thought at our last meeting we heard that city staff
13:46:41 would speak with them.
13:46:46 >>> Ms. Moore indicated she made an offer to speak
13:46:49 with them.
13:46:50 I suggested a time that it may be something that's
13:46:52 difficult to do.
13:46:52 And I also let council know that she made that offer
13:46:57 to do so.
13:46:58 She was not able to get in direct contact with them.
13:47:00 The only contact she was able to make was to Mr.
13:47:02 Michelini, and I did see that e-mail as well, and that
13:47:06 e-mail did indicate directly from Starbuck's, which

13:47:09 sounds like the only communication they were willing
13:47:11 to do was through this e-mail, and they indicated that
13:47:15 they were concerned about giving up parking spaces,
13:47:19 because they said 20 parking spaces is what they like
13:47:23 to provide for their customers, and Mr. Michelini may
13:47:26 in fact have that e-mail to make it part of the
13:47:29 record.
13:47:29 I'm not sure.
13:47:30 But if that's all that Ms. Moreau was able to do.
13:47:37 >>> When the project first started it was two
13:47:39 buildings and they had green space, beautiful, in
13:47:42 between two buildings.
13:47:43 But what happened, the beginning plans and what we
13:47:47 have now is this huge turning queue lane they were
13:47:53 forced to put in for the window so they lost an entire
13:47:56 building so they actually have in my opinion given up
13:47:59 quite a bit, although I do know what you are trying to
13:48:01 do.
13:48:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask one quick question?
13:48:07 As our urban design staff, shouldn't your report have
13:48:11 been part of the materials that we receive?
13:48:17 >>> Well, I gather what they do, because I'm still in

13:48:20 the learning process, have only been here about seven
13:48:23 or eights months now.
13:48:24 They take my objections and include it with theirs.
13:48:26 >> They meaning -- okay.
13:48:29 Ms. Coyle, just for the future, when there is
13:48:35 participation by our urban planning staff, and it's
13:48:41 important to us, because we are in a design overlay
13:48:46 state.
13:48:46 Can we get that specifically by them, not being
13:48:49 tempered by the other people who weigh in?
13:48:52 >>> I might ask Ms. Coyle to weigh in from a general
13:48:56 practice perspective.
13:48:57 I understand what occurred, because we had our VRC
13:49:00 meeting.
13:49:00 As part of that process, the zoning staff gathers all
13:49:03 that material, and then puts whatever objections there
13:49:06 are into one consolidated report.
13:49:09 What I am hearing from you is you would like, if there
13:49:14 is sort written documentation, to be included separate
13:49:17 and apart from the consolidated --
13:49:19 >> Yes, because transportation does that.
13:49:23 The tree people do that.

13:49:24 And I'm saying when we have a design overlay like the
13:49:27 Kennedy overlay, that the urban design people get
13:49:30 their own paragraph, also.
13:49:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
13:49:33 The transportation, solid waste, stormwater, all the
13:49:37 DRC reviewers, their comments are incorporated into
13:49:40 one staff report.
13:49:41 It's a consolidated staff report.
13:49:42 So their comments would be on whatever page they
13:49:44 happen to be on.
13:49:46 We don't exclude them or temper their comments or
13:49:48 remove objections unless they tell us to.
13:49:51 You receive their comments directly from them.
13:49:53 It's just in one format.
13:49:59 >>> (off microphone)
13:50:01 The project changed right when I first got it.
13:50:05 We got the first building up, the other builds was
13:50:09 gone.
13:50:09 Okay, what happened there?
13:50:10 And transportation, they were having to put in this
13:50:13 queuing lane and I'm not sure on the queuing lane how
13:50:17 that is.

13:50:18 So through different site plans that happened since
13:50:21 then and they tweaked, and on the final one I have no
13:50:25 objections to what they are trying to do here.
13:50:30 They have really done just about everything.
13:50:32 And I think what's really happening is the owner
13:50:34 applicant is kind of caught now between Starbuck's and
13:50:37 us.
13:50:37 And it's less than the entire building which would
13:50:41 have actually been kind of cool as far as density
13:50:44 goes.
13:50:47 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The queuing lane, do you know from
13:50:55 a design standpoint why we even really need that?
13:50:59 That sound like -- the crux of the issue.
13:51:03 >>> Melanie spoke to them.
13:51:05 I can't address it.
13:51:06 It's some sort of safety issue or something.
13:51:08 Coy.
13:51:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
13:51:10 I can certainly have them come over. The queuing lane
13:51:13 standard is 154 feet in length from the window and
13:51:18 that is basically through stacking and function of a
13:51:20 drive-through facility.

13:51:22 That's an industry standard of 154 feet.
13:51:26 I can certainly call if you like.
13:51:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In the Kennedy overlay, what we
13:51:32 talk about is the edge, that there be buildings next
13:51:36 to the sidewalk.
13:51:37 And I think that drive throughs are not allow in the
13:51:41 Kennedy overlay.
13:51:42 >>> That's not correct.
13:51:43 Drive throughs are allowed.
13:51:44 But drive through windows, that portion of the
13:51:47 facility should be on the side or rear of the
13:51:49 building.
13:51:49 I'm not hour how it's configured.
13:51:51 >> In this particular way the objection that was
13:51:55 expressed by council is that what you have next to the
13:51:58 sidewalk is surface parking, and the surface parking,
13:52:03 it's supposed to be back from the structure or
13:52:09 something and the reason it's so close is all of the
13:52:11 driveway part.
13:52:14 And that's why I was very surprised that the design
13:52:17 people didn't have an objection, because what's before
13:52:20 us is in conflict with our Kennedy Boulevard overlay.

13:52:28 >>> The Kennedy overlay does require the 30-foot
13:52:31 buffer.
13:52:32 You had that discussion at the last hearing.
13:52:34 And what Mr. Michelini stated to you is that you had
13:52:37 requested him to potentially remove a couple of spaces
13:52:41 along Kennedy to make that green space correspond to
13:52:43 the overlay district requirements.
13:52:45 And then the conversation got to the point where he
13:52:48 stated that Starbuck's wanted just number of parking
13:52:51 spaces.
13:52:53 You recall that conversation.
13:52:54 >> I remember it.
13:52:55 >>> And now we are back and --
13:53:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just back to what I expect of
13:53:03 staff.
13:53:03 I expected staff, if something is not congruent
13:53:06 with --
13:53:08 >>> There is an objection in the staff reported and it
13:53:10 was stated verbally when she gave the report.
13:53:13 We will object to overlay district standards that are
13:53:15 not met.
13:53:16 >> I really appreciate that and I think that's really

13:53:18 important.
13:53:18 Thank you.
13:53:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
13:53:23 I have been the planner on this case.
13:53:24 I have numerous objections under the Kennedy overlay
13:53:28 with this case related to signage, related to the
13:53:30 parking, the waiver being requested for the parking to
13:53:33 be moved back.
13:53:36 I can go back through those if you would like to hear
13:53:38 them in relation to everything.
13:53:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's important for council
13:53:42 just to hear it again because I think it's really
13:53:44 important.
13:54:06 >>> Okay.
13:54:06 I ran up the stairs.
13:54:07 General design standards for the Kennedy overlay
13:54:09 requires the drive through windows, including
13:54:13 pneumatic devices, should be located between -- it
13:54:24 seeks to provide safe pedestrian movement on the site.
13:54:27 And I did comment as to the drive through being
13:54:29 located on the east side of the property, forcing that
13:54:32 cuing to the southern end.

13:54:41 For public rights-of-way it should be a 5-foot
13:54:43 minimum, 10-foot maximum for the setbacks, and that
13:54:48 standard has not been met on the property either. The
13:54:51 ground level building facade setback may be increased
13:54:54 to 30 feet from the public right-of-way for areas
13:54:56 created to provide court yards.
13:54:58 That standard has not been met.
13:55:00 The patio area, tables and chairs are depicted across
13:55:04 the entire frontage.
13:55:06 The frontage is only supposed to be 50% of the
13:55:09 frontage to have that patio area, and as the patio
13:55:12 area wraps the complete front of the building and then
13:55:15 down the side.
13:55:23 A note for the on-site surface parking it shall be a
13:55:26 minimum of 30 feet setback from the property line.
13:55:30 That standard has not been met due to the
13:55:32 reconfiguration of the drive through.
13:55:34 When they have the two buildings there, they were able
13:55:36 to meet that, because the office building was on the
13:55:39 eastern side of the property, out to the front.
13:55:43 Starbuck's is on the western side up to the front and
13:55:46 the drives actually run through the middle.

13:55:48 Now that they have put the queuing lane -- now that
13:56:01 they have the queuing and the turn-around for the
13:56:03 drive-through, they have no other area to be able to
13:56:06 move the parking back and accommodate what they needed
13:56:10 for the drive-through.
13:56:11 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: So for the queuing variance we
13:56:20 gave a variance for all the other standards.
13:56:22 That's essentially what we are doing.
13:56:25 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I do not believe that the queuing
13:56:27 lanes can be waived because it is a technical
13:56:29 standard.
13:56:30 I can let transportation speak to that.
13:56:33 >> I would like to hear from Ms. Coyle.
13:56:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If there is a technical standard,
13:56:37 then this is a standard -- correct me if I am wrong --
13:56:41 a standard, an industry standard. That is not
13:56:46 something that is subject to being waived.
13:56:48 And you have a specific table of the items you can
13:56:51 waive and that is not one of the items that cannot be
13:56:53 waived.
13:57:02 Ms. Callaway is saying that's correct what I have just
13:57:05 said.

13:57:06 >>> Some of the other staff objections that we have
13:57:08 are related to signage.
13:57:09 Signage in the Kennedy overlay is restricted because
13:57:12 we want to be creating this Boulevard down Kennedy.
13:57:15 There was a sign on the front that originally was
13:57:22 vested at the final plan.
13:57:23 We asked that be removed and petitioner did agree.
13:57:26 However, they are asking for a waiver of signage, I
13:57:28 believe, of 100 feet.
13:57:30 93 square feet.
13:57:33 In order to accommodate if signage plans,.
13:57:41 One of the main signs on the front of the building
13:57:43 where they are allowed to have 12.5 feet of signage,
13:57:46 they have 100 square feet of signage.
13:57:48 So I did feel this was accepted in relation to the
13:57:50 standards that are trying to be implemented through
13:57:52 the Kennedy overlay.
13:57:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
13:57:55 I have a question of transportation.
13:57:58 You all had an objection, I think, to using the alley
13:58:03 which I didn't have a problem with.
13:58:04 But was that a technical waiver?

13:58:06 What kind of waiver is that?
13:58:09 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
13:58:10 I haven't been sworn.
13:58:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we swear everybody who
13:58:17 think they might want to speak?
13:58:18 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:58:35 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation.
13:58:36 That is a waiver, chapter 427.
13:58:39 Therefore, you are allowed to waive that.
13:58:42 >> And we aren't allowed to waive technical standards
13:58:44 on queuing?
13:58:45 >>> That's correct.
13:58:46 It is a technical standard.
13:58:48 It's an industry standard that we have in our
13:58:50 technical manual.
13:58:51 That is not waivable, correct.
13:58:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
13:58:57 Any other questions for staff?
13:58:58 Mr. Michelini?
13:58:59 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I have been sworn.
13:59:13 Can you see the site plan?
13:59:14 We worked with this site so long.

13:59:16 Let me remind you, this has been going on for
13:59:19 approximately a year and a half.
13:59:22 And as the staff has indicated there previously was an
13:59:25 office building here, and the two buildings were
13:59:27 paired with a court yard and a variety of other
13:59:30 amenities which was more in keeping with the Kennedy
13:59:34 overlay district than this particular proposal.
13:59:36 And you may recall that we talked about the technical
13:59:42 standards and codes when it comes to overlays.
13:59:45 They have not been meshed well.
13:59:46 And you're going to continue to have problems, whether
13:59:49 it's this project or some other project, in making
13:59:52 them all mesh correctly.
13:59:54 So we have to pick and choose what we can do and try
13:59:59 to keep the spirit of the overlay district in mind.
14:00:02 And we were one of the ones that came in, and helped
14:00:06 develop the standards.
14:00:06 So it's not something we are coming in lightly and
14:00:09 asking to be waived.
14:00:12 What we tried to do was to mitigate this separation
14:00:14 here by heavily landscaping this, and including a
14:00:18 small Lee wall which tied that into the rest of the

14:00:21 building.
14:00:23 And we committed to in excess of the city requirements
14:00:27 for landscaping, and other things to help make this
14:00:30 work; when you start shifting these things down you
14:00:36 are not just affecting the queuing lane.
14:00:38 You are affecting backup spaces.
14:00:40 You are expecting all kinds of other things.
14:00:42 We have been working with transportation so long they
14:00:45 are tired of seeing this project.
14:00:47 And detailed issues regarding how you make all of
14:00:52 these things function and still meet the intent of the
14:00:55 code.
14:00:56 We have done that with the technical standards.
14:00:59 We the technical standard.
14:01:01 We try to maintain the spirit of, you know, the
14:01:05 official overlay district guidelines.
14:01:08 When we talked about the signage issue, the signage is
14:01:13 measured from the outside.
14:01:15 It's measured around the whole disk.
14:01:18 It's measuring the logo.
14:01:22 Not just measuring lettering.
14:01:24 This is the smallest sign package that Starbuck's has.

14:01:28 It's the most minimal.
14:01:35 You see the screen wall here to knock out some of the
14:01:38 noise down from Kennedy.
14:01:40 It's a very busy street.
14:01:42 And because of that, we think that we have met the
14:01:45 spirit of the code.
14:01:49 We haven't only met the letter of the code, we.
14:01:52 >>RALPH METCALF: The spirit of it.
14:01:54 To try to buffer some of these things and try to say,
14:01:56 provide us a little bit of relief and we'll do the
14:01:59 best we can. As far as the removal of the parking
14:02:01 spaces are concerned, following our meetings two weeks
14:02:05 ago, I sent out an e-mail inquiry to Starbuck's.
14:02:10 I asked them -- I gave them the phone numbers for the
14:02:12 city zoning staff and design staff.
14:02:14 I gave them my phone numbers.
14:02:17 And I gave them a briefing on what was being
14:02:20 requested.
14:02:20 It took them a weak to get back to me.
14:02:22 And I took this e-mail that I received back from them
14:02:25 last Thursday, and I forwarded it to all the city
14:02:27 staff.

14:02:27 It has the phone number for Starbuck's.
14:02:29 It has the man's name.
14:02:31 And it has their position clearly outlined on this
14:02:34 e-mail.
14:02:35 (Bell sounds).
14:02:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Keep going.
14:02:39 >>> I don't think I'm on 3 minutes.
14:02:40 >> No.
14:02:41 You're the petitioner.
14:02:43 >>> I can read this.
14:02:43 It says part of Starbuck's -- you have to understand,
14:02:46 we are probably on our 10th version of a site
14:02:48 plan.
14:02:49 This is not one or two versions.
14:02:51 We have -- you will scenes sense that in this e-mail
14:02:58 that Starbuck's, we have gone back and forth with them
14:03:00 on a variety of different changes.
14:03:01 >> Would you read that.
14:03:03 >>> Part of Starbuck's customer experience is a
14:03:05 pleasing patio and cafe environment.
14:03:07 Also part of that experience is the ability to visit
14:03:09 daily.

14:03:10 To do this our customers must be assured that they'll
14:03:12 be able to park when they arrive.
14:03:14 I found from experience in the Tampa market that most
14:03:17 locations, the minimum we should have is 20 spaces.
14:03:21 I fear if we went to 18 in this urban setting our
14:03:24 customers might be forced to seek street parking or
14:03:27 leave and in doing so potentially upset neighbors.
14:03:30 You know we worked hard to develop a site plan that
14:03:33 included 22 to 24 spaces.
14:03:35 That was earlier versions.
14:03:38 And we considered -- consented to the plan that 20,
14:03:42 because everyone agreed that it overall allowed for
14:03:44 the most satisfying design.
14:03:46 If we were to reduce to 18 we would have to reconsider
14:03:52 moving forward with this site.
14:03:54 And his name and Starbuck's in Orlando.
14:03:58 He's the development manager for Starbuck's.
14:04:02 So it wasn't like we came in and said let's see what
14:04:05 we can squeeze in here and make it work.
14:04:10 We have really worked hard on this.
14:04:12 And we have tried to figure out how to accommodate
14:04:14 everything that was being proposed.

14:04:17 And everyone agreed.
14:04:19 There were still waivers.
14:04:20 The staff knew that.
14:04:21 And we came in.
14:04:22 We knew there were waivers been requested but we
14:04:24 couldn't do anything else.
14:04:29 As far as the alley was concerned, the utilization
14:04:31 here, we are providing 5 feet of the property from the
14:04:34 property owner to the city to the property line, just
14:04:38 so they can get into this driveway.
14:04:40 Now, it goes back to traditional 15-foot width here.
14:04:46 But 20 feet down to the southern property line.
14:04:50 And I don't know what else to tell you.
14:04:56 We have done everything we can possibly do.
14:04:58 And one of the objections has always been to put well
14:05:01 established, main brands on Kennedy Boulevard to
14:05:04 assist in the redevelopment of that district.
14:05:09 It's a car lot now.
14:05:10 It's a CI zoning.
14:05:12 It's a very intensive zoning that could be used for a
14:05:15 lot of other things.
14:05:18 This is certainly not squeezing the most out of a

14:05:20 site.
14:05:21 But we are asking for your favorable consideration.
14:05:23 We are here at second reading.
14:05:25 And we tried.
14:05:26 I promised you I'd try.
14:05:28 I tried.
14:05:30 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Mr. Michelini, what are you going to
14:05:32 do about the technical objection that's on there now?
14:05:37 >>> I don't have any.
14:05:38 >> According to her you do.
14:05:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, no.
14:05:42 >>> There are no technical objections.
14:05:44 The objections are to waive certain standards in the
14:05:47 overlay district, which are zoning conditions, and not
14:05:50 technical conditions.
14:05:52 >> What about the sign?
14:05:53 Can you put the stop sign on the building itself?
14:05:55 I mean, that's what --
14:05:57 >>> We are doing that.
14:05:58 >> But that's not part of this.
14:05:59 I'm talking about over the patio itself.
14:06:04 On most of these Starbuck's I have seen have in gold

14:06:08 letters, on the Starbuck's building themselves.
14:06:12 >>> These are on the building.
14:06:15 >> That doesn't look like the building.
14:06:17 >>> This is the front of the connection to the
14:06:19 building.
14:06:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Michelini, why don't you pass
14:06:24 that up?
14:06:25 It's kind of difficult to see.
14:06:26 Thank you.
14:06:29 >>STEVE MICHELINI: We removed the pylon sign that's
14:06:32 going to be a stand-alone sign.
14:06:34 That's gone from the site.
14:06:43 That's connected to a glass roof covering.
14:06:50 That's the entranceway to Starbuck's.
14:06:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there anyone from the public who
14:06:59 would like to speak on this?
14:07:00 Mr. Michelini, do you have anything else?
14:07:02 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm just asking for your
14:07:05 indulgence.
14:07:06 We have done the best we can with this and quite
14:07:08 honestly we have -- we lost AP entire building just to
14:07:12 get to this point.

14:07:14 A smaller building.
14:07:18 >> The e-mail that you referenced?
14:07:21 >>> Yes, sir.
14:07:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for staff.
14:07:23 And that is, if you received this, why -- perceived
14:07:28 this, why didn't you pursue it?
14:07:30 Anybody can answer.
14:07:34 My question was, you received this a week ago.
14:07:36 Mr. Michelini did what he could.
14:07:37 You received this.
14:07:39 You have a contact person, his name and phone number.
14:07:42 Why didn't you pursue it?
14:07:43 Council asked you to pursue it.
14:07:48 >>> Myer, urban design.
14:07:49 You know, Mr. Michelini, because he told me when I
14:07:53 walked out the other night because there needed to be
14:07:55 a conference call on the line with him as well.
14:07:58 I e-mailed him because he thought I should pursue it
14:08:01 further as well.
14:08:03 I e-mailed Mr. Michelini and never heard back.
14:08:06 >> He said you gave awe contact and phone number.
14:08:15 >>JULIA COLE: This is the issue that I raised at the

14:08:17 beginning when it first came up.
14:08:19 It wouldn't be appropriate with staff without Mr.
14:08:21 Michelini's permission to call.
14:08:24 And I undertook that Mr. Michelini wanted to be
14:08:27 involved in that conference call.
14:08:28 And I think, you know, not in defense of anybody, but
14:08:31 I think that e-mail made it pretty clear to everyone
14:08:35 that Starbuck's is not interested --
14:08:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anything else?
14:08:43 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No.
14:08:44 I have a question for Mr. Michelini.
14:08:47 It's probably most appropriate for Melanie, I guess.
14:08:52 This queuing lane, that manual that includes that
14:08:59 standard in place in the City of Tampa.
14:09:01 >>> We put in the our manual about a year ago, when we
14:09:04 were first starting to revise it.
14:09:06 We haven't brought that before you yet.
14:09:07 But we have had that policy for six years.
14:09:13 And I'm sure Calvin can tell me how much longer they
14:09:16 have been using that standard but it's an industry
14:09:19 standard that we have been using.
14:09:21 >> Just to me, this project looks like use of brand

14:09:27 because of what's used for the drive-through and I am
14:09:31 going to vote for this because I think personally, I
14:09:36 think that -- I think we ought to rethink.
14:09:40 If it's on the books for a year then we have a whole
14:09:43 bunch of unsafe drive throughs right now throughout
14:09:46 the city and just to me, it's a very significant
14:09:54 burden to place on land owners and in this process to
14:09:59 really reduce some flexibility if we can't waive it or
14:10:02 vary it in any way.
14:10:03 Looks like all the other standards have to be deferred
14:10:05 to meet these types of standards.
14:10:08 And I'm not sure that that's the correct balancing.
14:10:14 >>CALVIN THORNTON: Transportation division.
14:10:17 I guess this has been a policy for at least 15 years,
14:10:25 154 feet. The reason why it's a safety issue, and
14:10:28 pretty much every drive-through has met this
14:10:30 requirement, the reason why it's a safety issue,
14:10:33 anytime one of these drive-through enters the
14:10:37 right-of-way we have accidents.
14:10:39 We could shut down the drive-through which is what we
14:10:41 don't want to do.
14:10:42 We so it has been around for a number of years.

14:10:48 All it does is makes it more available to everyone.
14:10:54 It's at least 15 years.
14:10:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council?
14:11:01 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
14:11:02 >> Second.
14:11:03 (Motion carried).
14:11:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there a motion?
14:11:06 >>MARY ALVAREZ: motion to approve.
14:11:08 Do you want me to read the ordinance?
14:11:10 >> If you want to.
14:11:11 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I move to adopt the following
14:11:13 ordinance upon second reading, an ordinance rezoning
14:11:15 property in the general vicinity of 1600 West Kennedy
14:11:17 Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
14:11:20 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
14:11:22 district classifications CI commercial intensive to PD
14:11:26 planned development, office and retail, providing an
14:11:28 effective date.
14:11:30 >> Second.
14:11:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would anyone like to speak on the
14:11:33 motion?
14:11:33 I would.

14:11:35 I really appreciate how much energy has been gone into
14:11:38 this particular petition.
14:11:42 Sound like a long hard struggle but I have to tell you
14:11:45 I spent 20 years on the Kennedy overlay and the
14:11:47 purpose of that is to create certain quality
14:11:49 standards.
14:11:51 And it bothers me that this transportation queuing
14:11:54 standard is trumping urban design.
14:11:56 I believe if council turns this down today, that
14:11:59 Starbuck's will give up a little more green.
14:12:01 That's my strong, strong belief.
14:12:05 If today three of you vote against this, that Mr.
14:12:09 Michelini will be back next week and say, now what?
14:12:12 We can live with the 18 spaces on-site in the 300
14:12:16 street which gives you 21, which is more than enough
14:12:25 Just lose two parking spaces.
14:12:27 Not queuing spaces.
14:12:28 I really encourage you based on the 20 years I spent
14:12:31 getting the Kennedy Boulevard plan adopted that we not
14:12:33 accept this parking right next to the street.
14:12:36 That's what we are trying to get away from.
14:12:38 I appreciate that this is going to be way better than

14:12:41 what's been there in the past, but we can make it
14:12:43 better still.
14:12:44 I think that this city, Tampa, Florida, deserves the
14:12:47 highest quality development.
14:12:48 So I really urge-someone to go along with me in hopes
14:12:54 that Starbuck's will take this seriously, reconsider
14:12:56 and come back with the same project, two spaces lost,
14:12:59 200 more square feet of green.
14:13:03 So there's a motion.
14:13:04 Is there any more discussion?
14:13:05 Mr. Dingfelder?
14:13:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe a substitute motion would be
14:13:11 to approve with the caveat that they lose the two
14:13:16 space that is are closest to Kennedy.
14:13:18 And just see if the developer --
14:13:29 >> Discussion?
14:13:30 >>JULIA COLE: As you heard me say many times, to have
14:13:34 this voted up or down.
14:13:36 I think I should make you aware of something.
14:13:38 This petition doesn't necessarily say on it, this is
14:13:42 only for a Starbuck's.
14:13:44 So if Starbuck's -- you may not end up with the

14:13:51 Starbuck's that they decide to -- if they decide to
14:13:54 walk away.
14:13:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Whatever it is, it still has the
14:13:58 same aesthetic impact.
14:14:00 >> But this petitioner will have to say on the record
14:14:02 whether they would agree with, and if not then they
14:14:04 have the right on their petition.
14:14:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you like to come up and speak
14:14:12 or do we need to reopen the public hearing?
14:14:16 >>JULIA COLE: Probably the best option is reopen the
14:14:17 public hearing.
14:14:19 >> Is there a motion?
14:14:20 >> Moved.
14:14:21 >> Second.
14:14:21 (Motion carried).
14:14:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Michelini, you heard the
14:14:27 proposal for substitute motion made by Mr. Dingfelder.
14:14:29 >>> I don't have any direction either from my client
14:14:31 or Starbuck's or anyone affiliated except on the site
14:14:35 plan that we worked on.
14:14:39 I don't know what to tell you.
14:14:42 I'm in a very difficult position here because we have

14:14:44 spent so much time and effort on this, and any graphic
14:14:50 changes are going to be delayed for two weeks if you
14:14:52 make those changes now and they are at the end of
14:14:54 their rope in terms of extending and extending and
14:14:57 extending the agreements, that they have tried to be
14:15:00 accommodating.
14:15:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:15:02 Okay.
14:15:04 Mr. Reddick.
14:15:05 >>FRANK REDDICK: I am not going to support the amended
14:15:09 motion.
14:15:10 Because I believe it's obvious that this process has
14:15:14 been going on, and I think Starbuck's has done
14:15:17 everything they could to accommodate.
14:15:19 And the communication is obvious.
14:15:29 I support the original motion.
14:15:30 And we need to vote it up, down, and not continue to
14:15:34 prolong this.
14:15:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on the comments of the
14:15:42 petitioner, it will go back to the original motion
14:15:45 which is for approval.
14:15:46 Any more discussion on the approval?

14:15:48 >> I withdraw my motion.
14:15:51 My substitute motion.
14:15:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have another comment.
14:15:55 As you see, council members, the report from our staff
14:15:57 is a slew of objections.
14:15:59 And I just encourage you not to support this.
14:16:02 Any more discussion on the motion?
14:16:05 Mr. Fletcher?
14:16:06 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: This is a very difficult decision,
14:16:12 and petitioner has done as much as they can within
14:16:15 standards that they have to work with.
14:16:22 I think the staff has very valid objections.
14:16:24 And as I have indicated, I think it is a problem that
14:16:30 the needs of an automobile society trumps every other
14:16:35 standard that we have on the books.
14:16:38 And the petitioner didn't ask for this initially.
14:16:41 This is not what they wanted.
14:16:43 But it's what the city has forced them into.
14:16:51 And I am going to have to do a lot of soul searching
14:16:54 in the next couple of seconds before we vote because
14:16:56 I'm not sure which way I am going to go.
14:16:58 >> Any other council members?

14:17:00 Well, I'll speak.
14:17:00 I went to a conference on sustainability, and now
14:17:03 what?
14:17:04 We are moving away from such big cars.
14:17:06 We are moving toward transit and pedestrian access,
14:17:09 and we are moving toward creating more beautiful and
14:17:11 livable community.
14:17:12 And we are close on this one but not quite there.
14:17:17 >>FRANK REDDICK: I would like to call for the question
14:17:19 on the motion.
14:17:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Reddick.
14:17:21 All in favor of the motion to approve say Aye and
14:17:24 raise your hands.
14:17:27 Oh, well, maybe it will work.
14:17:28 Everybody who supports it, yes.
14:17:30 Everybody who doesn't vote no.
14:17:34 Vote and record.
14:17:50 Ms. Cole, what do we need to do?
14:17:53 >>JULIA COLE: You have no option but carry over.
14:18:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, we'll carry it over till next
14:18:03 week and I would hope maybe the petitioner would have
14:18:05 an opportunity to speak with his client.

14:18:06 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: There's no action taken because we
14:18:11 don't have four votes?
14:18:13 Or --
14:18:17 >>JULIA COLE: You need four votes to take any action.
14:18:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Or could we try the affirmative?
14:18:28 >>> Once it's stuck there, it's stuck there.
14:18:30 >> I think petitioner should have the opportunity to
14:18:31 check and see if they can work something out.
14:18:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Moving right along.
14:18:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Madam Chair?
14:18:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, Mr. Dingfelder.
14:18:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's been a request to bump up
14:18:43 item 42 because there have been neighborhood folks
14:18:47 waiting since 9:00 this morning.
14:18:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Based on that do we have a motion
14:18:51 to open the public hearing?
14:18:53 Dip ding so moved.
14:18:55 >> Second.
14:18:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second to open number
14:18:58 42.
14:18:59 (Motion carried).
14:18:59 Would everyone who is going to speak on this please

14:19:02 stand and be sworn?
14:19:03 Actually, would everybody who is going to speak on
14:19:05 anything from now till the end of the meeting please
14:19:07 stand and be sworn.
14:19:11 >>STEVE MICHELINI: Could I speak a second?
14:19:13 >> Certainly.
14:19:13 >>> We are going to request a full counsel for the
14:19:17 vote on this particular tissue.
14:19:21 >> Request what, Steve?
14:19:23 >>> A full council.
14:19:25 >> We have people waiting all day.
14:19:27 >>JULIA COLE: There is no obligation to bump something
14:19:30 else up.
14:19:30 >> You can make that request so council should vote on
14:19:33 that.
14:19:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, we don't have to vote on it.
14:19:36 >>JULIA COLE: If somebody on council would like to
14:19:39 make that motion to I guess continue it.
14:19:41 I don't know if we are going to get a full council.
14:19:43 But you can either vote --
14:19:48 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: How would we do that?
14:19:51 >>JULIA COLE: Either wait till the end of council, to

14:19:54 see if you get a full council, or continue it a week.
14:19:57 And.
14:20:01 >> We are already continuing a week.
14:20:04 >> Item 46.
14:20:06 >> I'm sorry.
14:20:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay, we are going to continue.
14:20:09 Okay.
14:20:09 Number 42.
14:20:10 It's now -- dipping ding you want to be sworn in?
14:20:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Everybody who wants to speak,
14:20:17 please be sworn in.
14:20:20 >> What happened to Mr. Michelini's request?
14:20:22 >> For a full vote.
14:20:26 >> Sis second -- his second request, you were opening
14:20:31 another hearing.
14:20:32 >> Yes.
14:20:33 42.
14:20:34 >> And I was just saying -- 42?
14:20:40 To change from a conditional zoning, requesting a
14:20:42 permanent zoning.
14:20:44 And I was requesting the benefit of a full council for
14:20:47 discussion, because I'm aware that there will be

14:20:51 discussion on this.
14:20:54 And I just thought it would be more fair to all of
14:20:56 those involved, including the people who want to
14:20:58 speak, with their concerns, if full council be
14:21:02 available.
14:21:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it's like most things.
14:21:06 Council members who aren't here can watch the tape
14:21:08 once we get to that point.
14:21:10 I think it's bad precedent to start changing that now.
14:21:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:21:16 Staff.
14:21:17 Oh, swear in everybody first.
14:21:20 (Oath administered by Clerk)
14:21:29 >>JULIA COLE: I would just request that when you come
14:21:33 to the dais to speak that you indicate you have been
14:21:35 sworn for the purposes of the record.
14:21:37 I would also request that any written materials which
14:21:39 have been submitted to council be made part of the
14:21:41 record.
14:21:42 And that council disclose any verbal communication
14:21:47 they had regarding this matter.
14:21:48 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.

14:21:52 Case WZ 07-44.
14:21:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
14:21:57 Please speak really slowly and clearly and loudly.
14:22:02 Thank you.
14:22:02 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Okay.
14:22:04 Good afternoon.
14:22:05 Barbara LePore, land development.
14:22:08 I will be presenting the case WZ 07-44.
14:22:12 The petitioner is requesting the 4(COP-R) at the
14:22:15 location 915 South Howard Avenue, which is the sale of
14:22:22 beer, wine and alcohol at the restaurant.
14:22:29 The petition had one-year conditional wet zoning for
14:22:37 the site.
14:22:38 The site contains 5,286 square feet area.
14:22:43 It was a conditional one year wet zoning.
14:22:56 This is only for one year and it expire in February
14:23:01 2007, this year.
14:23:05 There is a request for the wet zoning of this
14:23:07 location.
14:23:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:23:12 >>> There are some other wet zoned property
14:23:15 establishments.

14:23:17 Also, there are institutional properties.
14:23:22 The petitioner is requesting a waiver separation, of
14:23:32 the establishment.
14:23:33 I also enclosed in my staff report information from
14:23:39 Mr. Suarez.
14:23:43 Information to the land development that there are
14:23:47 some problems with the parking issue.
14:23:58 Land development has no objections to this.
14:24:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
14:24:05 >>> Officer Don Miller, City of Tampa police
14:24:08 department.
14:24:08 I have been sworn.
14:24:10 Police department has no objection on this wet zoning.
14:24:13 But in my comments in the report I submitted to you
14:24:16 folks, there are some concerns with citizens close by
14:24:19 to this business.
14:24:20 And they are here today, and they'll be making some
14:24:23 comments.
14:24:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you very much.
14:24:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Excuse me.
14:24:28 Have you been in communication with your fellow TPD
14:24:32 officers who patrol that area in regard to parking in

14:24:37 the neighborhood, any late night issues, trash,
14:24:42 garbage, you know, that sort of thing?
14:24:45 >> Yes, sir.
14:24:46 In that particular area of South Howard, we have had
14:24:49 some issues.
14:24:54 One business, parking is an issue with you that area
14:25:00 especially with district commanders and parking is at
14:25:03 a premium.
14:25:04 That's always been a problem in that area.
14:25:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:25:08 Petitioner.
14:25:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: I'm here on behalf of 915 South
14:25:24 Howard. The property was previously wet zoned for a
14:25:27 4(COP-R) several years ago.
14:25:29 And it remained vacant, lost its wet zoning, and we
14:25:34 came back to you last year and requested a wet zoning
14:25:38 again, which was approved with conditions.
14:25:47 You have a variety of different matters coming up but
14:25:50 let me briefly go through the fact that there is
14:25:52 adequate parking there.
14:25:55 There have been no police reports to my knowledge that
14:25:56 were directly caused by or attributed by this

14:25:59 establishment.
14:26:02 There are other issues in the neighborhood that have
14:26:04 aggravated conditions in the neighborhood but they are
14:26:08 not attributed to this site at all.
14:26:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How many spaces are there for this?
14:26:21 And how many chairs are there?
14:26:26 >>> Approximately a 100 seat restaurant.
14:26:27 And there are -- I can show you pictures of the
14:26:33 parking lot and give you the numbers in a second.
14:26:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Somebody's cell phone.
14:26:54 >>STEVE MICHELINI: About 40 spaces.
14:26:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:26:58 >>> That's just based on eyeballing.
14:27:00 It's not an exact count.
14:27:01 About 40 spaces.
14:27:06 They are not on the right-of-way.
14:27:08 They are not relying on other properties.
14:27:14 They are immediately to the south.
14:27:19 There are three spaces in the front of the building
14:27:22 which are partially in the right-of-way and partially
14:27:23 on private property.
14:27:31 The owners, we believe, maintained a fair safe

14:27:34 establishment.
14:27:35 We ask you to amend the hours of operation to allow
14:27:37 them to operate on Friday and Saturday until 2 a.m.,
14:27:40 on Thursday until midnight, and that Thursday and
14:27:46 Sunday.
14:27:46 And then Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, they would
14:27:49 remain at 11 p.m
14:28:01 >> What have they been at?
14:28:05 >>> 11 during the week and midnight on Friday.
14:28:07 >> What are you asking for?
14:28:09 >>> Two on Friday and Saturday.
14:28:11 Midnight on Thursday and Sunday.
14:28:14 And then 11, remain eleven on Monday, Tuesday and
14:28:17 Wednesday.
14:28:22 Part of the problem that we experienced, there's a
14:28:26 provision in the City of Tampa code that requires the
14:28:28 restaurant to be operating simultaneously to selling
14:28:33 alcohol.
14:28:33 If you stop selling alcohol, the establishment has to
14:28:36 close.
14:28:37 So they couldn't even continue selling food.
14:28:42 And what that actually means, at a my night closing

14:28:47 you are really closing and shutting down at 11:30
14:28:50 because people have to leave the premises.
14:28:51 And certainly you can ask officer Miller who will
14:28:54 confirm that.
14:28:55 It's not unique to this establishment.
14:28:57 That's true of any of the establishments selling
14:28:59 alcohol.
14:29:02 So your staff can remain and clean up.
14:29:04 But all the patrons have to start leaving at least a
14:29:07 half hour before closing time.
14:29:12 I think the main issue really is the hours of
14:29:14 operation.
14:29:17 I have been in contact and communication with the
14:29:19 neighbors about it.
14:29:20 And they have sent e-mails back and forth indicating
14:29:22 they were happy with the hours of operation as they
14:29:25 are with no changes.
14:29:28 And the owners are asking for some relief.
14:29:31 When the conditional zoning was placed on this
14:29:34 establishment, it was over a year ago.
14:29:39 It was a debated, fairly actively debated issue.
14:29:45 And the property owners and the neighbors came to some

14:29:48 agreement on the hours of operation.
14:29:53 Their comments were if it didn't work out they were
14:29:55 going to come back and ask for shorter hours, or come
14:29:58 back and say the hours were the same.
14:30:01 We would like a little bit of relief, particularly on
14:30:03 the weekends, provide a little better services to the
14:30:07 customers.
14:30:10 I have a variety of different petitions signed in
14:30:16 support of this establishment.
14:30:17 I would like to have these received and filed.
14:30:20 And I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
14:30:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any questions from council members
14:30:30 at this point?
14:30:30 Would anybody like to speak on this?
14:30:32 If so please come up, if anybody would like to speak
14:30:39 on this now is the time.
14:30:41 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: One quick question.
14:30:43 You said that this is for the last year.
14:30:48 >>STEVE MICHELINI: A little less than a year.
14:30:52 It took a little while to get permits but the
14:30:54 conditional zoning was approved about a year ago.
14:30:56 >> What was at this location before?

14:30:58 >>> Primadonna's restaurant.
14:31:01 It's been a restaurant for a number of years and it
14:31:03 sold alcohol for a number of years.
14:31:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:31:06 Anybody who would like to speak on this, please come
14:31:08 up to the podium. Give us your name, address, and
14:31:10 tell us if you have been sworn.
14:31:17 >>> Greta Brooks, 2030 west Bristol Avenue, and I have
14:31:20 been sworn.
14:31:21 And these are my boys.
14:31:26 They are enjoying themselves on the screen right now.
14:31:30 We are talking about choices today.
14:31:32 You make choices every day.
14:31:33 Every Thursday you make a lot of choices in here.
14:31:38 I tell my boys all the time, you have a choice to
14:31:40 make.
14:31:40 You can make a choice to be rude and go to your room
14:31:43 or you can make a choice to be polite and continue to
14:31:47 play.
14:31:47 I'm sure do you that with your own family.
14:31:52 They knew a year ago that the surrounding neighborhood
14:31:55 was a late night operation.

14:32:04 He wanted a closure at 11:00.
14:32:06 There was an agreement back a year later, talking
14:32:09 about it again as he said he would.
14:32:18 They make a choice about what type of establishment
14:32:20 they would open.
14:32:22 They have a month to decide what kind of establishment
14:32:26 to fit in with this neighborhood.
14:32:27 They had months to decide to have a reliable business.
14:32:32 Instead they chose to open a sports bar that requires
14:32:35 them to ask patrons.
14:32:40 In my mind it's kind of like what my kids do when they
14:32:43 don't like the rules I make for them.
14:32:47 They badger me and come back and come back until
14:32:49 finally I'm tired and I get worn down.
14:32:53 Today I ask you let's not compromise and do 1:00.
14:32:57 Next year let's compromise and do 2:00.
14:33:00 Please don't get warn down -- worn down.
14:33:03 Our neighborhood really doesn't want this change.
14:33:05 The one homeowner -- not one homeowner is interested
14:33:10 in having it open till 2:00.
14:33:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:33:16 For the benefit of some other council folks, can

14:33:18 you -- somebody put the map on there, and identify
14:33:29 approximately, and drop it down a little bit,
14:33:32 approximately where your home is, and pull the map
14:33:36 down.
14:33:49 And Bristol is the closest street to this
14:33:52 establishment.
14:33:52 And those a residential street as you get down
14:33:54 Bristol.
14:33:56 >>> That's right.
14:33:57 >> What sort of impact have you had from this or any
14:34:07 into your neighborhood?
14:34:09 Do you have on street parking?
14:34:11 >>> We have on-street parking.
14:34:12 I can tell that you they come back at 2:00 or 3:00 in
14:34:16 the morning and my children's bedroom is right on the
14:34:20 street.
14:34:21 You hear that.
14:34:21 You hear the dumpster slamming up, a lot of yelling.
14:34:25 There's just lots of noise all the time.
14:34:33 I don't know if that establishment happens over there
14:34:34 but people are looking for somewhere to go at 1:00 in
14:34:37 the morning.

14:34:38 I'm not that far removed from the days when I was one
14:34:41 of those people at the Chatterbox.
14:34:44 I understand people want a place to go. But Rome and
14:34:49 Howard is a mess.
14:34:49 Try driving down there at midnight and fear for
14:34:53 yourself to hit somebody, and that's what I'm worried
14:34:55 about in my neighborhood.
14:34:56 Because there are people on my street at all hours of
14:34:58 the night.
14:35:04 But I would like to say that the owners have always
14:35:07 been gracious towards me.
14:35:11 I don't want you to think I'm saying they are bad
14:35:14 people.
14:35:15 They just made a bad choice in that situation.
14:35:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anyone else like to speak?
14:35:21 This is your moment.
14:35:23 >>> Elyse Myer, west Bristol Avenue.
14:35:27 I have been sworn.
14:35:28 I am here today as the block captain of Bristol
14:35:32 Avenue.
14:35:33 I have been the block captain for I think six years.
14:35:37 I'm also here as the representative for the Parkland

14:35:39 Estates civic club.
14:35:41 I believe you all received numerous e-mails yesterday,
14:35:45 and preceding days on this matter.
14:35:48 I was the one with Mr. Michelini last year in our
14:35:53 debate.
14:35:53 And we gave him an extra hour on the weekend.
14:35:58 We have had no problems with this establishment as far
14:36:00 as the hours.
14:36:03 However, I believe they do close at a decent hour, the
14:36:10 restaurant that was here before, Primadonna, was there
14:36:13 for several years.
14:36:14 We had no problems with that restaurant.
14:36:16 They closed, I believe, at eleven on the weekends.
14:36:19 The other restaurants in this area, Side Berns, Berns,
14:36:26 717 and the other folks, Antony's also close at an
14:36:30 early hour.
14:36:31 We have had no problems with any of those
14:36:33 establishments.
14:36:34 We have had several problems, and as former crime
14:36:39 watch person for Parkland Estates, peacock was open
14:36:44 just closed last month.
14:36:45 I only had the last two crime watch reports from the

14:36:48 last two months.
14:36:50 They were quiet months.
14:36:51 We don't get a lot of DUI's because I think the
14:36:55 police department is a little bit more north of Swann
14:36:58 on the weekends.
14:36:59 I do not receive those reports.
14:37:01 It is a different grid.
14:37:02 You will have to ask the officer Miller.
14:37:09 But I do go out at two in the morning.
14:37:15 My dog is out there and I cannot tell you with all the
14:37:17 people walking down our street, we have had a break-in
14:37:20 to cars across the street.
14:37:21 We have had several break-s in our neighborhood.
14:37:24 Especially December Christmas month.
14:37:27 But not saying that the people are bad but there are
14:37:32 some people coming to look for trouble.
14:37:40 These problems happen in the parking lot.
14:37:43 717, people were parking back there.
14:37:50 I remember screaming there's problems going on here.
14:37:56 Well, you better get your butt over here, there's a
14:38:00 girl screaming, she's either being raped or accosted.
14:38:04 Better get somebody over here.

14:38:08 It has just gotten worse and worse over the years.
14:38:10 And last year, I had crime reports from grids and it
14:38:18 what was I believe over 300%.
14:38:20 I don't have though reports here.
14:38:21 I don't feel that I need them.
14:38:23 We would just like the hours of operation to stay the
14:38:25 same.
14:38:25 We are very happy with that.
14:38:28 We want to work with them.
14:38:29 If they have a problem in their parking lot we
14:38:31 certainly -- at 2 a.m., we are very aware.
14:38:38 We just ask to keep the operation the same way it is
14:38:41 now.
14:38:42 Vicki Pollyea wanted me to express -- she actually
14:38:48 blew attire and she wanted me to express that she
14:38:50 wants you to keep in mind the neighborhood is a
14:38:58 neighborhood in relation to businesses.
14:39:01 (Bell sounds).
14:39:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
14:39:08 You are okay with the restricted license to become
14:39:10 permanent but you want the hours to remain the same as
14:39:12 they are now.

14:39:13 >> I would like the hours to remain the same as we
14:39:16 agreed upon last year.
14:39:17 I gave them an additional hour, and I was appointed by
14:39:20 the board to do last year.
14:39:23 I am appointed by the board again to do it this year.
14:39:26 >>FRANK REDDICK: Are you associated with those
14:39:30 incidents that you just described taking place at the
14:39:34 establishment?
14:39:36 >>> I'm not understanding.
14:39:37 >> Well, you just listed a whole lot of different
14:39:39 incidents that took place in the area.
14:39:42 >>> My house backs up to the street.
14:39:43 The street is a dead-end.
14:39:46 And, yes.
14:39:47 And I also receive phone calls in the middle of the
14:39:49 night from neighborhood residents telling me to call
14:39:51 the cops.
14:39:52 >> And that's all because of this establishment?
14:39:54 >>> No, sir.
14:39:57 Because of the drinking and the late night hours at
14:40:01 the place on Howard Avenue did have the place in
14:40:04 question is now closed.

14:40:05 I have not had to call the cops for the last two
14:40:07 weeks.
14:40:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
14:40:14 Would anyone else like to speak?
14:40:22 >>> Adam Filcot and I have not been sworn.
14:40:26 I came in a little late.
14:40:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Raise your right hand, please.
14:40:30 Does anyone else need to be sworn in?
14:40:33 Oath.
14:40:36 >>> My name is Adam Filcot.
14:40:40 I was asked to come speak on behalf of the owners by
14:40:43 Steven Diaco.
14:40:44 I'm an attorney for Adam Diaco.
14:40:49 Steven is out of town on business today.
14:40:50 He is good friends of the owners.
14:40:59 There are no reports of any problems with the extended
14:41:03 hour of operation of wine.
14:41:05 What we are looking to do is continue the business,
14:41:09 continue to prosper.
14:41:11 The owners of the restaurant are valued members of the
14:41:16 community as well as valued members of the business
14:41:19 community.

14:41:22 When you were originally here approximately a year ago
14:41:26 there was a compromise, additional hour was given for
14:41:32 the business to stay open.
14:41:33 And I believe that everything can be resolved.
14:41:38 So I am going to be brief today.
14:41:41 I was just asked to come here for the owners, and I
14:41:48 appreciate the time to speak on his behalf.
14:41:50 >>MARY ALVAREZ: This business has been there for about
14:41:55 a year now, right?
14:41:58 >>> I believe approximately a year.
14:41:59 >> That's what Mr. Michelini said.
14:42:02 And also they have been operating that they agreed to.
14:42:07 And I don't believe they had any problems because of
14:42:09 that.
14:42:09 So I don't understand why we need to extend their
14:42:14 hours.
14:42:14 I mean, this is abutting a neighborhood back there.
14:42:18 And if you give them extra hours, it's going to
14:42:21 actually exacerbate a problem that's not there.
14:42:23 So I don't -- I understand he's a businessman and a
14:42:29 valued member of the community, and so are we.
14:42:34 >>> I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

14:42:35 >> So, anyway, I don't see why extending the hours is
14:42:41 going to make their business any more profitable.
14:42:47 All they are going to do is come in and drink at that
14:42:50 time.
14:42:51 I can't see too many people eating at 12:00 or 1:00 in
14:42:54 the morning.
14:42:58 Maybe they do.
14:42:59 Maybe I'm out of the loop at that point.
14:43:02 But I think they'll come in to drink, to do their
14:43:04 drinking.
14:43:05 And those are very viable neighborhoods right behind
14:43:09 there.
14:43:09 So I wouldn't support the extended hours.
14:43:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
14:43:16 Petitioner?
14:43:17 >>STEVE MICHELINI: One thing I would like to point
14:43:23 out.
14:43:35 The parking is located here.
14:43:39 The people they are talking about being affected by
14:43:41 this are up here on Bristol.
14:43:45 They do not normally -- I can't imagine somebody
14:43:51 parking on Bristol or causing trouble here, with an

14:43:54 establishment that's closing at 11:00 at nature.
14:43:57 They have told you already it's happening at two in
14:43:59 the morning or later.
14:44:06 Whiskey park is still operating.
14:44:07 They have outdoor music.
14:44:09 They have all kinds of activities.
14:44:11 It's still operating.
14:44:19 They are still hiring people so I don't know why they
14:44:21 would be closed.
14:44:22 But this isn't an outdoor establishment.
14:44:25 Whiskey park.
14:44:26 If it's not open, was.
14:44:28 I still hear music there late at night so somebody is
14:44:31 doing something over there.
14:44:33 >> Could you show us on this map in relation to where
14:44:36 whiskey park would be?
14:44:37 >> It's north of Bristol.
14:44:39 And I don't have --
14:44:41 >> A block north or two?
14:44:43 >> It's about two blocks, a block and a half north.
14:44:47 It's immediately south of Swann.
14:44:49 And east of Howard.

14:44:53 It actually starts just north of the townhouses.
14:44:58 And I share their frustration about some of the
14:45:01 problems.
14:45:01 But legitimate restaurants are not causing that
14:45:04 problem.
14:45:08 And they are asking for some relief.
14:45:09 Maybe 2:00 is not the answer.
14:45:11 But Friday and Saturday nights are active nights.
14:45:14 You have a similar kind of clientele going to bell Os.
14:45:19 People go there after the theater.
14:45:21 They eat.
14:45:22 They drink.
14:45:22 And they go home.
14:45:24 Or if they find a place to eat at all.
14:45:26 There are not that many places open late.
14:45:33 They are not trying to create the rowdy boisterous --
14:45:41 I understand the phone calls, but they are not coming
14:45:44 from here.
14:45:47 I understand their concern about aggravating a
14:45:49 condition and creating an ambience that's going to
14:45:53 encourage that.
14:45:54 And we haven't asked for anything outside of the

14:45:56 structure of the building to be wet zoned.
14:45:59 We haven't asked for anything about outdoor music or
14:46:02 outdoor events of any kind.
14:46:05 And we have the parking that sustains the operation.
14:46:09 We are not going outside of that.
14:46:15 As far as 717 is concerned, it's not an
14:46:18 establishment -- it's not part of this petition.
14:46:20 Again I don't have any control over their operations.
14:46:25 If that's causing all this noise and trouble, that's
14:46:28 not this establishment.
14:46:29 They have been a good business operator.
14:46:32 They have abided by what you asked them to abide by.
14:46:34 They are asking for a little bit of relief.
14:46:38 They don't want to stay open till three in the
14:46:40 morning.
14:46:40 But certainly extending their hours allowing them to
14:46:43 stay open till 1, at the very least would give them
14:46:46 some relief.
14:46:55 People stay out.
14:46:57 They want to eat late.
14:46:58 Again they have to close.
14:46:59 They cannot serve food.

14:47:00 And cannot serve alcohol.
14:47:02 If their hours of operation say they have to close at
14:47:05 midnight or 1 a.m.
14:47:07 That's it.
14:47:14 They have to start shutting down a half hour to 45
14:47:17 minutes early.
14:47:18 And the customers have to be off the premises.
14:47:20 That's an extraordinary standard to meet.
14:47:21 So we are asking you to respectfully request that you
14:47:25 provide some relief to enable them to run a viable
14:47:30 operation.
14:47:31 They have done exactly what you asked them to do.
14:47:34 They haven't violated the conditions.
14:47:38 The police told you they don't have any objections and
14:47:40 there haven't been the kind of issues they have been
14:47:42 talking about.
14:47:42 It's an area issue.
14:47:44 And this isn't going to aggravate that issue.
14:47:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move to close.
14:47:52 >> Second.
14:47:52 (Motion carried).
14:47:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The conditional that was granted a

14:48:00 year ago and I think -- I hope everybody remembers.
14:48:07 I'm sure you were watching.
14:48:10 But, anyway, that was a conditional -- that was a
14:48:14 conditional just to grant the wet zoning because the
14:48:18 adjacent neighborhoods of Parkland Estates, New Suburb
14:48:20 Beautiful, et cetera, are tired of the whole strip.
14:48:25 And yes, it is accumulative impact.
14:48:27 But the conditional zoning that was granted a year ago
14:48:31 gave them reasonable hours.
14:48:33 That was already the compromise.
14:48:35 And to come back in for another bite at the apple and
14:48:39 to ask for additional hours over the strong objections
14:48:43 of the Parkland estate neighborhood association, which
14:48:51 E. Myers spoke of, I believe Emily has testified that
14:48:55 her neighborhood association is opposed to it, which
14:48:57 is a little bit further down.
14:49:00 The neighborhoods as Mary pointed out, the
14:49:02 neighborhoods are under fire along Howard.
14:49:05 We have a status quo right now, which seems to be
14:49:08 working somewhat.
14:49:09 I don't believe that we should upset the apple cart by
14:49:13 encouraging later nights, on any of these

14:49:17 establishments.
14:49:18 It cross across the board.
14:49:20 It has nothing to do where these guys are I'm sure the
14:49:24 greatest guys in town.
14:49:25 It has nothing to do with that.
14:49:26 Has to do with setting a precedent and the precedent
14:49:29 is to say this is restaurant row, not late night
14:49:33 borrow.
14:49:34 So with that I'll make a motion that we direct staff
14:49:37 to approve this wet zoning forever and ever, okay, the
14:49:44 4(COP-R), 4(COP-R) at that establishment, at the
14:49:48 current hours, no extension of the hours, period.
14:49:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I wanted to say that I read the
14:49:59 petition that was submitted by the petitioner and
14:50:01 there was not one signature from Bristol Avenue, which
14:50:04 is the residential street most immediately impacted by
14:50:07 this.
14:50:08 There were many signatures from Hyde Park, Davis
14:50:10 Island, close by, but the folks who live closest, the
14:50:15 ones on Bristol, not one person signed that petition.
14:50:17 And I think that's telling.
14:50:19 That's why I am supporting the motion.

14:50:24 >>JULIA COLE: Prior to the vote I think we need to
14:50:26 hear from petitioner what is in essence an amendment
14:50:28 to their petition, or if they want the petition voted
14:50:31 up or down on the request which I understand is a
14:50:33 request with no conditions associated with it.
14:50:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
14:50:40 >>STEVE MICHELINI: First of all what I would like to
14:50:41 ask is for some relief on being able to sell food past
14:50:45 the sale of alcohol.
14:50:46 Right now, we are not allowed to do that.
14:50:49 Unless you provide relief that's a waiver of that, the
14:50:54 restaurant cannot stay open.
14:50:57 >> You mean can't stay open past that hour.
14:51:00 >>> You can't serve food past the closing time.
14:51:03 >> Which is where they have been at for the last year.
14:51:08 >>> I understand.
14:51:17 >> Can we open the public hearing?
14:51:19 >> Why?
14:51:21 >> Second.
14:51:22 (Motion Carried).
14:51:23 >> I believe our staff is saying we can't a professor
14:51:25 disprove something different from what the petitioner

14:51:27 requested, or can we?
14:51:30 >>JULIA COLE: It's my mistake.
14:51:32 We should have had the public hearing reopen to hear
14:51:34 from petitioner relating to whether or not they agree
14:51:36 to --
14:51:39 >> But does council have the ability to grant
14:51:42 something that differs from what the petitioner
14:51:44 requested?
14:51:45 >>> No, petitioner has a right to have the vote up or
14:51:48 down or what they requested.
14:51:49 If the vote is not -- if he says he wants a vote on
14:51:54 his petition up or down he has the right to get that
14:51:57 vote up or down which would be then a denial of what
14:52:00 his petition in fact is which doesn't contain at this
14:52:03 point any conditions of waiving operation, and the
14:52:11 waiver of the provision of code which says you can
14:52:15 only serve food.
14:52:16 We can only be open if -- to go ahead and explain that
14:52:21 a little better because she explains it much better
14:52:23 than I do so I would ask her to explain that.
14:52:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Give them an extra half hour on the
14:52:28 food?

14:52:36 >>> The way it is written right now.
14:52:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So we don't have that choice.
14:52:40 Let me explain my motion.
14:52:40 >>GWEN MILLER: She says petitioner needs to say what
14:52:43 he wants.
14:52:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But petitioner needs to respond to
14:52:46 my motion.
14:52:46 And my motion seconded by Mrs. Saul-Sena --
14:52:50 >>GWEN MILLER: As soon as we open the public hearing.
14:52:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We did open.
14:52:53 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to close though.
14:52:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motion is already on the floor.
14:52:56 Now the public hearing is reopen so we can ask the
14:52:59 petitioner if he wants to accept my motion and look
14:53:02 for a vote on that, or if he would rather have another
14:53:04 motion up or down on his original petition.
14:53:15 None of the owners addressed council.
14:53:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I hope it's in response to my
14:53:24 motion.
14:53:24 >>> I think it is.
14:53:25 I reside at 2903 west Aquella and I was sworn in one
14:53:30 of the three or four times.

14:53:31 I raised my hand.
14:53:32 I'm a co-owner of this business along with other
14:53:35 businesses, and responding to Mr. Dingfelder.
14:53:38 I just wanted to bear a little light.
14:53:41 I know coming back and taking another bite of the
14:53:43 apple,, but the establishment we put together here is
14:53:49 a restaurant first.
14:53:51 Secondly, we do have TVs at the sporting event.
14:53:55 The reason we were asking for the different hours on
14:53:57 Thursday and Sunday night is because during football
14:54:00 season, there's Thursday night football now, Sunday
14:54:02 night football now, and the games start late.
14:54:04 So they go till midnight.
14:54:07 So we have been adhering to all the rules that we
14:54:10 reluctantly agreed to last time when we came in front
14:54:12 of this because this before us was a restaurant, had a
14:54:15 liquor license, had hours that they agreed, to and we
14:54:19 are not looking to be a bar.
14:54:21 We are looking to service our customers that have come
14:54:23 in to watch an event, that type of thing, and then on
14:54:27 the Friday and Saturday nights, we would like to have,
14:54:29 you know, additional time if possible till 2:00 just

14:54:34 to try -- because there is in, this area, we certainly
14:54:37 could --
14:54:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
14:54:43 Point of order.
14:54:46 With all due respect it's a simple question on my
14:54:49 motion.
14:54:50 >>> I beg your pardon.
14:54:52 I'm a little nervous.
14:54:54 >> That's all right.
14:54:55 My motion the S to give you the hours you have now.
14:55:00 In order for that to proceed to a vote our legal
14:55:01 council says we need your concurrence on that.
14:55:04 If you don't give us your concurrence then we have to
14:55:06 vote up or down on the petition that's in front of us,
14:55:11 to whatever petition.
14:55:17 >>> Well, I guess I reluctantly agree to that.
14:55:21 That cripples us financially, on the nights that we
14:55:24 are not able to stay open.
14:55:30 >>STEVE MICHELINI: If the petition is denied, and it
14:55:42 doesn't go to -- your action will essentially shut the
14:55:46 restaurant down if they don't agree.
14:55:53 >> Procedurally --

14:55:59 >>: I don't know that you have a guarantee.
14:56:06 >> This gentleman operating his business is in a
14:56:09 position, because of the timing of this hearing where
14:56:12 he's either going to consent to a request of council,
14:56:15 or run the risk of having a NOVO in which he can't
14:56:21 open his business and sell alcohol tomorrow.
14:56:24 Is that correct?
14:56:28 Because the conditional one-year.
14:56:34 >> If 24 is denied --
14:56:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me talk to Mr. Fletcher for a
14:56:39 second.
14:56:39 We didn't schedule this hearing.
14:56:40 We didn't put him into this corner in that regard.
14:56:43 And my motion is to approve his business and to let
14:56:46 him move on with his business at the hours that he's
14:56:49 been operating for the last year that the neighborhood
14:56:52 can live with.
14:56:53 Okay, that's my motion.
14:56:54 I'm not trying to shut him down or anything else.
14:56:57 That's the opportunity in front of him.
14:56:59 >> I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.
14:57:02 That's the posture we are in today, correct?

14:57:05 >> JULIE COLE: If I can respond to that. The answer
14:57:07 to your question, Mr. Fletcher, in terms of timing, I
14:57:10 think you need to take a step back, and correct me if
14:57:13 I am wrong.
14:57:14 What I'm saying, this came before you over a year ago,
14:57:17 and somewhere along the line -- and I can't say
14:57:20 when -- this petitioner, according to our code, has
14:57:23 agreed to accept a one-year conditional, and has
14:57:25 agreed to accept hours of operation, which limited
14:57:28 that conditional one-year permit.
14:57:32 They are back before you to get a permanent wet
14:57:33 zoning.
14:57:34 Their petition is one to allow more available hours of
14:57:39 operation.
14:57:42 They can have that petition up or down.
14:57:44 I'm a little concerned with this reluctantly agreeing.
14:57:46 I think this petitioner -- and if he wants to continue
14:57:49 it for a week to think about that, I think that may be
14:57:52 appropriate.
14:57:52 But this petitioner is coming forward to you in a
14:57:57 sense with a conditional wet zoning with limited hours
14:57:59 of operation.

14:58:00 That is what he has right now.
14:58:03 You are saying, we will give that to you --
14:58:06 potentially suggesting that it's possible it's
14:58:09 something you may give for permanent wet zoning, and
14:58:12 that's where we are right now.
14:58:14 I would suggest that if you are not comfortable making
14:58:16 that decision right now that we do go ahead and
14:58:18 continue this one week to allow him to think about
14:58:20 that.
14:58:21 The alternative is, if you don't want to agree to
14:58:24 that, you have a right to have your petition voted on
14:58:26 up or down.
14:58:27 That's only a motion and a second on the idea of your
14:58:30 petition being limited.
14:58:32 Thank you.
14:58:36 >>> Procedurally, let's go through this real quick.
14:58:39 Your direction would be to ask legal to prepare an
14:58:42 ordinance to come back next week, because we don't
14:58:45 have an ordinance before you with those conditions
14:58:47 right now.
14:58:48 But we have an effective continuance for one week
14:58:52 anyway.

14:58:54 >>> If we have other items legal could come back in 20
14:58:58 minutes.
14:58:58 >> I respectfully request you continue it for one
14:59:00 week.
14:59:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On what basis?
14:59:03 >>> On the basis that we have one of the owners and
14:59:06 not two of the owners, and they are being placed in a
14:59:10 position to decide whether they are open or closed, in
14:59:14 a matter of a few moments, and based on our motion
14:59:19 that you have.
14:59:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With all due respect, this is not
14:59:26 new.
14:59:26 This has been going on for a year.
14:59:28 The neighbors haven't moved.
14:59:29 You haven't moved.
14:59:29 I don't see that anything material has changed in the
14:59:33 course of a year.
14:59:33 Last year, you wanted later hours. This year you
14:59:36 wanted later hours.
14:59:38 Last year the neighbors want less hours.
14:59:40 This year the neighbors wanted earlier hours.
14:59:42 And I really want to hear from legal whether council

14:59:56 has the ability to vote now or whether the legal
14:59:58 department would recommend we continue this for a
15:00:00 weak, and if we continue this for a week, is the
15:00:02 petitioner put in a place of being dried up?
15:00:07 >>JULIA COLE: As relates to the first question this
15:00:14 petitioner -- you are not comfortable making -- if
15:00:19 council feels -- and I would agree, council feels that
15:00:24 they are in effect pushing something on this gentleman
15:00:26 that he doesn't know we wants, you may want to take
15:00:29 that motion off the table and vote his petition up or
15:00:31 down.
15:00:32 If he's not comfortable, he must at the very minimum
15:00:36 be comfortable with you hearing his petition to move
15:00:38 forward today.
15:00:39 So that's my suggestion.
15:00:41 If council really believes that it would be more
15:00:43 appropriate to move forward with the motion which is
15:00:46 on the floor, then it may be appropriate to give them
15:00:50 a one-week continuance.
15:00:52 Otherwise, let's just move forward today.
15:00:54 As it relates to the other issue, I am going to ask
15:00:58 Ms. Kert to talk about whether they are going to dry

15:01:00 up.
15:01:00 >>> I have just spoken with the owner and he will
15:01:02 accept.
15:01:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Accept what?
15:01:04 >>> Accept your motion to current hours.
15:01:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:01:08 So that puts us --
15:01:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We didn't hear you over the talking.
15:01:15 >>> The owner said he would accept the current
15:01:16 conditions for hours.
15:01:17 There are other conditions in there that would like to
15:01:23 not affect the hours.
15:01:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Kert, what are those?
15:01:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: From last year?
15:01:32 >>REBECCA KERT: Yes, from last year, in addition to
15:01:33 the hours, there shall be no outside pay telephones.
15:01:39 >>> Fine with that.
15:01:40 >>REBECCA KERT: The lighting installed shall be
15:01:42 sensitive to the residential areas.
15:01:43 I would ask from a legal perspective that the lighting
15:01:48 be directed a way from residential areas.
15:01:49 I think that would help with enforcement.

15:01:52 >>> No problem with that.
15:01:54 >> And that no music be played on the premises located
15:01:58 upon the premises.
15:02:00 And any adjoining lands under control of the operator
15:02:03 of the business establishment located thereon.
15:02:08 The only comment I would make about the music and the
15:02:10 pay phones, it also says that has to be on property
15:02:15 owned by the operator.
15:02:16 This one is with the land and you can only put the
15:02:19 conditions on the land.
15:02:21 So I would also recommend from a legal perspective.
15:02:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So my motion would include --
15:02:27 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to close the public hearing.
15:02:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right, thank you.
15:02:41 >> We are fine with those.
15:02:41 There was another condition in there which has now
15:02:43 apparently be codified.
15:02:45 We are fine with those conditions.
15:02:48 Actually, we offered those last year, and will
15:02:50 continue to offer them.
15:02:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions?
15:02:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.

15:02:56 >> Second.
15:02:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
15:02:58 (Motion carried).
15:03:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll restate my motion to approve
15:03:04 this wet zoning for the 4(COP-R) at the location
15:03:08 described with the conditions that Ms. Kert just
15:03:11 included, and at the hours of operation that they had
15:03:15 had for the last year.
15:03:16 And direct legal staff to draft that in the form of an
15:03:21 ordinance and come back to us.
15:03:24 I don't want to shut them down.
15:03:27 Are you all shutting down today without this or what?
15:03:32 >>> I'll come back this afternoon before your workshop
15:03:33 is over.
15:03:34 >> And come back to us as soon as possible this
15:03:36 afternoon.
15:03:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
15:03:38 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
15:03:40 Opposed, Nay.
15:03:40 (Motion carried).
15:03:43 All right.
15:03:47 39.

15:03:58 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to open 39.
15:04:00 >> So moved.
15:04:01 >> Second.
15:04:01 (Motion carried).
15:04:05 >>BARBARA LYNCH: Land Development Coordination.
15:04:07 This is a vacating petition for an alleyway located in
15:04:12 the West Tampa area.
15:04:14 It's north of Columbus and west of Armenia.
15:04:18 It's outside the overlay district for West Tampa.
15:04:26 The petitioner's property is outlined in red and
15:04:29 subject alley is in yellow.
15:04:31 And the petitioner is requesting to vacate an alleyway
15:04:34 lying between IVY and CORDELIA, from Gomez to Habana.
15:04:50 The first photo is the alley looking east from Gomez.
15:04:58 And this is mid block looking east from Gomez that I
15:05:02 have on the alley here.
15:05:08 This is the alley looking west from Habana.
15:05:14 Another mid block shot looking west of Gomez Avenue.
15:05:21 And looking at mid block looking east towards Habana.
15:05:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Were you out there shooting these
15:05:27 pictures?
15:05:28 >>> Yes.

15:05:29 >> When you were out there shooting these pictures,
15:05:32 Madam Chairman, it's hard to tell without being there,
15:05:35 but was there any indication of folks using this to
15:05:40 drive into any part of the rear yard, rear garage?
15:05:44 >>> Yes.
15:05:44 And I was just going to show you the petitioner's
15:05:48 property.
15:05:52 And they have two lots.
15:05:54 This house, I believe, has demoed already.
15:05:58 And this is the second lot, I believe east of the
15:06:00 house.
15:06:05 When I went out to take the photos -- the usage
15:06:12 appeared to be from the east.
15:06:13 And I noted that there was a carport that was being
15:06:18 accessed from the alley, and this structure did not
15:06:21 have a driveway.
15:06:22 I have a photo of that here.
15:06:26 Here's the actual structure.
15:06:29 Here's the carport that's being accessed from the
15:06:31 alley.
15:06:36 We went to transportation and told them this is being
15:06:39 used at the end, and I ran into the homeowner at the

15:06:41 time and tried to explain to her but she does not
15:06:44 speak English.
15:06:45 Spanish only.
15:06:46 I tried to tell her the best I could but that the
15:06:51 alley was going to be up for closure and he asked
15:06:53 me -- did come today and met with me and we had an
15:06:58 interpreter.
15:06:59 So understands there was a closure being requested.
15:07:04 However, what's happening here is these blocks are 98
15:07:12 by 50 and are not buildable.
15:07:17 Vacating and acquiring additional land so the
15:07:19 petitioner chose to try the vacating.
15:07:21 When we found the situation, we met with
15:07:24 transportation, and worked out a compromise situation
15:07:28 which would allow them, petitioner to get two feet
15:07:31 with the transportation easement reserved overall, so
15:07:34 that allows alleyway to stay intact, and the homeowner
15:07:42 did not have to worry about this alley being closed.
15:07:46 >> Modify --
15:07:49 >> Petitioner agreed to a reduction and easement
15:07:51 reserved for transportation, wastewater and Verizon
15:07:56 and I spoke to, I believe, Maria Lia, and she was fine

15:08:02 with it.
15:08:04 And petitioner is here.
15:08:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this the West Tampa overlay
15:08:15 district?
15:08:16 >>> No, just west of it.
15:08:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:08:29 >> 1201 north fairview and I have been sworn.
15:08:33 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
15:08:34 wants to speak on item number 39?
15:08:37 >> Move to close.
15:08:38 >> Second.
15:08:38 (Motion carried).
15:08:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I move to support this because it's
15:08:47 just allowing the petitioner to build on these lots
15:08:49 and not in reality closing the alley.
15:08:52 Because I think these alleys are really precious and
15:08:55 as the area becomes more urbanized -- I am not in
15:09:00 favor of closing alleys but giving two feet so these
15:09:04 lots can be built on is feign by me.
15:09:06 Thank you.
15:09:08 >> Second.
15:09:10 >>> I do have an ordinance prepared.

15:09:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you pass it up, please?
15:09:35 >>FRANK REDDICK: Move an ordinance vacating closing
15:09:37 abandoning a certain right-of-way alleyway lying south
15:09:42 of Gomez Avenue northeast of west Cordelia street and
15:09:51 west of IVY street in John drew's subdivision to
15:09:55 north-West Tampa a subdivision in the City of Tampa,
15:09:59 Hillsborough County Florida the same being more fully
15:10:00 described in section 2 providing an effective date.
15:10:06 (Motion carried).
15:10:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 40 cannot be heard.
15:10:08 Have you heard anything from that?
15:10:16 Do you know about number 40?
15:10:18 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Number 40, they did not -- they
15:10:28 would like to be heard in May.
15:10:31 And some problems with the establishment.
15:10:37 I was in contact with the petitioner.
15:10:39 >>GWEN MILLER: You will give us a date in May.
15:10:51 I have a motion and second to continue until May.
15:10:54 All in favor of rescheduling to May.
15:10:57 (Motion carried).
15:10:58 Information from council members.
15:11:09 We need to open 41.

15:11:11 >> So moved.
15:11:12 >> Second.
15:11:12 (Motion carried).
15:11:19 >>BARBARA LEPORE: Land development.
15:11:27 Extension of the wet zoning for 4516 South Dale Mabry
15:11:30 Highway.
15:11:32 Petitioner is requesting a one-year extension of time
15:11:36 for wet zoning in 1991, grant a 2(COP-R) wet zoning to
15:11:46 the site.
15:11:47 The 120-day extension expires in January of this year.
15:11:59 She would like to change it that would require some
15:12:04 changes.
15:12:16 One-year extension of time.
15:12:24 >> So moved.
15:12:25 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just a minute. The justification and
15:12:27 explanation of the request, it said that the pizzeria
15:12:30 hopes to open in January of 2007.
15:12:36 >> They are still working on it.
15:12:37 And petitioner is here.
15:12:46 >> It's not till January of 2006.
15:12:52 >>> That's what they have in the application.
15:12:55 >> We have a motion.

15:12:56 With D we get a second?
15:13:02 Is there anyone that wants to speak on item 41?
15:13:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
15:13:08 Sorry, sorry.
15:13:20 >> The situation is that this area has been wet zoned
15:13:22 and used by a chain Nease restaurant for a number of
15:13:27 years with just a beer and liquor license.
15:13:40 Apparently it took a lot more time and permits to
15:13:43 change from Charlie's restaurant to a pizzeria.
15:13:49 They hope to be able to open.
15:13:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
15:13:55 Now we can get the motion.
15:14:00 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Move to close.
15:14:14 67 motion and second to close.
15:14:17 (Motion Carried).
15:14:22 >> Move the resolution.
15:14:23 >> Second.
15:14:24 (Motion carried).
15:14:24 >>GWEN MILLER: You did everything.
15:14:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The 1:30 workshop.
15:14:36 Information is after the workshop.
15:14:38 I move that we open the workshop.

15:14:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
15:14:56 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
15:14:58 Opposed, Nay.
15:14:59 (Motion carried).
15:15:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Somebody owes Julia big time.
15:15:19 There's just four.
15:15:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Ring the bell, see if they come out.
15:15:44 >>MARY ALVAREZ: We are going through all of this
15:15:46 today?
15:15:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: You know me.
15:15:48 It will be real fast.
15:15:51 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
15:15:55 This is the amendment chapter 27.
15:15:56 What you will notice, there are tabs 1 through 10.
15:16:00 There are 10 proposed amendments to chapter 27.
15:16:04 Last year we changed it so that we are doing the
15:16:08 cycles in a fast process, semiannually.
15:16:11 This is the January cycle.
15:16:12 And the goals of these cycles is the January 5, cycle
15:16:17 through Planning Commission back to council for public
15:16:19 hearing.
15:16:21 July 1 of that year.

15:16:23 Then the July 5 will go through for January 1 the
15:16:26 following year.
15:16:27 But if you look at tab 1, that is the front porch
15:16:31 projection in the front yard.
15:16:33 This is the piece that was adopted last July by City
15:16:36 Council in its entirety.
15:16:39 What you have before you are the modifications that
15:16:42 were done based on neighborhood associations,
15:16:51 councilman Dingfelder and staff.
15:16:53 You will note that it's being scaled back so that
15:16:55 front porches can encroach up to 8 feet in front yards
15:16:58 within the RS-50 zoning district.
15:17:01 And the RM, which are residential multifamily
15:17:04 district.
15:17:04 The second change is the front porches may encroach up
15:17:08 to 8 feet within the RF 50 zoning district but with
15:17:12 administrative variance.
15:17:13 It would to go through that process.
15:17:16 The third change is the front porches within the
15:17:18 RS-75, 100 and 150 districts, if larger districts,
15:17:21 have to follow main structural setbacks.
15:17:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I did have a question.

15:17:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Fletcher.
15:17:39 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Thank you for recognizing me,
15:17:41 Madam Chair.
15:17:42 The porch setback, I think that's fine but the one
15:17:44 part that struck me as kind of counterproductive is
15:17:47 the requirement that there be a two-feet minimum
15:17:50 setback from the outer edge of the main structure.
15:17:54 And I don't know where that came from, or what
15:17:57 architect design guide but I would be inclined to not
15:18:03 include that requirement for variance.
15:18:09 I don't know what the thoughts of other council
15:18:11 members are but it would pretty much preclude the old
15:18:14 southern style of wrap-around porches, increase this
15:18:17 little kind of snout porch in the front, that I'm not
15:18:20 sure what the architectural value that is.
15:18:30 >>CATHERINE COYLE: With the two foot requirement is
15:18:35 just that and you will get exactly that.
15:18:36 I live in Seminole Heights and I have been driving
15:18:39 around looking at front porches.
15:18:40 And the double gable.
15:18:41 You see some that are wrap-around.
15:18:43 You see some that are very narrow, maybe a third just

15:18:47 over the front door, which is almost like a stoop.
15:18:49 There's a large variation with different types of
15:18:52 architecture.
15:18:53 By setting this type of standard use, you probably
15:18:55 will be encouraging just the one style.
15:18:59 So I know there are comments from the public later on.
15:19:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since I held a little workshop, I
15:19:13 think that that two-foot little setback coming in from
15:19:17 either side, either corner of the house, was requested
15:19:19 by the neighbors folks that were there but I don't
15:19:25 know if anybody felt strongly about it.
15:19:29 Maybe when Ms. Vizzi comes up and speaks she can
15:19:32 elaborate on that.
15:19:33 I don't have a problem if we eliminated that subject
15:19:40 to hearing from the neighborhood or builders on it.
15:19:43 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I can bring you photos and variance
15:19:46 styles so you can see the variation.
15:19:48 >> To be honest, I do not recall what we were trying
15:19:50 to accomplish or what anybody was trying to accomplish
15:19:52 with that limitation.
15:19:58 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: It just jumped out at me as
15:20:00 something that kind of would preclude the styles.

15:20:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The other question I have, somebody
15:20:10 called me generically and I think I referred them to
15:20:13 your office about whether or not these standards
15:20:14 applied in our overlay districts.
15:20:21 >>> In the overlay districts we have setbacks
15:20:25 automatically.
15:20:26 You cannot go beyond that setback.
15:20:30 Letter A-1-A, front porch projected, set back porch as
15:20:35 required by an established overlay district
15:20:37 requirement.
15:20:39 That's existing language that was adopted last July.
15:20:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess I want to throw that out to
15:20:45 council, is do the overlay districts have enough
15:20:50 encouragement for front porches such that we want to
15:20:57 go ahead and not have this porch ordinance apply to
15:21:00 overlay district.
15:21:01 Does that make any sense?
15:21:03 Because I'm not as up to speed on districts as you
15:21:06 are, Linda, because you were here when that went into
15:21:09 effect.
15:21:10 >>> Keep in mind with overlays the zoning
15:21:13 administrator can make design decisions and a lot of

15:21:16 cases setbacks are less than what the district allows.
15:21:20 Most districts are 20 on 25 feet in the front and a
15:21:23 lot of times in more traditional neighborhoods we are
15:21:25 down to 18 or 15 or 12 in some cases because of the
15:21:29 historical development pattern.
15:21:31 And zoning master can make a variation, if there's a
15:21:37 large grand tree on the property, if trees some --
15:21:40 there's some other character they can show me through
15:21:42 that design. If they can't show it to me, they can
15:21:45 petition through VRB.
15:21:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: In most of the overlay districts
15:21:49 aren't front porches encouraged?
15:21:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I think you can read into that the
15:21:54 intent. It's not expressed in there specifically but
15:21:58 you can very much read that.
15:22:01 When we get into the West Tampa overlay you will see
15:22:03 new design guidelines and graphics and see front
15:22:05 porches almost to those homes.
15:22:07 >>MARY ALVAREZ: In the West Tampa area we encourage
15:22:13 that because of the type of designs we have for the
15:22:16 overlay district.
15:22:17 >> And you will see that in the guidelines.

15:22:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other questions by council
15:22:20 members?
15:22:22 >> Move on.
15:22:23 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Tab 2, Tampa overlay district.
15:22:32 You will note there are some clarification points,
15:22:35 approximately nine bullets.
15:22:37 This clarified that 50% of the transparency along the
15:22:41 front of the billing is now wrapped around to the
15:22:43 corner.
15:22:43 We were basically ignoring side streets in the last
15:22:47 design, regulation.
15:22:48 But those wrap around to the corners.
15:22:50 Residential rear yards are to be set at 15 feet for
15:22:53 the main structure and 6 feet for the garage or
15:22:56 carport.
15:22:56 And there are graphics that demonstrate that.
15:23:06 Very pretty.
15:23:06 The first one that you will see shows the sidewalk,
15:23:13 the front yard averaging, the 5-foot setbacks, the 15
15:23:18 rear setbacks from the structure and 6 feet to the
15:23:21 garage.
15:23:22 We will go back and label these appropriately for the

15:23:26 building.
15:23:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Will you have this front yard
15:23:41 averaging that you are talking about and the 15-foot
15:23:43 setback, is that the place where they put the porches?
15:23:47 It's going to look kind of funny.
15:23:51 >> I think at the back, not the front.
15:23:53 You see the front part.
15:23:59 >>> If you keep going into the next page, you will
15:24:01 note --
15:24:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: These are beautiful pictures.
15:24:07 You have done a great job.
15:24:08 The pictures are clear.
15:24:10 >>> That's the urban design staff.
15:24:12 You will see they did all the front porches onto these
15:24:15 and they show the variance.
15:24:18 If you go into the actual -- you will notice that each
15:24:25 one has -- you will notice perspective.
15:24:43 You will notice the roof pitch.
15:24:47 The very next bullet, talking about the -- better
15:24:50 define the 24-inch residential floor height above
15:24:53 grade.
15:24:55 Those in West Tampa and Seminole Heights which you

15:24:57 will see in the next tab, we require finished floor
15:24:59 height of 24 inches in West Tampa, above grade, 18
15:25:03 inches above grade in Seminole Heights.
15:25:06 The way it was originally written in both overlay
15:25:08 districts was that that was measured at the front
15:25:11 facade so people take things to the extreme.
15:25:14 And what happens is in all cases, majority of cases,
15:25:19 the trench.
15:25:20 And this is what we wound up with.
15:25:22 Regulation is proposed change.
15:25:24 But that measurement is taking all the way around the
15:25:26 house.
15:25:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
15:25:32 On the 6-foot rear setback for garages and carports,
15:25:40 I'm one bullet point back up.
15:25:42 Says residential rear yards, 16 feet from main
15:25:45 structure, 6 feet for garage, carport.
15:25:47 I would think that the 6 feet would be good if you're
15:25:51 working off a rear alley.
15:25:53 But if it doesn't have a rear alley, then why would we
15:25:57 want to take up the --
15:26:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's a rear yard.

15:26:03 Residential rear yards.
15:26:06 >> Is it automatically an alley?
15:26:08 What if there's no alley?
15:26:09 That's what I'm postulating.
15:26:11 If there's no alley, okay?
15:26:17 I'm just asking.
15:26:19 Is every single property have a rear alley?
15:26:22 If it does my question is moot.
15:26:26 If it doesn't, what I wonder about if you don't have a
15:26:28 rear alley then why take up the green space of a
15:26:31 house?
15:26:31 Why not push that garage closer to the corner to the
15:26:34 three feet?
15:26:35 >>> On page 6 of the actual regulation, it is
15:26:39 specified very specifically for the rear yard.
15:26:41 So that six-fat setback.
15:26:43 Keep in mind too that through the West Tampa land use
15:26:46 economic committee and the CDC, they held AIA
15:26:52 charettes, we went out there and actually held the
15:26:55 architectural charette and people picked from
15:26:58 different designs of what they wanted and shared the 6
15:27:00 feet, get a better design was also functional.

15:27:03 Transportation also signed off on this particular
15:27:05 design.
15:27:06 But this is specifically for those rear yard.
15:27:08 >> Right.
15:27:10 >>> Contemplating that there is an alley.
15:27:12 >> But what I am saying is, if there is no alley, you
15:27:15 know, I guess I am going to ask that question.
15:27:17 Are there situations in the overlay district where
15:27:21 there might not be an alley?
15:27:23 >>> Yes.
15:27:24 >> If there's in a alley, then I don't know that this
15:27:26 would make sense.
15:27:27 Because then you are just pushing -- then you have
15:27:29 that six feet of dead space between the back of a
15:27:34 blank garage, nonfunctional garage, end this you go
15:27:36 six feet behind that till you get to the six-foot
15:27:39 fence, or whatever it is.
15:27:43 As opposed to pushing that thing maybe to two or three
15:27:46 feet where it is in a lot of other districts.
15:27:48 >> Well, the regulation is mandating that you place
15:27:50 your garage six feet from the rear.
15:27:52 It's saying that that's a minimum.

15:27:54 That's coupled with the other design standard but
15:27:57 require a minimum in the garage in front.
15:27:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm saying the minimum in my
15:28:03 opinion if there is no alley, if there's an alley I'm
15:28:05 fine with the six feet. If there's no alley, then I
15:28:08 think the minimum should be like three feet or
15:28:09 something like that, isn't that the normal standard?
15:28:13 >> An accessory structure, yes.
15:28:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, why downtown
15:28:18 suggest to add the word when an alley is located?
15:28:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And if not go three feet.
15:28:26 That's a long way of getting at that.
15:28:28 Thank you.
15:28:29 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That will apply only to attached
15:28:31 garages, not to accessory structures.
15:28:34 The accessory structure is what would be set at three
15:28:37 feet and that's detached from the house.
15:28:39 I think that's what you're saying.
15:28:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If that was the intent.
15:28:43 >>> The intent is if it's attached to the house you
15:28:45 need that six feet and contemplates -- I can see why
15:28:49 you are reading into that the other way so I'll

15:28:51 specify that's one that's attached to the house and
15:28:55 not accessing an alley.
15:28:59 Dipping ding otherwise it would default back to the
15:29:01 three feet?
15:29:05 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
15:29:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Any other council questions?
15:29:12 Have we gone through the list?
15:29:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Gone through the bullets.
15:29:17 >>> In the national historic district of West Tampa,
15:29:19 the proposed amendment to reduce the parking
15:29:21 requirement from two spaces to one, specifically with
15:29:24 a national historic district for residential
15:29:26 structures.
15:29:28 And then the design guidelines requiring the setback
15:29:32 of the garage 8 feet from the front facade, common
15:29:37 parking areas should be located inside a rear lot.
15:29:40 And for non-single family residential structures when
15:29:45 you have attached homes and the garages need to be set
15:29:48 back two feet from the front facades of the door, and
15:29:52 the garage is recessed.
15:29:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you have A an illustration of
15:29:55 that?

15:29:57 >>CATHERINE COYLE: There might be one here.
15:29:59 Let me see.
15:30:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If it's single family we can
15:30:25 certainly work on multifamily designs.
15:30:27 >> Because the single family guidelines are great.
15:30:30 And I just am not understanding that the multifamily
15:30:33 is going to ensure that what we have on this T street
15:30:36 facing the sidewalk is house facade or townhouse
15:30:40 facade or apartment facade and not a lot of cars.
15:30:50 I thought she did a sensational job.
15:30:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: She was here earlier.
15:30:55 She's here?
15:30:56 There she is.
15:30:56 She does a great job.
15:30:58 Good job.
15:31:06 An there is an additional requirement.
15:31:07 The driveway not be allowed in the front of a
15:31:09 residence on a lot that measures 33 feet wide or less.
15:31:15 And we have a lot of those lots as you have seen
15:31:17 through previous rezonings.
15:31:19 And they can put the driveway in the front if it's
15:31:22 going into a garage, but not if it's just going into

15:31:26 the front of the house.
15:31:27 It needs to be accessing through rear.
15:31:29 This is encouraging, basically requiring them to pave
15:31:32 the alleys and use them.
15:31:36 Any questions on that?
15:31:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Council members?
15:31:42 >>> Tab 3, Seminole Heights residential overlay.
15:31:44 I just touched on the 18-inch, finished above grade
15:31:50 allowing no trenching.
15:31:51 Just that clarification, that definition.
15:31:54 Tab 4.
15:31:56 Central business district regulations.
15:32:01 What you have in front of you is some clarification,
15:32:07 definitions.
15:32:11 You will note that the minimum building setbacks for
15:32:15 full block development can be counted towards open
15:32:21 space.
15:32:21 That leads into the definition of public open space.
15:32:24 What we clarified through here is that the definition
15:32:26 of public open space does not mean that it's grade any
15:32:31 longer.
15:32:32 You can encourage with canopies, arcades, any type of

15:32:37 permanent, similar feature design element.
15:32:40 But it has to have a 15-foot minimum clearance.
15:32:43 So that gives them the ability to cantilever buildings
15:32:48 for design purposes.
15:32:49 And provide weather protection and architectural
15:32:53 design, while allowing the movement maintaining front
15:32:59 visibility.
15:33:00 The public open space requirements which were a
15:33:03 amended last year requires 15% open space for a site,
15:33:09 exempting out properties that have less than 20,000
15:33:12 square feet in area, land area, but just half a block,
15:33:16 and less than 50,000 square feet in building area.
15:33:19 I mentioned that at one of the downtown partnership
15:33:23 meetings when we talked about these changes.
15:33:25 I believe you were there, Mrs. Saul-Sena, about where
15:33:29 there are properties downtown but they own pieces of
15:33:31 blocks and they just want to develop their 2 or 3
15:33:35 story building, and this particular requirement as
15:33:37 well as some others are a little under proportional
15:33:43 just trying to redevelop their building, and this is
15:33:46 the exemption for them.
15:33:48 And then finally the parking standards, after long

15:33:52 debate, we are reducing it back to the 2006 standard,
15:33:55 the one space per dwelling unit, as opposed to the one
15:33:58 per bedroom.
15:34:05 Do you have any questions?
15:34:07 Always Alvarez what about guest parking?
15:34:09 >>> Guest parking is not required downtown.
15:34:15 If they can find a space.
15:34:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On this last point, when we do our
15:34:21 next set of revisions, I am going to say that we don't
15:34:25 require parking, but the people that pay the parking
15:34:28 in lieu fee into a transit fee that will develop
15:34:30 because we really want to have transit downtown and my
15:34:34 feeling is we will get more beautiful buildings if we
15:34:36 don't require in-building parking but we spend the
15:34:40 money on transit.
15:34:42 But that will be in the next turn-around.
15:34:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Asking about parking internally,
15:34:47 Steve Daignault, and the parking division,
15:34:50 transportation, myself included, urban design.
15:34:53 And we were talking about parking issues downtown and
15:34:56 other parts of the city as well.
15:34:58 You know we have parking problems in Courier City, and

15:35:01 potentially we have them in Ybor, we have them in
15:35:04 Soho.
15:35:05 And there is potential for transit support subsidy.
15:35:10 If that is the way that we go, of course we need to
15:35:13 talk about it.
15:35:17 We will also look at the fee as well.
15:35:26 The PD zoning elevation.
15:35:28 This is a clarification, November 2nd, you adopted
15:35:33 the requirements that they submit site elevations with
15:35:37 the exception of single family.
15:35:39 The clarification basically stated that what you are
15:35:41 looking for when you are reviewing those, is that they
15:35:48 demonstrate compliance with 27-321 which has nine
15:35:52 criteria, section for PD, and that it doesn't
15:35:56 proscribe a specific architectural style.
15:36:00 It's just a clarification of the code when you are
15:36:03 making decisions.
15:36:06 Tab 6 if you can skip that one.
15:36:08 I am going to get back to that one at then.
15:36:12 If you go to tab 7, location set back of residential
15:36:18 garages and carport. This is actually a correction
15:36:20 from the last go-around.

15:36:22 We fixed the text in the code but didn't fix the
15:36:26 drawing.
15:36:26 You will notice that the setback for a garage is 18
15:36:28 feet.
15:36:31 And that was the correction.
15:36:34 We have to fix it.
15:36:40 Tab 8.
15:36:41 Westshore overlay.
15:36:42 Both of these changes are incorporating the pedestrian
15:36:45 implementation plan that was done in September of '04.
15:36:49 That's taken a long time.
15:36:51 But they are here.
15:36:55 What you have is an expansion of the district
15:36:57 boundaries to the west side of Himes Avenue, the
15:37:03 Kennedy corridor, there was a gap there, and north of
15:37:06 Hillsborough Avenue, then incorporating those missing
15:37:10 properties along Boy Scout which has come before you
15:37:12 in previous rezonings.
15:37:17 There is a classification of roadways.
15:37:19 There's a priority pedestrian street, a regional
15:37:22 corridor, local commercial street and neighborhood
15:37:24 street.

15:37:24 And with each classification there are setback and
15:37:27 streetscape and lighting and sidewalk requirements
15:37:29 spelled out.
15:37:31 All applications for new construction under major
15:37:34 renovation shall be required to comply with this
15:37:36 overlay.
15:37:37 Changes effectively 50% of the floor area of the
15:37:41 on-site structures are required to revise their fence
15:37:44 and signs.
15:37:46 Bring them up to code.
15:37:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a question.
15:37:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder.
15:37:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:37:54 On enlarging the district, especially to the north,
15:38:00 where were they previously?
15:38:01 Memorial?
15:38:03 Boy Scout?
15:38:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I worked with Westshore alliance on
15:38:12 that, and their Westshore transportation area and
15:38:15 their collection fees and everything are collected up
15:38:18 to Hillsborough, and they wanted to match their
15:38:20 boundaries with the commercial overlay.

15:38:24 >> Their fees?
15:38:26 >>> They call them fees under the DRI.
15:38:28 >> I didn't think --
15:38:31 >> Pursuant to their DRI, they collect fees, which go
15:38:35 into transportation improvements to comply with the
15:38:38 requirement under the DRI.
15:38:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But I didn't think it was that
15:38:41 large.
15:38:43 >> It's larger than you would think.
15:38:45 I didn't realize it either but it is quite large.
15:38:47 It does go all the way over to Hillsborough.
15:38:52 Always Alvarez it encompasses the Drew Park area, too.
15:38:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: This new clear definition matches
15:38:58 their DRI boundary?
15:39:00 >>> Yes.
15:39:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The Westshore representative, can
15:39:12 you verify that?
15:39:15 >>JULIA COLE: The DRI only goes to Columbus and Boy
15:39:17 Scout.
15:39:17 The transportation impact fee district goes all the
15:39:20 way to Hillsborough.
15:39:22 Special services district goes all the way to

15:39:24 Hillsborough.
15:39:25 And kind of the Regional Planning Council, their
15:39:29 definition as a regional activity center goes all the
15:39:31 way to Hillsborough, encompasses -- the overlay
15:39:36 district seems huge but ours is a little different
15:39:38 than the others in that it only applies to the
15:39:40 specific corridors stated in this commercial street.
15:39:43 So Dale Mabry, Himes, cypress, Kennedy, it's the major
15:39:48 commercial street.
15:39:50 Westshore.
15:39:50 So it doesn't include any of the residential
15:39:52 neighborhoods that has protection for properties on
15:39:56 those major streets.
15:39:58 That's the residential.
15:39:59 But it's really --
15:40:01 >> So your SSD goes all the way up Himes to
15:40:04 Hillsborough?
15:40:05 >>> Yes, it does.
15:40:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:40:11 >>> Transportation related, not DRI.
15:40:18 Westshore commercial overlay is multifamily
15:40:21 commercial.

15:40:24 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Cathy, it's going to be kind of funny
15:40:27 in the Drew Park area because you have residential
15:40:29 right next to commercial.
15:40:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yes.
15:40:36 I stated this morning very clearly we have not decided
15:40:38 what we are doing with it yet.
15:40:43 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just thought I would bring it up.
15:40:47 >>> The chain link and wooden fencing are to be moved.
15:40:54 The existing parking areas are to be linked prior to
15:40:57 the issuance of any site or grading permit.
15:41:01 Pylon sign regulations brought into alignment with
15:41:04 proposed 20.5 regulations.
15:41:06 That was at the request of the alliance, that we bring
15:41:09 in -- I believe Mr. Rotella was part of that working
15:41:13 group and he wanted to make sure that these were in
15:41:15 line with the regulations.
15:41:17 They are fairly restrictive.
15:41:22 >> Back to the fencing, we didn't say anything about
15:41:24 that dread razor wire or electric so we don't need to,
15:41:28 right?
15:41:28 Is it understood or do we need to spell it out?
15:41:31 >>> It's not allowed.

15:41:36 >> Do we need to say that or is it already in there?
15:41:40 >>> You don't need to say that.
15:41:45 Nonconform signs shall not be permitted to any kind of
15:41:49 expansion, normal maintenance and change of copy.
15:41:55 Do you have any questions on that?
15:41:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Forge ahead.
15:42:00 >>> Tab 9, amendment procedures.
15:42:02 There is a minor change acknowledging the zoning
15:42:15 master may direct corrections to areas made so if we
15:42:21 come into issue with a proceed we can do it out of
15:42:25 cycle.
15:42:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Does that include counselor legal?
15:42:44 >>> You direct me what you want me to do.
15:42:46 >> But we are not limited -- maybe should just say
15:42:53 counsel or something.
15:42:57 >>> I think the intent was we set up a process where
15:43:00 we have two cycles with text amendments, and I think
15:43:04 the intent is to deal with the first incentive
15:43:07 procedural irregularities, or if there is some other
15:43:11 glitch that needs to be fixed, to deal with the twice
15:43:19 amendment cycle.
15:43:20 So I will say if it's council's intent out of cycle

15:43:27 then staff initiated, sort of giving up for the whole
15:43:32 idea, which we have very little of.
15:43:34 And I will say, I will encourage you to keep -- it
15:43:39 really does create a process and I think this is a
15:43:41 really good showing of a process, where we look at
15:43:44 these things much more cohesively, and how they
15:43:47 interrelate to each other.
15:43:48 And I think over time with all of these small little
15:43:54 amendment that is take place you are not able to look
15:43:56 at them in the big picture.
15:43:59 So if you are concerned about this.
15:44:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You say council and or zoning
15:44:06 administrator.
15:44:07 To me, it's sort of limiting.
15:44:17 >>> If you would like to limit it --
15:44:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would like to you expand it.
15:44:22 >>> I mean you will be expanding it for City Council
15:44:24 but only in the limited situation.
15:44:26 >> And that was the intent.
15:44:28 >>> Let me take a look at that.
15:44:30 Actually, this is pretty broad.
15:44:36 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I don't see it as broad because all

15:44:38 the text amendments us, we I don't think we need to do
15:44:44 any clarification on that.
15:44:46 That's my opinion.
15:44:51 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I have a question or some point
15:44:52 but mostly question to make on this.
15:44:54 I think it's helpful to have one point of contact, so
15:45:00 to speak, to any of these amendments.
15:45:09 Different sections of the land use code, development
15:45:11 code, clearly have been written by different people on
15:45:13 different circumstances at different times.
15:45:15 And they don't always fit well together.
15:45:21 I think some of the other changes we have talked about
15:45:22 today are trying to kind of bring us all in together
15:45:26 at one point of focus so there's more clarify.
15:45:29 And I think it's appropriate for them to be the zoning
15:45:34 administrator.
15:45:34 I don't know that it has to be but that's one person
15:45:37 it could be.
15:45:38 The other point is, though, I'm not sure if this
15:45:42 language -- and I'm just reading it now on 9 --
15:45:49 whether by adding City Council in there whether that's
15:45:51 limiting our ability to initiate.

15:45:54 As opposed to right now, without this, is there a
15:45:59 limit on our ability to initiate?
15:46:01 And I would ask legal to look at that.
15:46:04 >> You can initiate text amendment that is go within
15:46:06 the next cycle.
15:46:08 >> And previous our hands have been tied, even when
15:46:12 certain corrections or procedural issues come up, they
15:46:16 say, well, you have to wait six months.
15:46:18 So I think what they are saying is, we need to loosen
15:46:23 up that a little bit.
15:46:24 What I'm saying is --
15:46:28 >>> I think I hear what you are saying, Mr.
15:46:30 Dingfelder.
15:46:30 Let us look at that language and see what we can do to
15:46:33 accommodate that.
15:46:43 >>> Tab 10, definition of a family.
15:46:53 4 per household to put that in line.
15:47:00 Any questions on that?
15:47:02 And if you go back to tab 6, this is where Julia and I
15:47:09 took issue with you.
15:47:10 What I would suggest on this particular one is that
15:47:12 you really stick to the summary on the tab.

15:47:14 And I'll walk you through it and then we can go
15:47:17 through the language in particular if you want.
15:47:18 This is addressing the issues through the PD process,
15:47:25 site plan zoning process.
15:47:27 The very first thing that this contemplates is that
15:47:30 the items are set by the administration versus
15:47:35 council.
15:47:36 It's motion.
15:47:37 And what this does is, potentially a lot of issues
15:47:42 that we have had with continuances and so on is
15:47:45 that -- if look at the second bullet there are
15:47:52 benchmarks in the process that people meet.
15:47:56 When people come, when their application is complete
15:48:02 they have more assurance that they are going to make
15:48:04 that meeting versus waiting for the motion 60 days
15:48:07 later from council and not knowing whether or not that
15:48:08 motion is actually going to occur.
15:48:10 And it takes that piece of it out of your hand because
15:48:14 really you are making a motion at that point.
15:48:16 And you can't talk about it.
15:48:18 Which there have been questions in the past, about
15:48:20 whether or not you can talk about the item and all you

15:48:22 are doing is scheduling it.
15:48:23 What we will live by is whatever rule you set for
15:48:26 however items you want to hear but all of a sudden you
15:48:29 want to hear 20, we'll hear 20.
15:48:32 If you want 5, we'll book 5.
15:48:35 That's the rules that you will follow.
15:48:38 Just short of explaining how we got to this provision,
15:48:40 and a lot of these provisions, having sat through this
15:48:43 process now since we changed it and seeing how these
15:48:45 things are happening, it prompted both of us to step
15:48:50 back, look at other jurisdictions, as well as looking
15:48:53 at the statutes of wading through our legal obligation
15:48:57 for the hearings.
15:48:58 And one of the first things that we found was this
15:49:00 idea that council is setting the public hearing an all
15:49:10 rezonings isn't required under Chapter 166. There are
15:49:10 situations under 166 to set the public hearing for the
15:49:10 area-wide rezoning.
15:49:16 There are is obligation for all rezonings.
15:49:18 How do we simplify this process?
15:49:20 That's the point.
15:49:21 We are trying to simplify the process and give staff

15:49:23 the ability to allow cases.
15:49:26 A lot of times you hear, how about this get here?
15:49:29 Well, it's obviously not ready.
15:49:30 How did it get there?
15:49:32 Because our process pushes everything up above anybody
15:49:35 has a chance to have an opportunity to review what is
15:49:39 in front of city staff when they make the
15:49:42 recommendation.
15:49:42 So that was sort of the back drop of how you got here.
15:49:47 A couple things that we discovered in the research as
15:49:52 we do everything else, we go differently than most
15:49:55 other jurisdictions, actually.
15:49:57 Most other municipalities have either planning and
15:50:00 zoning board or hearing officer or some kind of
15:50:02 precursor to the council.
15:50:04 And also, very stream lined, which is good.
15:50:11 In and out in 90 days plus or minus.
15:50:14 We are very, very quick compared to a lot of
15:50:16 municipalities.
15:50:17 You eventually serve as your own planning and zoning
15:50:21 board and cuts out that extra month or month and a
15:50:24 half that the other process would be do.

15:50:26 What out does, on the opposite side, it discuss sort
15:50:29 of cram everything through the process and give
15:50:32 limited time for people to make adjustments, and where
15:50:35 you said your hands are tied and ready to go, and also
15:50:39 not being able to make minor changes to the site plan.
15:50:42 So is the we take this one step further, in bullet 3,
15:50:45 if we assigned a provision and a substantial change to
15:50:50 a site plan.
15:50:52 And you at any point can determine if something is
15:50:54 substantial.
15:50:55 That's your prerogative.
15:50:57 The minor revisions are the text amendments, or those
15:51:00 text additions or those conditions that need to be
15:51:03 set, and what this contemplates is you come before
15:51:07 first reading and you're ready to go, all with the
15:51:11 exception of maybe two corrections to waivers and
15:51:14 maybe an additional note that council wants on the
15:51:16 plan, in agreement with the neighbors that are showing
15:51:19 up.
15:51:20 You can motion to approve on first reading and state
15:51:22 those conditions in your motion, and what we have done
15:51:25 is bring in a certified site plan process, in between

15:51:29 the first and second reading.
15:51:33 Will be required to submit the first week after the
15:51:37 first reading a Shi'ite plan that shows those
15:51:40 corrections and
15:51:49 Hopefully that will give you guys more flexibility
15:51:52 because I know that's something you have been looking
15:51:53 for in these minor changes.
15:51:54 But if you go back to bullet 2, the benchmarks we have
15:51:57 set, and this keeps it at 190 process, because we want
15:52:02 to make sure it stays within that time frame, the way
15:52:06 that we do things.
15:52:08 The application would go to zoning administrator,
15:52:12 recertify it, 30 days later goes to DRC, the committee
15:52:18 meeting, staff reviews it.
15:52:20 30 days after that the site plan is due back.
15:52:22 The revised site plan.
15:52:24 And currently we only get 15 days, because of the way
15:52:28 that the process is set, and the way we have done
15:52:31 things through the motion, and we are going to begin
15:52:34 with a month for revision, so they have more time to
15:52:37 meet with staff, more time to revise.
15:52:44 If that plan is turned in on the 30th day, it's set

15:52:47 for hearing.
15:52:47 If not turned in it goes to the next cycle.
15:52:50 If you don't meet your deadline, you get bumped to the
15:52:53 next cycle.
15:52:56 The good thing about scheduling internally, too, is it
15:53:00 potentially, we talked to Sandy about this, it's
15:53:02 potential publishing of the notice of the zoning
15:53:06 hearings, which have to occur, and what we potentially
15:53:11 worked out is a way, they are used to seeing the
15:53:15 motions on the morning agendas.
15:53:16 What we tentatively agreed to do is on the back of
15:53:19 your agenda, is to start dropping in the cases.
15:53:26 It's always on the agenda.
15:53:27 So everyone always knows it's not just the one, it
15:53:30 will continue through, and you guys will always know
15:53:33 what's coming up.
15:53:35 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is great.
15:53:37 >>> So we are trying to put more efficiency in, more
15:53:40 benchmarks so that people can know the outcomes.
15:53:44 If they meet it, and this is the reward in the end,
15:53:49 and we can get to you a lot easier.
15:53:55 The substantial changes, the last piece.

15:54:04 What we did is similar criteria to substantial change
15:54:07 to a PD.
15:54:07 I know right now you can approve a planned development
15:54:09 and they can come in for substantial change by the
15:54:12 zoning administrator, and criteria, a 5% increase in
15:54:17 dwelling units, a 5% increase in floor area, a change
15:54:21 in the original design concept for parking and
15:54:25 accessway and things like. That we are putting those
15:54:29 criteria for you also to be able to look at.
15:54:32 If you determine it's substantial you trying area 4
15:54:34 week continuance giving them 4 weeks to revise.
15:54:38 These are minimum but there is a set time frame.
15:54:41 It's much more clearly spelled out so that when you
15:54:44 come to the process of the petitioner, you know what
15:54:46 the outcome is going to be.
15:54:51 So in the penned once you get your plan back with DRC
15:54:54 it's about 35 to 45 days so we are still within the 90
15:54:58 to 10 -- 100 day time frame.
15:55:08 >>> We were very committed to fixing this process.
15:55:12 I don't think there's one person I talked to that says
15:55:15 that what we are doing now works.
15:55:17 And so we are really hopeful this works.

15:55:22 There's two other issues to bring to your attention
15:55:24 that I have suggested putting in here, and the first
15:55:27 is directing your attention to page 10, subsection D,
15:55:31 compliance with the Tampa comprehensive plan. The way
15:55:35 your process works now is you can't move forward with
15:55:39 rezoning, you can't even apply for your rezoning, and
15:55:48 essentially moving forward first with their
15:55:50 comprehensive plan amendment, getting that approved,
15:55:52 and then starting back over with the rezoning.
15:55:55 And the problem with that, if you have a comprehensive
15:55:58 plan amendment in front of you and you are making a
15:56:00 decision on that, and a lot of times you know what is
15:56:03 it they are going to do, this amendment would allow,
15:56:09 when you go in with an application to be concurrent
15:56:14 with the Tampa comprehensive plan amendment, which is
15:56:19 a clear picture of what is intended to happen to the
15:56:22 property. The other change I am recommending is on
15:56:24 page 11, subsection E, before we turn to section
15:56:28 27-394, and what this amendment says is that when you
15:56:33 make an application, you have 180 days to get it in
15:56:38 and out of the process, with a 30-day continuance for
15:56:42 good cause.

15:56:44 I sat through many, many here's where we had six
15:56:47 continuances and people being very concerned about B
15:56:50 that and I know the neighborhood associations are very
15:56:52 concerned about it.
15:56:53 And I also understand that developers get caught in
15:56:56 positions because of the way the process was an having
15:56:59 to constantly go back and forth.
15:57:01 I think this kind of amendment goes hand in hand with
15:57:04 the changes we have made is very fair and also keeps
15:57:08 that continuance after continuance after continuance
15:57:11 problem from continuing.
15:57:13 So those are the other changes that were recommend.
15:57:18 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Great.
15:57:19 That's a wonderful, wonderful addition to that.
15:57:21 >>> Just to finish up we did meet with the T.H.A.N. at
15:57:26 Margaret Vizzi's house.
15:57:28 We had one person show up for one.
15:57:34 I subsequently met with a couple builders association
15:57:38 members at my office.
15:57:39 I have only received one piece of written
15:57:42 correspondence and no other comments to date.
15:57:45 A lot of changes you can see are just tweaking.

15:57:48 And these things have been in the works obviously for
15:57:50 a long time.
15:57:52 So what we are hoping to do, barring any comments, any
15:57:56 corrections, or modifications you would like to make,
15:57:59 is at the end, anything you want to change, we can
15:58:02 certainly talk to you about it and you can certainly
15:58:04 motion me to make this correction, and then I would be
15:58:07 looking for a motion to send -- transmit to the
15:58:10 Planning Commission with the corrections.
15:58:15 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Thank you for your hard work on
15:58:17 this, especially the change that's going to allow some
15:58:20 alteration between first and second reading.
15:58:23 I know that for me has been kind of a concern where
15:58:28 you have to make somebody wait a couple weeks or more
15:58:31 for a minor change.
15:58:32 And initially when I read this, I thought that we were
15:58:36 out putting in too much flexibility between first and
15:58:39 second reading but now that I explained it, I feel
15:58:41 comfortable and I think that's following the stand
15:58:50 language.
15:58:52 The other thing on the comp plan and the zoning --
15:58:55 page 10.

15:59:03 Julia, I think, described it.
15:59:04 I think he's appropriate and I don't see a problem
15:59:06 with this language.
15:59:07 I would just note to be careful that we don't at any
15:59:10 point ever merge the review of the comp plan and the
15:59:13 rezoning.
15:59:18 I have seen jurisdiction where is they do that and I
15:59:21 think that's problematic but I think the language you
15:59:23 have got here is fine the way it is but I wanted to
15:59:25 note that.
15:59:29 >>JULIA COLE: I think if we do have a situation where
15:59:31 we end up -- a petition for a comprehensive plan
15:59:35 amendment and rezoning, it will be incumbent on staff,
15:59:43 that the review and different processes that
15:59:46 relates -- so I agree with Mr. Fletcher on that.
15:59:51 If we can't move that and you have to hear the
15:59:54 comprehensive plan before you hear the rezoning but it
15:59:56 will give everybody a better understanding of what to
15:59:59 expect.
16:00:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder?
16:00:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just dropping back for one minute
16:00:06 back to the front porches.

16:00:11 I would like to go ahead -- I don't know if we are
16:00:14 hearing from the public.
16:00:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are.
16:00:18 >>> Let's do that and then I will make the comment.
16:00:20 >> You don't have to be sworn in.
16:00:22 It's quasi-judicial.
16:00:24 Council will chew on things and hopefully get to your
16:00:28 recommendation.
16:00:29 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill representing both
16:00:32 Tampa home owners.
16:00:34 We have reviewed this.
16:00:35 We had a committee meeting with Julia Cole and Cathy.
16:00:46 And also the Westshore neighborhood improvement
16:00:49 committee reviewed the Westshore overlay.
16:00:51 And what T.H.A.N. did, where there was specific
16:00:55 neighborhood like Seminole Heights or Tampa Heights or
16:00:58 West Tampa's overlays, we told those neighborhoods to
16:01:02 be very careful and pay attention to what was going on
16:01:08 with those.
16:01:10 I would like to give a little quick thing on the front
16:01:14 porch issue.
16:01:16 There are those neighborhoods that are RS-50 that

16:01:20 still are not happy with the projection into the front
16:01:22 yard setbacks.
16:01:24 I would like to let you know that.
16:01:26 Basically, all of the other neighborhoods are happy.
16:01:29 RS-60 gets an mid approval so they get notice before
16:01:35 it happens.
16:01:40 They can object.
16:01:40 But the RS-50 is approved and the RS-50 neighborhoods
16:01:45 still have a problem.
16:01:47 I would say Old Seminole Heights does not want it
16:01:49 projected any further into their neighborhood than
16:01:56 that averaging that Cathy referred to.
16:01:58 So there's still some concern about those front
16:02:01 porches.
16:02:01 Not the front everyone itself.
16:02:03 But projecting into the front yard setback.
16:02:06 So I'll just let you know that.
16:02:08 I you won't hear it from R 75 or 100 or 150 because
16:02:14 they are happy, if one exists, but there are still
16:02:16 concerns in RS-50.
16:02:23 As far as the site plan, as I understand, the
16:02:26 residential elevations passed at the last group, so

16:02:31 that's why they are not included in this
16:02:40 I think we will not come down and not have a hearing.
16:02:44 They will be ready to go by having our staff do the
16:02:52 setting of those, and we watch for it on the action
16:02:55 agenda.
16:03:00 So she suggested that it be put on the back, which is
16:03:05 great.
16:03:05 And as far as the Westshore commercial overlay, we had
16:03:08 some concerns, and thankfully we were able to work
16:03:11 those out.
16:03:11 And won't even refer to them because they have not
16:03:16 been put back in.
16:03:17 So we're happy with that, the Westshore overlay.
16:03:23 As far as the textbook procedure, we think that's
16:03:26 great.
16:03:26 I know council in many instances wanted to do some
16:03:32 things and had to wait for the six-month process.
16:03:35 So that will help out.
16:03:36 And you will be able to collect some things that don't
16:03:39 look right.
16:03:40 Because that's where it used to be.
16:03:42 You used to be able to make some minor revisions and

16:03:45 then not change.
16:03:49 As far as definition, the other thing of unrelated
16:03:55 people, that neighborhoods had a concern about that.
16:03:57 It makes more confusion and everything else.
16:04:02 And I'm trying to say this fast.
16:04:03 (Bell sounds)
16:04:06 I do still have what's with the first one putting the
16:04:13 land use along with that.
16:04:15 It's the first time I hear about that.
16:04:17 So the only thing that I would be concerned about is
16:04:22 neighborhood actually knowing that perhaps a zoning
16:04:24 would change the same night as the text -- as the land
16:04:29 use, and many times, they are told, well, you know,
16:04:36 it's only land use change.
16:04:41 It doesn't mean the zoning has changed.
16:04:43 So that would be a total use.
16:04:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think maybe Julia can clarify
16:04:52 what the notification would be.
16:04:56 >>JULIA COLE: It just allows the ability that you
16:04:58 don't have right now, because what happens now is
16:05:01 property, applies for the comprehensive plan
16:05:06 amendment, to go through, I would say, six months,

16:05:10 they get to the end of that six months, then they buy
16:05:13 again,
16:05:19 And then it allows those property owners to do very
16:05:24 quickly one after another, and the reason I
16:05:31 recommended it is to bring some clarity.
16:05:33 The reason it happens is because wait for the
16:05:36 rezoning, and the rezoning -- well, we just went
16:05:39 through this entire process to get this comprehensive
16:05:41 plan changed.
16:05:42 So --
16:05:44 >> It happened the same night.
16:05:46 >>JULIA COLE: It could potentially happen the name
16:05:52 same night.
16:06:02 It would have to be heard twice.
16:06:06 So it would be -- it would still mean two separate
16:06:09 hearings.
16:06:10 But in essence it would allow to you come down one
16:06:12 night as opposed to coming -- and they don't have to
16:06:15 do it that way.
16:06:16 There is no obligation.
16:06:17 It could still be spread out.
16:06:18 It's just allowing them opportunity.

16:06:21 And in the comprehensive plan process, the petitioner
16:06:26 says, I'm ready for my rezoning.
16:06:28 Here is what I am going to apply for.
16:06:31 So I think it has a benefit in the end.
16:06:36 >> The only thing I have to explain to the T.H.A.N.
16:06:39 members.
16:06:39 But other than that I want to thank them both for
16:06:41 working as much as they have with us, because they did
16:06:47 sit down.
16:06:47 I don't know.
16:06:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you so much for coming down.
16:06:55 Everybody else who wants to speak, come on up.
16:06:58 Let's see if we can't move this along because we have
16:07:01 all been here since like 8:30.
16:07:03 >>> Keith Gramminger, project director, Executive
16:07:07 Committee member of the Downtown Partnership.
16:07:14 Committee for the Downtown Partnership.
16:07:17 Here to speak on the amendment, first and foremost,
16:07:20 say that staff has been great to work with, Thom
16:07:26 Snelling, Gloria, Cathy and Wilson, through this
16:07:30 process, and they have been very accommodating and
16:07:32 very open minded through this process.

16:07:34 The amendments that --
16:07:38 >> Which tab?
16:07:40 >>> 4. CBD. Public open space.
16:07:51 That is being increased from the 10%, we understand
16:07:54 that.
16:07:54 There are still numbers within our group that have
16:07:57 objection to that.
16:07:58 But we understand the direction that they are going
16:08:01 towards.
16:08:05 The amendments or the exemption of the 20,000 square
16:08:08 foot lots, 50,000 square foot buildings, it's great.
16:08:14 And the fact that the open space or arcades that can
16:08:17 be added is a great amendment.
16:08:21 But we would also like to make sure that the
16:08:23 structures support those, is also included within
16:08:27 that, can be expensive, the columns that come down
16:08:32 with can also be within the open space.
16:08:42 The other thing that we are looking at is that the
16:08:45 open space value could be applied towards the public
16:08:50 art contribution, if indeed that land is utilized for
16:08:55 public land, not just in general, but public art is
16:09:00 being placed on request for our membership that the

16:09:03 value of the land could go toward the public art
16:09:08 contribution as well.
16:09:12 We also want to understand that a waiver, a buyout, is
16:09:17 determined, that we would like to know where that
16:09:20 contribution is going towards.
16:09:24 The general fund.
16:09:25 We are also researching areas to understand what other
16:09:30 communities are doing for public open space as well,
16:09:32 and we will continue to open that dialogue.
16:09:36 The setbacks, a 5-foot setback on whole block
16:09:39 development on each side of the street.
16:09:41 We had discussion about allowing an average of five
16:09:45 feet.
16:09:46 The overall block development as opposed to five feet
16:09:50 per side, an average of five feet, one side of the
16:09:54 street, an one seat can contribute.
16:09:57 Ten feet. The other may be zero.
16:09:59 You have to create an average.
16:10:02 Maybe around there.
16:10:07 And within the setbacks, that cafe and retail activity
16:10:11 could be allowed within those additional setbacks.
16:10:18 The other thing that we would like council to

16:10:21 consider, staff to consider, that as we look at the
16:10:25 overall plan of downtown, that the public
16:10:27 right-of-way, or the also be considered for
16:10:31 contribution to sidewalk expansion.
16:10:33 [ Applause ]
16:10:34 Whether or not the land width could be reduced if we
16:10:40 are looking at two waying of streets, lane width could
16:10:43 be reduced, parking stalls could be reduced, and
16:10:48 contribute to sidewalk or bike lanes or other
16:10:50 pedestrian activities.
16:10:53 With regard to parking.
16:10:56 One parking space up to two, we understand could be
16:11:02 considered to one parking space per unit which we hill
16:11:07 recommend.
16:11:08 >> Can you kind of sum it up?
16:11:09 Do you have this written down?
16:11:11 >>> Yes.
16:11:11 I think it's been forwarded to Cathy.
16:11:14 >> Can we have it?
16:11:22 >> The in lieu fees which are $4800, that needs to be
16:11:30 looked at again.
16:11:31 But again, if someone chooses to do this in lieu of --

16:11:35 but they are earmarked towards transit oriented
16:11:37 development.
16:11:37 And they move forward possibly promote parking
16:11:43 development, which brings the next thing, remote
16:11:45 parking.
16:11:50 Parking within 500 feet of an existing site.
16:11:53 We would like to have 1,000 feet which is an
16:11:58 acceptable planning dialogue for walkability.
16:12:01 We want to encourage shared parking arrangements, and
16:12:05 standard size be considered, 9 by 18 is the standard
16:12:09 size now, possibly an 8 by 16 space, and the
16:12:14 percentage of compact parking be looked at as well.
16:12:17 Then lastly, encourage unique parking layout, such as
16:12:21 tandem parking, et cetera.
16:12:22 That's it.
16:12:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I really appreciate that.
16:12:26 For to us deal with it you need to write it down.
16:12:30 >>> Yes.
16:12:32 >>> If I could jump in.
16:12:33 These are some things I forgot to mention when we met
16:12:36 with the downtown partnership last week, I believe.
16:12:39 Those are actually some things that we agreed to work

16:12:41 on since we were reamending the parking.
16:12:45 In this particular cycle, with the 5-foot set back we
16:12:49 are adding the word average to that so it can be
16:12:52 averaged, but we are in concurrence with that.
16:12:57 The consideration of tandem garage spaces used for
16:13:00 residential --
16:13:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Cut to the chase K.we ask you to
16:13:04 work on this and put the recommendations into what
16:13:07 comes back?
16:13:08 >> They are already in the document.
16:13:10 Just not the one you have.
16:13:11 I did make those particular concessions.
16:13:13 >> What about the other thing?
16:13:16 >>> Which one?
16:13:18 >> Well, there were five.
16:13:22 >>> It's related to the one per unit, allowing
16:13:26 consideration for tandem parking spaces for
16:13:28 residential, because we are dealing with dwelling
16:13:30 unit, allowing the standard space to be 8 by 18, not 8
16:13:34 by 16, with a 24-foot aisle instead of 26, so they can
16:13:38 work their parking garage a little bit better.
16:13:41 And then the averaging of the 5-foot setback.

16:13:44 Those are the four things.
16:13:52 >>> Christine Burdick, less than a minute.
16:13:55 I want to thank the staff for their corporation and
16:13:57 the input that they have allowed to us give.
16:13:59 And I think we are working on issues much better than
16:14:03 probably has been done before.
16:14:04 I want to also reemphasize that there are a number of
16:14:08 people who have worked through this process, who had
16:14:11 still other issues to bring up.
16:14:13 And they will be putting those in writing.
16:14:15 So I'm not sure you are absolutely taking action today
16:14:18 that would preclude any more input to the planning,
16:14:23 commission.
16:14:23 But, okay, you will have those by this weak end.
16:14:26 And ours in writing by tomorrow.
16:14:28 Thank you.
16:14:35 >>> Mechanik Nuccio.
16:14:36 I just want to put a few quick comments regarding the
16:14:41 addition of the expansion of the district, especially
16:14:45 to streets such as Laurel and O'Brien which are really
16:14:49 quite different from other streets in the district,
16:14:53 such as Westshore, Kennedy, Dale Mabry and such.

16:14:56 And I want -- win of the requirements in the overlay
16:14:59 district such as requiring retail and commercial on
16:15:01 the ground floor, and sidewalks, that really don't
16:15:08 relate as well to these particular streets as they do
16:15:13 with the bigger more attractive streets.
16:15:15 And I wanted to raise that as an issue.
16:15:18 And we'll put our comments in writing as well.
16:15:20 >> Have you discussed this with staff?
16:15:22 >>> We haven't.
16:15:22 We are sort of in the process, and we would like to.
16:15:25 The other comment that we had that concerns us now is
16:15:30 the issue of these design review requirements being
16:15:35 reviewed as commercial site plan review, and having
16:15:42 gone through rezoning process, not being in the
16:15:45 commercial overlay.
16:15:48 And then be going through commercial site plan review,
16:15:51 let's say after these requirements go into effect,
16:15:55 theoretically commercial site plan could reject it
16:15:57 because we didn't meet the requirements which we went
16:16:03 for the rezoning so we want to make sure that is not
16:16:07 something -- we understand the reason for the changes
16:16:14 but having spent all the time and money getting the

16:16:17 zoning to get stuck in zoning review.
16:16:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anybody else?
16:16:26 Come up speak quickly.
16:16:31 >> My name is Sue Lyon, 3233 providence.
16:16:38 I want to speak about the planning problem.
16:16:51 That can be a real problem.
16:16:52 It wasn't discussed with the T.H.A.N. people when we
16:16:55 did the rezoning thing.
16:16:58 When we had the meeting.
16:17:01 We don't know that it's going to be a problem.
16:17:03 But if you come up with a land use change, you come up
16:17:05 with a rezoning, and then maybe somebody wants a PD,
16:17:09 it's going to be a big process if you try to do it all
16:17:12 in one night.
16:17:13 And the neighborhoods are going to be terribly
16:17:15 confused because they really don't understand how much
16:17:21 land use change
16:17:34 That should be different.
16:17:37 And the outcome, the same night, that there are
16:17:42 different items, they are different things, and they
16:17:45 should be considered differently.
16:17:48 >> Can I ask you a question?

16:17:49 >>> Certainly.
16:17:50 >> How would you feel about it being like a separation
16:17:52 of time like two weeks or a month or something like
16:17:55 that?
16:17:55 >>> I think that would be nice.
16:17:59 >> And be sure that the neighborhoods are all noticed.
16:18:01 We have done all of this notification and things like
16:18:04 that.
16:18:04 I think --
16:18:07 >>> And I want to apologize.
16:18:09 At the T.H.A.N. meeting it was a late night.
16:18:11 It was in there.
16:18:11 I probably should have made a bigger deal about it and
16:18:14 that's why I wanted to make a bigger deal about it
16:18:15 today.
16:18:20 I think I hear what the concern is.
16:18:22 I think I can add language in there that it can be
16:18:25 processed, if it's a rezoning in the comprehensive
16:18:27 plan amendment can't be heard any sooner.
16:18:31 And we can put that in there so that way we at least
16:18:34 have --
16:18:35 >> We have gone on long enough.

16:18:39 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I could.
16:18:43 I didn't mean to create a whole can of worms by
16:18:45 raising the issue.
16:18:47 >>> You didn't.
16:18:49 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: But I think there can be
16:18:52 efficiencies in doing them close together.
16:18:54 And sometimes when you are doing comprehensive plan
16:18:57 change, it's nice to see what the zoning that's going
16:19:00 to follow is because it can create some comfort with
16:19:02 what the comprehensive plan change is.
16:19:04 And I don't know if having an arbitrary 30 days or two
16:19:09 weeks is necessarily helpful.
16:19:11 My concern that it be clearly communicated to the
16:19:14 neighborhoods and to everyone else that there are two
16:19:16 separate processes.
16:19:19 >>> Would probably do it all on one night.
16:19:22 >> And it might save one trip, is my thinking if you
16:19:28 did them all together.
16:19:34 >>> He have been here often enough that the doesn't
16:19:36 matter and we will come at any time to do anything.
16:19:38 And I don't give up any setbacks easily.
16:19:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA:

16:19:50 >>> I think given that this is a pretty big change,
16:19:52 let's start with the 30-day separation.
16:19:54 And it may be that after hearing, that's really
16:19:58 stupid, let's hear them all.
16:20:00 But at least we are getting closer.
16:20:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anything else?
16:20:04 Thank you.
16:20:05 Thank you.
16:20:07 For coming up.
16:20:08 Ann?
16:20:10 >>> I just want to say that we are on two and a half
16:20:12 years to get the Westshore overlay district plan.
16:20:15 And while we can argue about small pieces of it,
16:20:20 little pieces of it, major intent, boundary changes,
16:20:27 I know someone had mentioned O'Brien, and the things
16:20:30 today are not with the project that's going on with
16:20:32 the Tampa Airport interchange project, frontage road
16:20:36 being closed, O'Brien is going to be another
16:20:38 north-south road parallel to Westshore, the McKibbon
16:20:45 property, and we really thank some of these pedestrian
16:20:48 friendly amenities are going to be important on
16:20:52 O'Brien.

16:20:53 Maybe not today but we are looking to the future with
16:20:55 these overlay district guidelines.
16:20:57 I think they are going to be real important.
16:20:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you all for your patience.
16:21:04 Okay.
16:21:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I think the comments, some of the
16:21:11 changes are very minor.
16:21:16 I would be looking for a motion to transmit to the
16:21:18 zoning commission.
16:21:21 Including the changes.
16:21:24 Do you want to say what the changes are or no?
16:21:26 Just a recap?
16:21:29 I had them all noted.
16:21:30 One of them in particular, the 30-day separation.
16:21:38 >>MARY ALVAREZ: I am going to be leaving in a minute
16:21:39 and you are going to lose your quorum.
16:21:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where it talks about the overlay
16:21:44 district, I would just suggest, and look for support
16:21:47 from council, something along the lines of the zoning
16:21:50 administrators will encourage the construction of
16:21:52 front porches in overlay district wherever feasible
16:21:55 and compatible with the character of the surrounding

16:21:57 neighborhood.
16:22:03 >> Any other discussion?
16:22:04 All those in favor say Aye.
16:22:08 If transit and Planning Commission will come back to
16:22:10 us, if people have more written stuff like the people
16:22:12 in downtown, hopefully they'll get it.
16:22:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only other thing -- on the
16:22:18 front porches was pursuant to Mr. Fletcher's
16:22:21 suggestion to eliminate that two-foot squeeze in
16:22:25 because nobody seems to know why it's there.
16:22:32 But I can't articulate why you guys didn't articulate
16:22:36 why.
16:22:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So there's an amendment to Ms.
16:22:39 Alvarez motion to remove the 2-foot squeeze-in.
16:22:42 Is there a second?
16:22:44 >> Second.
16:22:46 >>> This will go through to the May Planning
16:22:48 Commission hearing and be back before you the end of
16:22:51 May, beginning of June for effective date July 1.
16:22:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Except we don't meet in July:
16:23:01 Thanks everybody.
16:23:02 Are there any informational reports?

16:23:05 >>MARY ALVAREZ: Just one.
16:23:09 The city of Trussels, one of our sister cities, they
16:23:15 have been visiting annually for almost 15 years for
16:23:17 the Italian club's festive Italiano, marked their
16:23:21 10th anniversary and they want to come before the
16:23:24 council March 29th with time certain of 9:30 a.m.
16:23:27 for presentation.
16:23:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
16:23:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second.
16:23:31 Any more discussion?
16:23:32 (Motion Carried)
16:23:34 Is there a motion to receive and file?
16:23:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a --
16:23:40 >> Wait, wait, wait.
16:23:41 Motion to receive and file.
16:23:42 >> So moved.
16:23:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
16:23:43 (Motion carried).
16:23:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
16:23:48 Tonight at plant high school, there's a fund-raiser
16:23:51 for this young woman who got severely injured when she
16:23:54 was running across Dale Mabry.

16:23:58 It's called hearts for Allie.
16:24:02 It's a benefit.
16:24:03 I hope everybody can attend and support her.
16:24:05 A couple of things.
16:24:09 Julia, when we have this issue of the -- the notice
16:24:15 didn't say they wanted to change their hours.
16:24:21 So that was the formal request.
16:24:24 That wasn't included in the notice.
16:24:25 Because people were calling the city and saying,
16:24:29 what's the difference?
16:24:30 And so I just want us to look at that and see if we
16:24:34 can -- I know it's unusual circumstances.
16:24:37 But if they are coming back from a conditional to a
16:24:39 regular, if they are leaving the status quo, fine.
16:24:43 But if they are changing something, then it deserves
16:24:46 to be in the notice.
16:24:47 >>> We are coming back with changes on chapter 3.
16:24:49 So that would be appropriate.
16:24:50 And I'll let Rebecca Kert know and Cathy Coyle know to
16:24:54 look at that issue.
16:24:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And on the public comment, is Marty
16:25:00 looking at the issue of why we don't have public

16:25:03 comment at first reading?
16:25:06 Did we ask Marty to do that?
16:25:08 If we didn't, then I am going to make a motion through
16:25:11 you, Julia, to ask Marty to look at that issue.
16:25:14 I think the first reading, since it's an on us have
16:25:19 time to have public comment --
16:25:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second.
16:25:23 All in favor say Aye.
16:25:25 >>> If I can ask one short question.
16:25:27 Is it the intent of the motion that on a general first
16:25:29 reading when you have two public hearings that we do
16:25:34 our public comment -- public hearing at second
16:25:38 reading, not first.
16:25:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At the first reading.
16:25:44 >>> We notice all of our ordinance that is are not
16:25:46 requiring two hearings for second reading.
16:25:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why do we bother have first reading
16:25:52 then?
16:25:53 >>> That was obligated by statute.
16:25:54 It's one of these weird --
16:25:57 >> If it's public hearing, I'm just saying, we have
16:26:00 the right to establish this by rule.

16:26:02 I think if we are constantly at public hearing, then
16:26:05 both hearings should be public with public input
16:26:07 available.
16:26:12 >>JULIA COLE: And we have to have a vote.
16:26:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If you would discuss that, that
16:26:20 would be helpful.
16:26:20 We are adjourned.
16:26:59 >> Move an ordinance repealing ordinance 2006-31
16:27:02 making lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol
16:27:04 regardless of alcoholic content beer, wine and liquor
16:27:06 4(COP-R) for consumption on premises in connection
16:27:08 with a restaurant business establishment on that
16:27:11 certain lot plot or tract of land located at 915 S.
16:27:13 Howard, Tampa, Florida more particularly described
16:27:19 based upon certain findings imposing certain
16:27:21 conditions providing for repeal of ordinances in
16:27:23 conflict providing an effective date.
16:27:24 >> Motion and second.
16:27:25 All those in favor say Aye.
16:27:27 Passed unanimously.
16:27:28 >> (Off microphone)
16:27:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Motion and second.

16:27:37 Any discussion?
16:27:39 Passed unanimously.
16:27:39 Anything else?
16:27:41 We are adjourned.
16:27:43 [Sounding gavel]
16:27:43 (Meeting adjourned)