Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


Tampa City Council
Thursday, May 3, 2007
9:00 a.m. session


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

>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
The chair will yield to Mr. Joseph Caetano.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This morning I have the pleasure
of introducing Dr. Bobaric who is going to do our
invocation.
He has been a resident of Tampa for nine years.
And please stand after the invocation for the pledge of
allegiance.

>>> Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Praise be to God the sustainer of the world.
We are weak.
We seek your strength.
We are poor.
We seek your persistence and property pert.
We are ignorant and we seek your knowledge and wisdom.
And we seek your mercy and guidance.
Give us mercy and wisdom to know what is right and give
us courage to follow it.
Give us knowledge and wisdom to know what is wrong, and
give us courage to avoid it.
Purify our hearts and souls from hate and hypocrisy and
protect us from back biting.
Lord, guide our hearts, and bind us in faith that we
may always work together to defend our country and up
hold its pledge to be one nation under God with liberty
and justice for all.
O God, teach us to be better human beings, with our
families, our community, our society, our humanity and
if global environment.
Let us do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

O God, we ask you to fill this world with justice,
peace and prosperity.
(Pledge of Allegiance)
>>GWEN MILLER: Before we begin our agenda, I would
like to us -- to ask us to do a moment of silence for
the Jefferson and for the Hartline and for Mr. Raymond
Miller.
(moment of silence)
Roll call.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
>>MARY MULHERN: Here.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
>>GWEN MILLER: Here.
At this time we need to go to the approval of the
agenda.
Is there any item on the agenda that council would
like to pull?
And for the staff reports, those are items you want to
pull from the agenda or what?
>> On item number 33, I'm requesting substitution of a
resolution setting a public hearing for vacating,

because it should be Landau rather than Lancaster.
>> Move the substitution.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Any other items from council members?
Need to approve the agenda.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
I'm before you this morning to request a workshop with
council on June 7th to discuss the Bayshore
Boulevard study that has been going on.
We had conducted three public meetings today, one that
was last night, and we would like to come before
council and have a workshop on that issue.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to set that at 1:30 on June
7th.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>> Brad Baird, director of the water department.
I want to say a few words about item number 12, where

we are incorporating -- appropriating $3.5 million
additional to purchase water -- from Tampa Bay water.
The Tampa water department budgeted $1.5 million for
purchase in FY 07 due to extremely dry conditions in
the spring.
We need to increase our funds in that area.
And we are projected to purchase between 5 and $10
million total, depending on the spring conditions.
We will come back, of course, later this year to
reconcile that fund.
I would like to take this opportunity to give City
Council a heads-up that we will be coming back in two
or three weeks to propose a task group, when we
purchase water from Tampa Bay water, all of the other
member governments do a pass-through charge.
And the City of Tampa has had the luxury over the
years of using Hillsborough River as its primary
drinking water source.
So we have not had to do that.
But due to drought conditions, due to growth, City of
Tampa has been purchasing water on a more regular
basis, it has become the norm, not the exception.

So we will be working over the next two weeks to work
on a formula, and how exactly that can occur, and then
come back to you with that proposal.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Brad, if I remember, the unit cost per 1,000 gallons
from Tampa Bay water, again going by memory -- and
I'll pass to you what we used to do and that was a
weekly update so that the public oh could understand
what was going on, and these are the things we did way
back so that we could explain every week on this
council, for conservation purposes.
The unit price was 2.20, and the price here was for
748,000 gallons.
So it would be a dollar 48.
You are making a lot of money in volume.
You are losing 20-plus -- you're losing about 80 cents
every time you sell 1,000 gallons of water right now.
And so I have compassion.
I understand that.
That's only a normal business practice.
We are not trying to gouge anybody.
Worry not trying to raise the water rates.

We are just telling the public, this is what we are
paying.
All we want to get is the break-even point.
And I think that you're heading in the right
direction.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: There's nothing like dry weather to
encourage people to explore the reclaimed.
So when you come back in a couple of weeks I would
like you to tell us what you're doing to enhance our
marketing for reclaimed water.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: On your up-charge, what do you
plan to do with your sewer charge?
Are you going to -- in other words, the cost of water
is going to be more expensive.
Are you going to up your sewer charge?
>>> No, this would not include anything to do with the
wastewater charge.
It's simply to recover our cost to purchase water from
Tampa Bay water.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: As much of this, as you told me
yesterday on the phone, is going to be watering for
lawns because of the excess amount of water they use.

>>> A large percentage is used for irrigation.
That is correct.
Especially this time of year.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
Thank you, Mr. Baird.
We now go to our staff report, unfinished business.
Item number 3.
Number 1, sorry.
Is legal here this?
>> Police department: We prepared a memo and I faxed
you the report on feasibility.
Pedestrian bicycle plan.
We have a group that created the Courtney Campbell
scenic corridor as an official scenic corridor, and we
received $400,000 to study the opportunities to
connect it to Pinellas County, and this would ab great
asset to our community.
The bottom line, do you think there are any
opportunities for using any of the buildings money for
any of this?
>>> Well, the revenues can be used.
>> You have a connected area in what I would call a

plate of spaghetti where we have the interstate and
the airport and also have some bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity there, too.
Could we use it there?
>> The legislature has bike trails.
That possibly -- there can be bike trails and
pedestrian trails.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I would like to do is invite
to you our next Courtney Campbell corridor meeting and
have you share the information with all the other
entities.
>>> Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2.
We have a memo to receive and file.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
>> What number is that?
>>GWEN MILLER: Number 2.
She just sent a memo in.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Number 2?
>>GWEN MILLER: You didn't get the memo?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to make sure that next
week we'll have a full conversation.

>>> Karen Palus, parks and recollection director.
We did receive a report from department of parks and
recreation about the questions that were answered.
We do have two additional reports coming to you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can that be a more thorough
conversation?
>>> Staff would be happy to do that.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Good morning, madam chairman,
Karen.
One thing on your agenda for next week, I have been
getting some calls about the airplane basin, sea plane
basin out at the end of Davis Island.
I would like for us to start having those discussions
to see where they are headed and probably have some
information to discuss, too.
>>> That will be fine.
We have a report for next week, thorough update where
we are at with the sea plane basin.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Item number 3.
>>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
I planned to give you an update on the various sign

things that we have going on, billboard sign issue.
Some of you are aware, some of you are not, that we
have been in ongoing litigation with Clear Channel
regarding our variance agreement that we have, and
regarding how we move forward with new billboard
legislation and other issues.
We have been working diligently to try to come to some
kind of mediated settlement in that regard to be able
to bring back to you, I'm very confident in the next
three days I am going to be able to request to discuss
further any potential mediated settlement where we
are -- how we should move forward with the billboard,
in terms of our larger discussion, really until we
settle this particular litigation and see where we are
as relates to our various agreements.
It's really going to be very difficult to have that
conversation, because they are really part and parcel.
But that's where we are as it relates to the billboard
issue.
I don't know if you want to touch on that but to take
the opportunity where we are with the other sign
issues we have going on.

Because we have several that have been bouncing
around.
Some of you are aware and some of you are not,
approximately two years ago councilwoman Ferlita
started a sign committee to look at our sign code and
to look at revamping it.
And to be more in line with what the community wants
as well as other jurisdictions.
There are many other jurisdictions including
Hillsborough County, that have gone through the
process of amending our sign code.
I am going to be having a final meeting with the sign
committee next week.
There's a couple of issues that have come forward and
I also hope within the next 30 days we bring it back
out to you for first reading.
We had a couple workshops on it and maybe I bring it
back to first reading, we might want to have one
additional workshop because there are so many of you
that are new and not familiar with those issues but
that I believe is coming to finality and I absolutely
plan to bring it back for first reading so we can get

that moving and get that adopted.
That has already gob to the Planning Commission so
really we are in the last step which is bringing it
back and having you approve that issue.
And I also -- the third thing that we are working on
is creating a downtown sign code, CDB sign code.
That is an area that has been kind of utilizing our
sign code.
But working with the downtown partnership, hope that
we should have a special sign district for downtown,
to have something with more energy and more
creativity, to deal with what we are trying to
accomplish, and having a meeting with the committee
that was created with the downtown partnership to
create a sign code for downtown.
And that's really just beginning.
So that will take a little bit of time.
But we are actually working pretty quickly with that
now that we have so much experience.
And I hope to bring that back to you fairly quickly.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm so pleased that we are making
some progress.

You know, we have been very eager to get this moved
along.
Could you suggest a time frame when we could put the
ordinance on first reading?
>>JULIA COLE: I would really like to have an
opportunity to have one last meeting with the sign
committee because I want to make sure that the final
version is something that they feel comfortable with.
And then also that the administration -- because this
is not just addressing one of two small issues.
These are major issues on how we deal with traffic and
how we deal with neighborhood signs and all of those
kinds of things.
I want to make sure that we are all in a position to
bring it back to you with some consensus.
My intent to bring it back in the next 30 days.
>> Should we schedule that now?
>>> Why don't we just go ahead and keep this as an
item to come back in 30 days to either report or
remove it from the agenda.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to replace this on our agenda
in 30 days under department head reports, if it

involves into an ordinance then great.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to volunteer to be on
the sign committee, having taken over Rose Ferlita's
seat, and maybe having one last meeting I think it
would be good to have a City Council representative on
the sign committee.
>>JULIA COLE: I will find out if you are available.
We scheduled it for this Friday.
If that doesn't work I can re schedule it.
I just wanted to get it moving along.
If you're not available, we could reschedule that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
floor.
(Motion carried)
Item number 4.
Steve Daignault.
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator, public works,
utility services.
Item number 4 is an update to you on where we are with
the -- this is just an update, doesn't need any
council action.

And you'll see a schedule in there so I hope that will
help empty your questions, if we could have that
presentation brought up.
This was brought to us by the citizens.
This was not initiated by staff. This is a citizens
request that we do something with regard to dredging
in certain canals.
We have looked in the Westshore area and the Davis
Island area.
There's a number of canals in there.
But before we can determine which canals were affected
we had to determine a level of service, so we
determined that we needed three feet of clearance at
mean level water in a canal, and that we needed about
a 20-foot wide swath through the canal to make it
navigable.
In determining or using that level of service, we
determined that 13 out of 27 canals in the Westshore
area and two out of four in the Davis Island area did
not meet that level of service.
As a result of determining the number of service, the
canals did not meet, we need to be able to determine

then how many properties are affected.
We would anticipate that we would pay for this
dredging, and again this is from the community, by
doing an assessment area by those properties that
would be benefited as a result of this project.
The cost to do the project would include not only the
actual cost of dredging and removal and disposal, but
also the cost of inspection and overhead and the cost
of financing if it was something that people wanted to
pay over time rather than up front all at once.
There are many questions that need to be answered.
Among those many questions that need to be answered
are what type of methodology would we use to do this
assessment.
Among the various types of methodologies are linear
feet of frontage on the canal, the size of the lot,
assessed value, or the single unit per lot.
By that we mean if you have access to the water that
you are considered to have one unit.
So that's what we would recommend.
And we can go into further discussion on that, and we
will in the future.

Currently, and please don't lock onto these numbers
and say, "well you told us before it was going to cost
this much."
Rough order of magnitude, there are about 500
properties affected if the entire area is included in
the assessment.
There is an estimated cost of around $6 million to do
this work.
You are aware we have $1.3 million of federal money.
Some of that needs to be used and is currently being
used for the NEPA, the environmental part of the part
of this project.
There has to be a city match and there is some city
benefit that would also be included here.
So roughly
There would be $4 million.
$4 million divided by 500 properties is roughly $8,000
per parcel if that methodology is used.
This is intended to be a graphic of a typical canal.
It not anybody's canal. The blue in the lower left is
intended to be the bay.
And so the path right up the middle is what this

assessment would create.
It would be a 20-foot wide, 3-feet deep path up the
middle.
In this particular example you see the black, looks
like an oil spot there.
That would be an obstruction.
If there is an obstruction where it does not meet that
level of service, what that means is all of the
parcels upstream from there would not be able to
access the bay, hence they would all be benefiting,
hence they are all included in this assessment area.
Again that's just part of the methodology that we have
been trying to put together so far.
The little red line that is you see off to the side
would be property owner responsibility.
This assessment would not cover any particular extra
dredging that a citizen wanted to have around their
dock or up close to their property.
Again we have no way of determining that, and some
people may want lots of dredging, some people may not
want any other dredge dredging.
So there is additional dredging.

The city and the assessment area would be that main
piece down through the middle.
And in the lower right-hand corner you see a typical
section, which shows that 20-foot wide path.
If you finance the $8,000 over 20 years at 5% it's
roughly between 6 and $800 a year.
Again we would propose putting that on the tax rolls
and collecting it that way.
We would have to notify the tax collector's office by
December 31st in order to do that and you will see
that in the schedule in a minute.
Here is a schedule.
To move forward with this, we would anticipate the
many questions and the process would have to be nailed
down further before December of this year.
We would notify the tax collector.
We would create the roll by next June at public
hearings.
In August, we would adopt the roll.
And then in September, the tax collector could begin
collecting that.
These are the sorts of questions that need to be

finalized.
Again we have to determine and selected the
methodology, determine the affected or participating
canals, determine criteria for inclusion -- inclusion
in a boundary line.
By that we mean if an obstruction is at a particular
location, if it is to the right of your property or
upstream of your property but not -- doesn't include
or preclude your dock from getting to the water, you
may not be in or may be in.
So what's the edge of the assessment area?
That's a piece we'll have to determine.
Determine an area for assessment deferment F.somebody
says I'm on fixed income and cannot afford this, how
would we deal with that?
And then determine the voting procedure.
In other words, does it take 50% plus one to make this
project go?
Or 75%?
Or does it take 100%?
That would have to be determined.
And then whether an individual group wanted to --

Okay, that would be the part where they want to do
additional dredging.
We would have to determine a process whereby the
individual could have the dredging around their dock
that they wanted.
It costs for them to have that done.
Again we are just trying to give you a feel for where
we are in the process.
We'll certainly have to try to pin the answers to
those questions down with the community that's wanting
this dredging done.
And we would anticipate doing that over the next
couple of months.
And then certainly before December have that all
finalized, back to you, get your approval, and then
move forward up to that time.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
On Davis islands -- you mentioned Davis Island.
Davis Island has a couple of canals.
Interesting, in the four years that I have been up
here, I've only received like one or two calls from
folks on Davis Island who are really excited or

interested in contracts through the many, many -- in
contrast to the many calls we receive off of
Westshore, and then some people on Davis Island who
abut the canal and say they have no interest
whatsoever.
So I think we have to be extra cautious on Davis
Island.
Just put that in mind, number one.
Number 2 is when you talk about the voting procedure,
there has been some questions in the community to say
that, well, this canal, the folks on this canal are
really enthused and excited about it but maybe this
canal has a different group of people and they are
less excited about it.
So is it possible that we would move forward on, you
know, half of the canals?
In other words, will the votes be taken en masse, and
we'll tabulate the votes across all the canals, or
will the votes be taken individual canal?
I would suggest probably individual canals.
Then that way if some of the canals drop out -- all of
those things have to be worked out with the community.

And, of course, the larger the group, the cost per
each is less. The smaller the group, the cost could
go up. So all of those things are yet to come in to
play, and we wouldn't want to force anybody to be into
this or be required.
>> It's possible that we can still move forward without
other canals?
>> Absolutely.
>> Then the last question.
I know one lady off of Westshore who in watching this
will see the $1.3 million of contribution, and you and
I know who we are talking about.
Ms. Montague has a big problem with the notion that we
are going to lump in that 1.3 million which she claims
was contributed or granted to the city for other
purposes, you know, specifically the lake clean-ups.
I have read that document.
It does list the lakes and several other canals.
I think we have to come to some resolution on that in
terms of fairness and equity and all that.
Because I'm not really sure what the fair answer is to
that.

If it was targeted seven or eight years ago for a
specific purpose and now we are kind of branching away
from that purpose I would --
>> Don't feel we are branching away from that purpose
at all.
As you say, that was granted for several canals, and
it didn't exclude others.
It's including these and part of that money is being
used for NEPA.
Those approaches to those lakes would be included.
>> But the lakes are not now and never will be.
>> I think we just have to sort that out carefully,
because you said you were moving forward pretty well
with doing the lakes, period, regardless of what we do
with the canals.
Is that still on track?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: They would be included in this, and
possibly some work earlier than that.
>> The folks who surround that lake would not be
assessed so we can still do an assessment on those.
>>> There are no people that front on Lake Kipling.
They don't own property on Lake Kipling.

They are across the street.
They don't own property on and they would not be in
assessment areas.
>> That's right.
>>> I want to thank you for this.
I know the group is eagerly awaiting the report.
I know that this methodology of sharing the cost
between government and owners has been successfully
implemented in Sarasota.
And I appreciate very much the timetable and the
clarity of provision.
I want to reiterate what Mr. Dingfelder said about
Davis Islands residents.
As a Davis Island resident, I have never heard from a
constituent on this issue.
And my feeling is, if there were problems, they would
have called and complained.
So I thought that his idea starting in Beach Park
and -- for the canal area and start with the people
who are most eager to get it going makes sense.
Perhaps a way for the concerns by the Lake Kipling
folks would be a month or so to schedule a report from

your office on how we are progressing in terms of
their issues and the NEPA concerns, and separate those
two things.
But I very much appreciate this report.
And I know -- have you had an opportunity to share it
with the neighborhood yet?
>>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Well, the neighborhood has heard
this sort of information for some time, yes.
>> But not this schedule.
They'll be thrilled.
They will be really happy to hear from you.
They have been waiting 20 years.
They are eager.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Daignault.
>> I don't think 30 days.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 60.
>>GWEN MILLER: Do you want a written report?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm okay with a written report.
>> On Lake Kipling.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: On all issues.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Don't you think it might be good to
look at that separately?

My motion would be in 60 days we get a report on Lake
Kipling, and a written report is fine, but that we
specifically send a copy of the report to Mrs.
Montague because I know she'll want to come and share
her thoughts.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Item 5.
Mr. Gregory Hart.
>>> Gregory Hart, minority business development
manager here for an update on the minority business
development program.
And our ordinance.
As you know, the city's plan of action is to codify
the minority business enterprise program and the small
business enterprise program into an ordinance and have
that before you by May 31st.
However, in the interim, we are going to need to make
some adjustments and addressing gaps in our
administrative procedures.
As you know, we are currently operating under an
executive order 98-02 which dates back to 1998, I do
believe.

And the disparity study, of course, revealed that
there are some obsolete, if you will, components of
our program, which this executive order addresses.
And so we want to, in the interim between developing
that ordinance and bringing it to you, we want to
address these gaps that are currently in our
administrative procedures.
And we are proposing to provide some sort of
transition to do that.
I have been working with the legal department, our
city attorney, David Smith, do just that.
And I'm going to ask Dave if he will explain exactly
what we are going to do.
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I will hand to each of you a copy of the order he's
referring to.
In fairness, I should indicate the bulk of this work
has really been done by Toyin and Greg Hart.
Let me tell you briefly what we are trying to
accomplish.
The disparity study that we can mention which studied
a period of time from 2001 to 2004 was completed and

provided to the city staff.
It was evaluated that there were some questions that
came up.
There was an additional segment of analysis, some
corrections were made based upon corrections to the
data, and in December of 2006, we had a final
disparity study.
At that point, we now have the data in the analysis
that allows us to do certain things.
One of the things it showed was we no longer have a
disparity in subcontractor so the ordinance before
you ---unfortunately the stories are in the first
several pages and the details are what follows.
Since we got the final study and since there was in a
disparity in subcontracting immediately efforts in
that regard were suspended and this order confirms
that fact and repeals those provisions of order 98-02
that it previously implemented those requirements.
For those of you who were not here, executive order
98-02 essentially enacted our previous ordinance.
Chapter 26-5 and filing the provisions.
That ordinance had lapsed because we did not have a

disparity study showing a disparity, we didn't have
the basis to mandate these things so when went to a
modified program.
One of the things that's important to recognize in
this executive order is we are still encouraging the
correcting community to comply.
We are not mandating subcontract provisions because we
don't have the statistical basis to do so.
But what this order does is it requires that they
report.
Greg and his staff will make sure the contractors are
apprised of the women and minority owned enter praises
to work on contracts that are being let. The people
who bid for those contracts will apprise us of those
subcontractors who they hire.
This gives us a database to monitor what's going on,
and if we can determine that a disparity develops
based on that data, we can reinstitute mandatory
programs for subcontractors as well.
So it's important that you recognize this executive
order requires that sort of reporting so we'll be able
to monitor, evaluate and encourage a plan of activity.

But also because the disparity study indicates, we do
have disparities in some prime contracts.
This executive order starts immediately on what I
would refer to as race and gender neutral approaches
to that problem.
One of the things the case law requires is that you
narrowly tailor your remedy.
And what that means is that before you use race and
gender as a basis, you attempt to use other measures
that may be an appropriate surrogate to achieve your
purposes.
Our small business enterprises program is
disproportionately characterized by women owned and
minority owned businesses.
So one of the ways we can accomplish some of our
objectives without having a race and gender conscious
program is to encourage SBE, small B business enter
praises.
So the second part of this order after correcting the
fact that when don't have the disparity in subs is to
alter the SBE program that we currently have.
And I would like to walk you through that very

briefly.
By the way, we anticipate having that ordinance before
you in May so you will be able to deal with this in
more detail with your council related remedies.
But this executive order starts the clock on the race
and gender issues.
I didn't have a signed version for you but I know it
was on the mayor's desk this morning because I had it
put there.
It may be signed now but it will go into effect today.
Essentially a couple of aspects of the SBE program.
If you look on page 2 of the SBE program which is
attached, it defines the small business enterprise.
And this is important to run through this, so those
people who are watching know if they are a small
business enterprise, they are qualified to meet these
criteria. Independently owned and operated.
Employs 25 or fewer permanent full-time employees, and
has an average annual gross sales of $3 million or
less averaged over the last three years.
That used to be 2 million so we are trying to increase
the area of SBE.

Section 6 of your SBE provisions indicate there's a
certification process.
It's important for those people watching this program
who are SBE to apply for and qualify and be certified.
Because once they are certified, section 7 among other
things talks about our outreach program.
There will be an effort to make sure SBEs are aware
of the bidding opportunities, the contracts that come
down and are available for them to bid on.
That's one way to ensure greater participation and
greater diversity.
There will also be a small business enterprise
committee that's addressed in section 8 that evaluates
the various bids.
And probably the most important thing in this
provision which is unique and is new is the sheltered
market concept, that begins in section 9.
What this means is essentially there are going to be
certain projects -- in this case number 9 deals with
construction, number 10 deals with
construction-related services, and number 11 deals
with nonprofessional services, and lastly number 12

deals with professional services.
Each of these arenas will have an area of sheltered
markets.
And what that means is small business enterprises only
will compete for those types of contracts.
So that will allow a greater opportunity for
participation by small businesses and also women and
minority owned businesses.
We need to have at least three bidders in order for
that to apply.
That's why we want to make sure the small business
enterprises out there are aware of the program, they
get certified, and they bid on the project.
That way, we have the protection that bidding provides
the public, and that is competition and price F.when
don't have at least three, remedy that we can identify
in S found in section 13.
Section 13 deals with -- and you will see identified
parenthetically, nonsheltered market.
We don't have at least three SBEs bidding on a
project because of the parameters.
What we can do here is when competing with the big

boys, so to speak, we can provide a discount and in
RFP up to five bonus points.
What does that mean?
If you're an SBE, you submit a bid of $100,000.
Large Guy, Inc., submits a bid of $90,000.
As an SBE you are entitled to a 5% discount.
We are not paying you 5% less.
We are treating your bid as though it's 5% less.
Your 100,000 bid which was not the low bidder now is
$95,000 bid and you are the low bidder.
Clearly it's an incentive to try to get small business
enterprise moving with the city, getting contracts,
and expanding.
In addition, in the RFP process, you get 5 bonus
points when you are competing against non-SBEs.
That can be fairly significant on RFPs.
That is essentially what this executive order does.
The ordinance, as I said, we will have before you in
May but we wanted to have something implemented now.
As you know, our ordinance process sometimes can get
involved and have multiple readings and multiple years
depending on public participation, which to date has

not been heard.
So I don't know if we are going to have several first
readings or multiple public hearings, or we are going
to have -- this borders in -- this order is in effect
immediately and we'll address those in the interim
F.there are any questions in that regard I would be
happy to try to answer them.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chair, I'm assuming that no
action by this council on this, is that right?
>>DAVID SMITH: No, sir, this is informational.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Because I haven't had a chance to read
through it so I wouldn't be prepared, number one.
That's one of the things we need to prove on, is
getting information, especially if there's any action
required.
The other question I wanted to ask.
I notice that you are using the terminology SBE, so we
are removing the WMBE component as opposed to small
business/small business.
>>DAVID SMITH: At this juncture we are using the SBE
approach as a race and gender neutral approach to see
if we can be successful in remedying the disparities

that exist. That way we comply with the case law
requirements that Todd Pressman narrowly tailor our
remedies.
So the ordinance will have a series of accelerated
remedies.
After we try and narrowly tailored remedy, if we can
stab -- establish it's not been successful -- by the
way, also developing a tracking operation which can be
fully operational in six months.
We will have the kind of data almost instantaneously
that we need to evaluate how effective these programs
are being.
So rather than having a commission study that takes a
year or two to complete and another period of time to
evaluate, we'll have this information immediately, and
can start tailoring our remedies again specific to the
problem we identify.
So we think this will allow us to avoid the pitfall
that is exist on some of the cases.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just follow up.
The county has had this program in place for a number
of years, at least two years.

I was over there.
And have you all taken a look at the county's program?
Because they have an program that has been very
successful and has proven the test even in the court
system.
So have you all looked at that?
>>DAVID SMITH: I understand that is being looked at.
One of the questions that has come up is the
certification, kind of a recognition of certification
in the county.
Because you will notice under this executive order it
will be the same for the ordinance. The areas covered
are Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough, Polk, and I think
Manatee County.
So it's all the surrounding counties.
So it would make sense that we look at the ordinances
in place in those counties, and if they have a
program, see if there's some kind of reciprocity,
meaning if you're a certified small business entity or
minority owned business entity or woman owned entity
in these counties perhaps we can simply acknowledge
this fact without you going through an application

process.
That will also help.
Also some other aspects, I understand of the county
process that are being evaluated as well.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Following up, in terms of a private
developer coming in, they bid for RFP or whatever, and
the city gives them a contract, based on concessions
and on that, how is this going to be monitored to make
sure that you have the SBE, MBE participation?
>>> We are going to require that people awarded
contracts with the city report their level of
participation.
Even in the subcontracts.
Even though we can't require them to hire a certain
mix of subcontractors, we can require that they
report.
It does two things.
It gives us the data referring to so we can move
quickly.
Number two, it lets them know we are watching.
And since we are watching and since they know why we
are watching, if they are prudent, they will on a

voluntary basis try to retain that diversity.
>> What if they don't?
>> If they don't we will move to mandatory programs.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The dollar amounts that we've
selected on the various sheltered section 9, section
10, section 11, construction, construction-related,
and goods and professional services, how do we come up
with those dollar amounts?
100,000, 200,000, that sort of thing.
Also, have we done projections based upon our
historical purchases to see how that comes up?
Does it come out to $5 million of sheltered market for
construction is what we anticipate over the next year?
Or how does that work, number one.
Number two, this base volume is going to come back to
us in the form of an ordinance?
>>> It will come back to you.
It will have some of these provisions but it will have
the very types of things that councilman Scott is
asking about.
What will the mandatory provisions be?

When will they be bringing triggered?
How will they be implemented?
Those kinds of things will be in the ordinance.
>> And will these sheltered market provisions, would
the dollar amounts be in the ordinance too?
>>> I believe there will be a sheltered market concept
and a set-aside concept which will be a more stringent
remedy and will be threshold.
It will have to be cleared.
>> What if when we adopt the ordinance we decide on
different dollar amounts than the executive order?
Which one takes precedent?
>>> Let me go back to your question and I'll tell you
that I know which is maybe not everything you need to
know and maybe Greg can help me out here.
Currently the dollar amounts are determined based upon
the analysis that was done by the consultants that we
hired.
These are areas where a lot of the total dollar
amounts for city contracts are given.
We have some big contracts.
But there's not that many of them.

And there's not that large a pool of competitors for
those large contracts, which leaves us without a
statistically significant ability to address those.
So these are partly determined by the statistics that
were gathered by our expert saying these are areas
where we didn't have an idea what to do, and also the
areas where a lot of the contracts are awarded.
Now there's an additional factor here that deals with
limitations under the CC&A process.
There are some state statutes that also govern
different types of providers of goods and services,
and there's limits there as well.
So it's my understanding there's not a lot of
flexibility on these dollar ranges that we have here.
Maybe Greg can add more to that.
I don't know.
Greg Hart: I think Mr. Smith explained it very well
based on our consultant study indicate that the
majority of our firms that are small, and have the
capacity to perform fall within that or under that
$200,000 threshold.
As a matter of fact that tends to be the area of

contracting valuewise that the city awards a
tremendous number of contracts and dollars.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I guess one of my concerns, for
example, number 9, construction, talks about $200,000.
And, you know, it's hard to build anything for
$200,000 when we build a playground shelter, and it
approaches $200,000.
So that's what concerns me a little bit, that that
wouldn't be bumped up a little higher.
>>> Yes, sir.
And one thing that I think is unique and positive
about how this is structured, the 25 to $200,000
range, in many instances, can allow us to consider
waiving bonding requirements possibly depending on the
scope of work.
Again, firms that are small tend to have better
capacity and resources to perform in that particular
continuum.
Then again as Mr. Smith mentioned, we proposed in an
executive order the bid discount.
So where you have projects that exceed a value of
200,000, we are still providing our small business

enterprise an opportunity to compete on a level
playing field by giving them consideration of the 5%
discount.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And the last thing I have is more
of a comment than a question but I do want to point
out to council that there's a little tendency in the
city right now to go to these very, very large design
build contracts of -- I can think of one in particular
that's going to be 10 or $20 million that
traditionally might have been five different contracts
of lesser amount, but now we seem to be heading
towards some larger ones.
Maybe it's a combination scale.
Maybe Mr. Daignault can tell us why we are heading in
that direction.
In doing that it concerns me a little bit that we
could be cutting out, you know, some of the smaller
business and minority businesses.
>>> We are certainly aware of that.
And the adjustments and the enhancements in both
SBEs and in the minority business enterprise program
is taking that into consideration.

One thing that may not have been clear, I believe
councilman Scott was referring to, is what happens
with our WMBE program, the women and minority
enterprise program.
While we are rescinding, if you will, the mandatory
requirement for subcontracting goals, this Executive
Director keeps in place the processes and the
initiatives that are important to ensure
acknowledgment of WMBE certified firms and to reach
out to them and entertain their quotes, and the
information that bidders will have to submit will be
continued.
We'll monitor that.
We'll have aspirational targets or goals established
to let the bid community know what the availability is
of our women and minority business enterprise firms,
and that they are there and ready and willing to
submit quotes.
So there's a comprehensive, I guess, responsible
effort here to ensure inclusion in all the city
contracting.
And that's the key.

City purchasing, city minority business development,
the entire city organization.
We want to set the tone and communicate that the
expectation is that the bid community, although we
won't have mandatory subcontract goals, the
expectation will be that they will recognize certified
firms and we'll be monitoring.
As Mr. Smith said, if the need and the predicate
resurfaces to reinstate mandatory goals, we may in
fact need to do that.
>>MARY MULHERN: My questions kind of follow on that.
Well, I have a number of questions.
First, we are just talking about the subcontractors,
not the contractor in this change.
>>> We are actually addressing both.
>>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
But in the disparity study it did show there was some
disparity and there was a problem with the
contractors.
Am I correct?
>>> Yes, some underutilization of the prime contract.
>> So when we are talking about changing or rescinding

this executive order, to me it doesn't seem it's
necessarily justified to do that if we are not meeting
those kinds of goals at the contractor level?
>>DAVID SMITH: City attorney.
I didn't explain it very clearly.
We are actually not rescinding the order.
9802, incorporated 26-5 by reference, what this
provision does is it keeps everything in 98.2, except
those provisions dealing with subcontracts.
The reason it doesn't keep those in here is because we
now have a study that says we don't have a disparity.
And so we just want to make sure that we are not
violating the law.
So everything remains as it was prior to that so we
are not really repealing the executive order.
We are just narrowly tailoring what previously existed
so we are not violating the law.
>> That was my next question.
We have seen that there was not a disparity,
significant disparity with employing women and
minority-owned businesses in subcontracting.
>>> Yes, ma'am.

>>MARY MULHERN: It seems to me that perhaps that's
because we have this executive order that was
requiring that.
So I think to immediately, after we see that maybe
it's working, change it so that it's no longer
mandatory, or that it doesn't have the incentive or
whatever it is, it was working.
So if it's not broke, don't fix it.
My tendency is to think that perhaps those goals were
working, and to immediately then remove them.
>>DAVID SMITH: Please understand what you are
articulating as your policy preference is exactly what
the administration agrees with.
The problem we have is this is an area that's governed
significantly by case law.
Since Bakke and others.
This has been litigated a lot.
We have the Croten decisions, many decisions.
We are trying to make sure we preserve the program so
when don't give someone a chance to challenge the
program and get the whole thing thrown out.
So when there is no disparity, we cannot have

mandatory programs but we are doing everything we can
to help the community understand they will come back
in a heartbeat if you don't get there on a voluntary
basis.
So that's the thing I was trying to explain earlier.
And we will do that.
But if we had a program that was mandatory in the face
of our data, there is case law out there that makes
anybody involved in enforcement of that personally
liable.
I don't want that for you.
I don't want that for the mayor.
So that's all we are doing here is making sure legally
we are doing all that we can until we get the
ordinance enacted that allows us to also go full
blown.
So that's why I emphasize the data that we'll be able
to collect will allow us to move much more quickly
than having a disparity study in three years.
>>MARY MULHERN: One more question.
Are we face something kind of challenge to this right
now?

>>DAVID SMITH: We do not have a challenge right now
because essentially we are not doing anything I think
anybody could challenge.
And what my objective is, is to allow to you do as
much as possible without cause -- crossing that
threshold.
>> It's very important to point out that the fairness
study was pointed out that it was poor.
Poor participation as I understand it.
>>DAVID SMITH: The problem was the previous programs,
indicated you don't have a disparity now in sex since
the comment by councilwoman Mulhern it was working.
And if it lapses, it will be back in place.
We now have the ability to move forward with primes
right now.
In fact only primes.
That's what we will be doing.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Is there anyone
in the public that would like to request a legislative
matter?
Anyone in the public that wants a legislative matter?
We go to our audience portion.

Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak
to any item on the agenda not set for public hearing?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a remind theory items number 6
and 7 are just being presented for first reading
consideration.
The second reading and public hearing is going to be
scheduled for May 17th two, weeks from today, at
9:30 a.m. so anyone who wishes to speak to that item
under council rules would speak to the under agendaed
public comment.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So anyone who wants to speak on
items 6 or 7 should do it now.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: A request to continue so the staff
can go back, the sidewalk issue related to TC Choys.
I mentioned to you a couple of weeks ago that we would
be asking to continue that, to be consistent with each
other.
I would ask that that be continued to 9 a.m. on June
21st.
>> So moved.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion an second.

Move to continue item 42 to June 21st.
At 9 a.m
Mr. Shelby?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you wish to ask if anybody is
here oh who wishes to speak to that continuance?
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone that wishes to speak to
item number 40 on the continuance.
Seeing none.
(Motion carried).
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it would be most productive
if people who want to speak on 6 and 7 were allowed to
speak as part of that discussion because first thing
they could hear what the staff does and then need oh
respond and get to deliberate and I think it would be
most clear for us as council members to hear the
discussion.
So I would like to move to allow -- move to waive the
rules to allow people who want to speak on 6 and 7.
>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Should we do 6 and then speak or 7
and then speak or are they intertwined?
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They are not intertwine.

Separately.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
This is what I have problems with.
We have a rule in placement.
And now we are going to change our rules.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May I explain my interest in doing
this?
If this were a public hearing they would be allowed to
speak at that time.
If we have the public speak now prior to the staff
making their report, I think it will be more confusing
for council members.
And this is a complicated issue that's been going on a
long time.
I think it would be easiest for us in our
deliberations to hear from our staff to lay everything
out, then hear the public.
Then we can ask questions of our staff about things
that the public said.
And it's not, Reverend Scott, uncommon for us to do
this when we have a complex issue.
If I had been developing this agenda I would have set

these two things apart because I know they are
complicated for public hearings.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I agree wholeheartedly with Ms.
Sauce on this case.
We have this weird rule that says first hearing but
not a public hearing.
So to me, as part of our rules we can't do that today
so in light of that, sequentially hear from staff
because they have been making changes all the way up
to yesterday, then let's hear from the community, and
then let's deliberate.
Just for these two items.
So I think it does make sense.
I'll support the motion.
I second the motion.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Under 156 of Florida statutes with
regard to just municipalities ordinance that would
require two readings.
But only requires one public hearing.
So normally what happens in an ordinance like this,
which is a legislative issue, you schedule a first
reading, you have a first reading and schedule a

public hearing normally.
But it's not our rules that require two readings but
rather Florida statute.
Only one public hearing is required.
>>GWEN MILLER: Ready for the vote?
(Motion carried)
Ready to speak?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, staff.
I'm sorry.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak to any item except for items 6 and 7,
not set for a public hearing.
You may come up now.
>>> Neil Corsentino here to talk about making
significant changes.
>>GWEN MILLER: What item are you speaking on?
>>> Actually item 6 and 7.
There's an item 26
I'm with the Camelot, Florida, which is a public
interest think tank, we are community based.
And if you want significant changes in our community,
we all have to do what we think is significant things.

So we bring to the City Council today a project that
he would think is significant, and it's called VADT,
which means value added deferred tax.
Because if you look at public policy, government
policy, when a government taxes improvements, we think
that's a bad idea.
It just goes against common sense, and it's
self-defeating.
So if you own real property and the government says,
we are going to tax any improvement to your property,
then the most likely outcome is people will not
improve their property, and therefore not create
wealth.
And, therefore, it's negative to quality of life.
So what the proposal is, is that we as a city tell our
real estate owners, homes, businesses, that they can
make improvements to their property, and not be taxed.
It will create wealth.
And it's sold by a higher value because you create
wealth.
But if I put in a swimming pool, put on a certificated
floor, close my garage, then I will be assessed at a

higher value and therefore less likely to do it.
So in closing I'm hoping there will be questions.
And I'm hoping that council will seriously consider
this as a significant program.
Are there any questions?
>>GWEN MILLER: No.
Thank you.
Would anyone else like to speak?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you put part of that in
writing, just in a summary form, so I have a better
feel for it?
>>> We are hoping for an action item in this respect.
Obviously, something as significant as this has to be
staffed.
It has to be staffed for zero tax.
Are we going to wind up initially with less revenue?
Where do we feel as far as revenue is concerned?
And, therefore, it's something that isn't just laid on
the table.
If someone in the city has to look at this, and we
think come back to the council, and we would be happy
to meet with them, whatever, on the staff and the city

to evaluate this proposal.
I can say this.
I know it's fresh and new to you about in the think
tank it's not new.
It's designed for communities that are -- it's not
designed for -- it's designed for communities that
aren't improving or indeed going down.
Because indeed a young couple with K buy a home in a
community, and with this proposal, they feel
comfortable about owning because their community is
going to rise.
In other words, they can take a small house, and add
to it progressively and create more value to that
home, a buy in low, but we have a progressive policy
as far as taxing is concerned.
We defer tax.
Create wealth.
And that's something your staff will have to look at.
But to answer your question, yes.
>> Just a little two or three-page summary.
Thank you, sir.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.

Next.
>> Al Steenson, 4100 west Leal Avenue, Tampa, Florida.
I want it very clear for the record that I am not here
representing the Gandy civic association.
I'm here -- by the way, item number 2.
I'm here as a citizen, a boater and a Fisherman.
Late in 2004, and early 2005, Tampa lost the Imperial
yacht basin.
In March of 2005, we almost lost some property at the
Gandy boat ramp.
And through my initiative and a great deal of help
from former commissioner Jan Platt, Frank Sargeant
with the Tribune, chairman Jim Norman, we were able to
put a City of Tampa gap on that, and from that we
established a public-private relationship, and there
will be in the future additional parking at that
particular location.
In February of 2007, we lost the Bayside marina.
To development.
At that time you may remember I did enter into the
record a letter stating their concerns by the national
marine manufacturers association.

Now we have the Rattlesnake Point amendments.
They are in Tallahassee.
I think I'm getting word that they are on their way
back.
Now, I would not want us to miss an opportunity if
these go through to again address the private-public
partnership for Rattlesnake Point.
To give us more boating access.
I think many of you -- and I have received -- e-mails
from bill Wilson who happens on the north side of
Gandy, now part of the association, and he's
tremendously concerned about it.
Our access points of Gandy, could you tell you are any
Campbell, picnic island.
Picnic island the only time you can use it approximate
S if you have a rubber raft or little John boat.
We are losing these facilities at an alarming rate.
Boating fishing and water access are an integral part
of the life of this area.
I urge this council and this administration to keep a
watchful eye on this issue and stay mindful of as an
expect of life that makes Tampa and Hillsborough

County a great place to live.
Thank you very much.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
Mr. Miranda.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with the sentiment as the
speaker just spoke.
I really believe that the waterfront belongs to the
taxpayers.
As you go back and you look at the record -- and
talking about six, seven years ago -- not only
Marjorie Park but the Bayshore.
One time, those areas there for slips at the Bayshore
were almost going private.
And I fought very hard to keep them public.
Although at that time there was mostly all
dilapidated, I'm talking about the whole system, I
don't recall ever losing a penny.
The dilapidated boat slips that wed at Marjorie Park
and in the Bayshore.
I have a strong feeling that I have got to keep a
watchful eye, not only in administration but on the
context of when we build, if it's ever completed to

riverwalk, and I hope it's done quickly, that those
areas where boating can happen belongs to the public.
I spent some time up at Grand Haven, Michigan, and
looked yesterday, and all that's public.
There was an article in the Tribune April 16th, I
believe of this year, and it talked about Clearwater's
public marinas, and things of that nature.
So the philosophy, I agree with you that we've to have
equity inspiration of the young, the middle age, and
the older fellows.
We certainly appreciate the efforts.
>>> I can't stress enough the importance.
I realize there's other issues in this town that are a
lot more important.
But for the quality of life and the economy -- and
this is why people move to this area.
They want access to the water.
And it's disappearing as I said at a very alarming
rate.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to
speak?
>>> I would like to discuss item 44. My name is David

Mark Jines.
I reside and own the property at 1607 East Idell in
Sulphur Springs.
>> Will you spell your name for me, please?
>> J-I-N-E-S. Jines.
>>THE CLERK: That's also a public hearing.
>>GWEN MILLER: That's a public hearing.
You have to wait until we get to that.
I'll let you know.
Would anyone else like to speak?
We now go to our first reading, item number 6.
>>> Cindy Miller, director of growth management and
development services.
I would like to sort of set just an overall opening
for this item, which is looking at the procedures for
the architecture review commission.
Thom Snelling and other members of staff will provide
more detail.
But I thought it would be helpful to sort of see where
we have been the last couple of years, see how we got
to this point.
When I received the appointment that I have today, as

director, I looked at all the commissions and boards
on television that were under my jurisdictions for my
staff to be the administrators and managers for this.
So I watched the architectural review commission.
I had discussion was various staff and citizens,
constituents, stakeholders.
Also, correspondence from both parties who had applied
through the architectural review commission or staff
as well as one particular stakeholder, you probably
heard her name a few times, Joanne Hecht who worked in
historic preservation as well as very interested
citizen as to what we do.
Approximately a year ago we had a workshop that --
combined workshop of architectural review commissions,
barrio la tin O.I think the -- I know for sure it was
A.R.C. and BLC and we talked about what can we do to
improve the process, what can we do to improve the
procedures?
And to whether that would take a rule of change or
procedures, but what would be improvements that could
be made.
Our staff then made the commitment to members of both

commission that is we would look at whether it was a
procedural or whether it was code.
So we then sat down with legal staff along with
members of my staff to review the architectural review
commission code.
And the recommendations that are before you today are
the recommendations from me and my staff and from
legal representation as to what we recommend be
brought before you.
What we are basically looking at is procedure change.
We want to make sure that an applicant is ready when
they come before the A.R.C., I can see AP applicant on
occasion that really is not prepared it was the type
of thing that made A.R.C. look like a bunch of new
people because the applicants didn't necessarily have
all the documentation they needed to have.
We wanted to be able to give staff the same kind of
level of authorization as we have for Land Development
Coordination staff.
We wanted to be sure that staff had the responsibility
of reviewing applications,ed and again not just the
architectural review commission staff, historic

preservation, but also that it gets circulated to our
other divisions and departments, that it would be
parks and recreation, solid waste, transportation,
just as you see for land development coordinator, and
to be able to respond back to a constituent as well as
to the commission board members, as to what is x-rayed
within the application and what is staff's
professional opinion as to code.
What my main goal is from the standpoint of how I
approached it was that when a citizen walks in the
door, we already know they face two or three different
mazes to get things done in our bureaucracy.
What we are trying to do is make the divisions under
my jurisdiction as consistent with each other as
possible so wee we basically try to take what is
currently utilized by the Land Development
Coordination and be able to say, this works from a
process standpoint but applies to the same principles,
responsibility of the staff to review as well as
having a complete professional package ready for the
commission.
We hope this is a situation where there is

transparency.
We believe it will maintain the quality of the review,
and frankly enhance the review, because we are going
to be able to have not just my own staff review but
other staff throughout the city, so that our citizens
don't feel like ping-pong balls when they have
received an approval from one particular commission
but then feel that they are reaching a stalemate when
it comes to either staff within my department or other
departments.
So we believe that this improvement in the Cho sees
will help to achieve that.
Thom Snelling is here to help us go through the
details of the code changes, both with our discussions
have been over the last few months, the time line of
what we have accomplished.
So I am going to turn this podium over to him.
Thank you.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We all received a matrix developed
by their department.
And I wonder if the people in the audience have had an
opportunity to see that.

Because it will just make it easier for everybody if
they can see this matrix.
>>THOM SNELLING: I had nine copies.
I do not have extra copies of that.
That matrix, I sent it to the people -- the only
difference between the matrix I sent out and the
matrix you have before you is that the highlighted
yellow items are where there are differences between
the city's position and where there's additional
discussion.
Council has the colored copies and the others are
black and white.
>> Do you have an original of that filed with the
clerk so that they have the original?
Did you get a copy, madam clerk?
>> Did they receive a copy?
Did you have a copy for them?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So the ten extra copies just got
posted on the window over there?
Dennis, maybe you are you can scatter some around.
>>THOM SNELLING: This is -- maybe not complex is the
right word but voluminous.

There's a lot of information to digest here.
We were talking, trying to figure out the best way to
proceed with this.
And we are open to however council chooses or how they
want to -- what they think is the best way to proceed.
And our suggestion is, as we are moving through the
matrix, identify all of the changes that have taken
place, as you can see on this matrix that you have,
the boxes that are highlighted in yell or the areas
where there's a difference of opinion in terms of what
the code should read, rather than try to articulate
what that position is, people have a different
position.
Those folks are here and they are capable of
explaining the concept, what they think and why they
think.
So I am not going to try to do that but maybe just to
point out where those differences are to the best of
my ability.
What we could do is, the ordinance itself you should
have in front of you version 18 is broken into
different sections.

We could go to each section and kind of -- I'm sorry?
And we can kind of take those in sections of how do we
feel about that, and take a straw vote as we go and
really focus on the 5 or 6 issues that are really
where the debate in my opinion should take place.
Illinois identify the areas as part of the ordinance
itself so people who have the ordinance can see the
areas that we are talking about.
The first item is 27-212.
It has to do with the membership of who is actually on
the A.R.C. board.
Primarily, change from nine members down to seven
members, to make it consistent with other boards that
we have.
And perhaps the area that we talked about.
One of the reasons it becomes a bit difficult to fill
a position, the language that the city staff is
recommending is identifying the -- identified in the
first bullet point.
City Council members shall include to such an extent
that such individuals are available in the community
and two architects with common demonstrated experience

in the historic preservation, et cetera, et cetera,
and identifies them down.
The point of difference to the extent available.
There is somewhat of a legal issue there, in that if
particular members that are identified as mandatory
are not available, that could affect the ability for
the board to sit as a board and make decisions.
So there is a bit of a legal reason in terms -- and
Rebecca Kert is here and David Smith to talk about
that.
I mean, that's the first issue.
As you move through some of the other changes, the
tenure on the board has changed from two years to
extend to three years.
One of the other issues that had talked about but I
believe we reached agreement on that has to do --
Technology is great.
Moving back.
Under staff where there had been discussion as to
whether or not staff and board members could be
members of preservation organizations, what we have
done is changed that language to say that they cannot

sit as members on the board or as officers of local
historic districts.
We felt that would create too much of a potential
conflict.
So bid adding the word local historic members of a
board, or officers on local board, I believe we have
reached and understanding on that.
But, again, I'm not sure if that has remained an
issue.
The next item under 212 really clarifies the
membership, and is not entitled to compensation.
That's pretty much standard how we treat the rest of
our boards, and any other volunteer agencies whether
VRB, BLC.
>> If you can tell us the number and if we are just
doing the yellow boxes.
Let's just do the yellow boxes.
>>THOM SNELLING: That's fine.
We can do that.
Okay, moving to page 2.
What this does, and this is one of the items we are
talking about.

We talked about it a little bit.
Is that it takes the review of rezonings, moves the
review of the rezonings to I believe the established
design review committee, historic preservation
development review committee, which is the staff group
that will look at the rezoning and make the
recommendations to City Council.
Currently the code has the A.R.C. board itself looking
at the rezoning applications.
Staff felt that again the expertise of staff, just
like in the same fashion that we look at the rezonings
and special uses and other kind of appeals coming from
City Council, establish a similar type review body
city-wide with the addition of the historic
preservation staff that they would also be able to
present a recommendation to council, and then
afterwards it would go back to the full board of the
architectural review commission, and then go ahead and
focus on the aesthetic considerations and design of
the property as it relates to the historical integrity
of the district.
27-214-G, under denial of variances, currently it

calls for the A.R.C. board to hear a request to
preclude the 12-month stay that goes to an
application.
As it is now, what we are suggesting is that we do
that again the way that we do all other appeals for
reconsideration that come back to council, that the
staff administrator of the particular either historic
preservation or of the zoning administrator makes that
review.
And that's the way the code is put together in the
rest of the city and reconsiderations or appeals to be
reheard is handled by the staff and not by a board.
Then we go to the next page.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That wasn't clear to me and it's
probably my fault.
Would you run through that one again?
>>THOM SNELLING: Currently, --
>> This is 27-214-G?
>>THOM SNELLING: Yes.
If there's a denial of appropriateness or something
that ends up in front of the architectural review
board, if an applicant is prohibited from resubmitting

the same application for a period of 12 months, the
same with rezoning, that portion of it is identical.
Under rezonings, as a zoning administrator if a person
wants to shorten that time frame by addressing some of
the issues that came up, or some of the questions that
came up during that discussion of the rezoning or the
variance, it's the zoning administrator looks at their
new proposal to see if those issues were addressed
enough so that it can be brought back to the board for
a full discussion and hold a public hearing.
As it stand you now the architectural review board
does that review.
What we are suggesting is that to mirror, the mimic,
the same way the rezoning application, special use
applications are handled by zoning administrator, but
the items in front of the architectural review board,
if they are being requested to be reconsidered, in a
shorter period of time than the 12 months are reviewed
by the architectural -- or the A.R.C. administrator
and not going back to the full board.
Right now they are required to go back to the full
board and ask them if it's different enough in order

to have a full-blown public hearing.
It's almost like two public hearings at the same time.
We would just like to see that particular function
handled by staff, just to streamline to the make
things a little more expeditious.
>> And the standard that we operate under is sort of
like a substantial change or that type thing.
Is that similar type language?
>>> Yes.
I think.
Yes, it is.
So we are merely asking to mimic the exact same thing
that a zoning administrator does, or give the same
authority to our architectural review.
Architectural administrator.
Section 219 as you are looking here right now it says
213 on the bottom of page 3.
The A.R.C. establish guide lanes to approve minor
developments and they can look at things that are not
quite as significant.
Right now they have the authority to establish those
type of guidelines.

What we are suggesting is that the review authority of
the actual -- the review authority of the
architectural review commission administrator be
expanded to include -- and you are going to have to
flip the page because it gets into the meat of things.
We are suggesting that these are the items that the
administrator, the first item of installing the fence,
the second item is the demolition of a noncontributing
structure, which has been verified by the
administrator within the last six months as,
noncontributing.
In addition to a structure if it's less than 15% of
the gross square feet of the principal structure and
does not require a variance.
The two that stand out as being the point of
disagreement happen to be, there are some items that
they wanted a food fence, and wasn't terribly
substantive.
Item B is noncontributing structures.
Item C, which was the addition of the 15% being
reviewed by staff.
Those are the two areas that I suppose council will be

focusing on, and making a determination of that.
>> Very quickly so you have an idea of what 15% kind
of looks like.
>> Typical of Seminole Heights, and a great many
portions in Hyde Park.
50 feet wide.
100 feet deep.
Bungalows are ranged from 15, 1700 square feet.
That's a very general kind of thing.
There are probably others that are larger, some that
are smaller but 15% of such a building is represented
in that item there.
And a 2,000 square foot building which is collapsed
and this is an RS-60 zoning district which is more
typical of perhaps Hyde Park.
Other portions of Hyde Park.
That's approximately, what, 300 square feet could look
like.
And it could be a box on the side.
Well, if it goes on the side and there's a variance
required you would not.
It would have to go in front of the board anyway.

Without a variance, because the side yards typically
are pretty small, the 5 to 6 to 7 feet is pretty
difficult to add any kind of room or additions to your
house and your side simply because your side yard
setback would give would put knew front of the board.
The only place to put the structure is behind your
house and there might be some cases where you might be
in the front because set back a little further.
Typically these additions would go to the side, the
rear side of the house.
Just to give you an idea.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What if you were doing, completely
redoing your facade, facing the street?
An it didn't amount to 15%.
Basically, you are just changing the whole look of
your house but not really adding on or anything.
It looks like that could fall in the 15%. So that
would just be staff reviewing.
>>> Correct.
If I understand your question, yes.
>> And not relate to dollar amount or anything like
that.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is there any language limiting the
number of times people could use their 15%, that there
could be addition, addition, addition?
>>> That's a point well made, councilwoman.
I know right now a lot of times when we are looking at
major renovations and stuff we do keep track of a
cumulative construction of a site, and that's related
to, you know, when other codes are triggered,
cumulatively.
It's not unusual to think that something like that
that happens here, the outline is about the cumulative
effect, the 15%, and then after that, you couldn't GOP
any further because at that point like you will have
attitude or structure about any cumulative effect
probably makes a great deal of sense.
He other than that, the same item under item 2 for the
commercial properties.
The fence or the demolition and there is no question
about the 15% of the commercial property.
It's only for the residential portions of the review.
The other changes weren't that substantive.
It's just those two items that there is a difference.

Here again, 27.213, 27-213-A says that the A.R.C. has
the authority to review rezoning petitions rather than
staff review in those rezoning petitions. This is
just another spot where that particular revision shows
up.
Again we are recommending the newly established
historic establishment review committee makes those
reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council
rather than going in front of the full board, then in
front of City Council and back to the A.R.C. board
again for a second time.
Okay, this is a notice.
The notice provisions.
And generally what we have done with the notice
provisions for everything here, the variances,
certificates of appropriateness, demolitions, and
relocations of structures, we are trying to make them
all consistent.
The way that it stands now, that the variances,
requests for demolitions and requests for relocations
currently have a 30-day notice.
The certificates of appropriateness, not of the 30-day

notice but 15-day notice and it's just a sign.
What staff is requesting that the certificates of
appropriateness also have the same notice requirements
that all of the other activities within the district,
the 30-day notice, and the area of notice from 150
feet excluding right-of-ways to 250 feet including
right-of-ways.
The difference between the number of people that you
noticed between the 150 feet and 250 feet, because of
the addition of the right-of-way, that's not terribly
significant, primarily that change is made by council
during the rezoning aspects of what was happening,
because it just was made to be clear that they were
having a number of misnotices because people forgot to
count the right-of-way.
So about 250 feet as the crow flies, and that's your
measurement and we are asking for the same thing here,
primarily being the difference that the certificate of
appropriateness is the thing that is being most
effective.
>> So what's controversial?
>>> There was a feeling that a lot of generic, you

know, day in and day out kinds of review in the
historic district.
And again this is my understanding that by doing so
you may inadvertently be adding an additional burden
to somebody, by requiring additional notice time to
things because a lot of times in a residential area
sometimes it is mom and pops that are doing that.
And we are thinking we would like to have everything
consistent, and what they are asking for, I believe,
is to the variances, but on the CA, certificate of
appropriateness, they felt that is a simpler easier
thing to do for the applicant themselves.
We are just looking for consistency.
Other than that, I believe -- I just want to show you
a quick graphic on the 30-day notice on the time line,
if I can.
There had been some question or concern that by
changing the notice that we were going to add
additional review time to, to the actual process
itself, but in fact, now, we don't because we are
operating -- continue to operate within the current
architectural review commission schedule.

This is the schedule as it is and how it works with
the time lines and the dates and everything else
associated for 2006-2007.
The time from the start to the end typically runs
around 50 days.
Some 47, some hit 58.
But average that hits around 50 days.
And most of these are about -- you can see towards the
bottom that it's 63, 56, 45, 59, 49.
So the time line stays there.
Understood what we are currently proposing for
noticing and how to do some of that, I have taken the
bottom half of that schedule, and as you can see, what
I have added here is that the applications turned in,
it's the same application date, the development review
committee looks at it within and provides their
comments to the administrator.
The notice goes out 30 days prior to that particular
hearing.
But what happens in between the 30 days and the actual
public hearing, you know, some of the additional
review and staff writing and reporting takes place at

least 14 days prior to the hearing date, and then the
seven days before the hearing date application is then
send to the -- sent to the board itself which is
exactly how we do it at City Council.
You have the 30 day notice for rezonings and special
uses, and then 14 days everything has to be back to
the administrator because that's the last time as you
know they can change their site plans.
And then 7 days prior to the actual rezoning is when
the staff, final reports are transmitted to City
Council.
So again this process, which really has been a thing
throughout this whole thing, is trying to mimic the
same types of processes that we use for our rezonings,
our special uses, our vacatings, and those items
there.
So it doesn't really add any time.
And I give some of the representatives and explain
that and if they have additional questions I can
certainly answer those.
One of the other things that did come up under this
particular section because of the 216-C, which is

under the current -- the new code is going to be 215
and 216, have to do with the number of applications,
or copies of the site plans that we are asking for,
and it also had to do with some of the scales.
We agreed, and I checked with both my A.R.C.
administrator and HPC administrator, and they agreed
to add the language back in that says, or a scale that
is appropriate.
We have to make that minor change.
Because there is a time, if you have a very large
project and you're asking for a scale of one quarter
inch to ten, could you end up with sheets as long as
your table.
And they are just not workable.
So then in certain circumstances he would like to have
the flexibility to say, okay, let me have it on a 1 to
20 or whatever that might be.
So we are adding that type of language back in.
On the 13 copies, I'm afraid I am going to have to
agree to disagree on that simply because we need to
have those copies before the staff so that everybody
can distribute and look at the same thing at the same

time and everybody is working on the exact same page.
Again that is exactly how the rezonings are handled.
I'm not disagreeing.
I think there might be a difference opinion.
>> You said you have to disagree with them but I don't
know what you are disagreeing.
>> they think the city should make one copy and give
one copy. This is over weeks of conversations.
So final decision on what they are thinking is
certainly going to be theirs.
And the last thing, there was some discussion about
electronics -- on the surface that makes a great deal
of sense.
But it's a question of resources.
And it becomes difficult for staff to transmit site
plans electronically.
They are a little more difficult to read.
A lot of the people, the engineers, and the planners,
when they are looking at things, a lot of them prefer
opening plans and will go at plans.
We are not adverse to coming up with a system as
technology advances.

And at sometime in the future if we want to craft some
type of criteria we are not adverse to that but we
would rather not make it any kind of requirement that
mandates that simply because going back to what was
said before, there are some mom and pops that are
doing this stuff.
And if they are just going coming through for a
variance they don't have auto tab, they don't have
GIS, they might have a computer but a lot of this we
get in front of the Variance Review Board and some of
the variances, some of the district are a little bit
more sophisticated but there are still plenty that
come through that are just getting a variance that are
handwritten and don't have that technology.
So mandatory we believe we wouldn't be in favor of.
Section 219.
That is just a repeating of the area we talked about
before about increasing the staff's review authority.
We have already reviewed that.
It just shows up again because different things had to
be moved and changed.
"I" provides for an appeal process must be filed

within a 30-day period.
What we are asking for is that appeals get filed
within a 7-day period which is consistent with how we
handle, we are just looking for consistency there as
well.
>> And that's just the notice of appeal.
It doesn't mean the appeal has to be completed?
>>> No.
You have to send us a letter saying we appeal X, Y, Z.
>> And then --
>>> I believe that would be the case.
It's just a matter of the threshold starts on, now,
January 1st.
You have to have it in by January 7th or 8th
or whatever that is.
And that's a time limit issue and that's how the code
is done.
I believe I covered the issues that remain.
And it looks like there's a lot of yellow here.
But we have worked quite well, I think, with the group
that's going to get up and speak.
There is additional language that we are still working

on it and willing to tweak a little bit between now
and the reading and the public hearing.
There are many other areas that we agree on.
So I'm complete.
Rebecca, I did miss anything?
Got most of it.
I'll answer any questions that you may have.
Councilman Saul-Sena said the other individuals are
here to speak and they can bring additional light to
what their positions are and what -- so sit down and
let this go forward.
>>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
wants to speak on item number 6?
>>THOM SNELLING: Thank you for your patience.
>> Thank you for your hard work.
>>> Good morning, Madam Chairman.
My name is Gus Paris, architect, 3908 San Miguel.
Stephani Ferrell is passing out a handout which
summarizes the variances that we have, and they are
essentially what Mr. Snelling had indicated on this
presentation.
However, in the package that we are giving you, we

have given the reasons why we believe that our
positions should be supported, and we have also given
the legal language that refers to.
>> And as part of your credentials how many years have
you served on A.R.C.?
I served on the A.R.C. for five years.
>> Are you currently on it?
>>> Yes, I am currently on.
And I have been chairman and vice chairman.
I have also practiced architecture for 43 years in the
City of Tampa.
First of all, I would like to say that working with
the architectural heritage committee, we have drawn
together varying members of the historic preservation
community.
Including Tampa Preservation, Inc., the neighborhood
organizations, Hyde Park, Seminole Heights, Tampa
Heights, and the various other interest parties.
We have had numerous meetings.
And I want to thank the council for giving us the
opportunity to do that when at the last meeting you
continued this.

That gave us time to really look at all the issues,
and also gave us time to meet both with the historic
preservation activists and your city staff and city
legal counsel.
I would like to thank Cindy Miller and Thom Snelling
for meeting with us.
As Ms. Miller pointed out we started over a year ago,
and we have reached consensus on a large number of
items.
And I believe because of that, this ordinance is going
to make the A.R.C. a more efficient organization.
It will make it more responsive to the public.
And it will advance the cause of historic
preservation.
Despite that, we have a number of issues that we would
like to bring to you this morning.
And they are listed in the cover letter that I have
given to you.
And the A.R.C. issues.
Number one is that we believe that there should be two
registered architect on the board.
This should not be option will -- optional.

It is an architectural review commission.
If it were a medical review commission or legal review
commission, I think you would say that you should have
doctors or lawyers on it.
So it is an architectural review commission.
We believe that only the full A.R.C. should make the
recommendations to council on rezonings and land use
amendments in the historic districts.
Because this affects the pattern of development that
will occur, and would be brought before the commission
after that.
We feel that the commission should be involved.
We feel that the variances to meet the historic
patterns of development should be facilitated.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: For the record --
>>GWEN MILLER: You are not recognized.
He has three minutes.
>> It doesn't make sense unless he reference it is
section he's referring to.
>>> Mr. Dingfelder, if I could go quickly through
them, we will then come back and talk to them
individually.

>> Thank you.
>>> Number 4.
The ability to reapply to the A.R.C. on variances
should continue.
November 5, we need to streamline the process and cut
the cost.
And we need to have electronic filing.
It is here today.
The technology is here today.
The mom and pop group can scan their hand-done
drawings and send them in.
It will reduce cost to the city.
It will reduce cost to the applicants significantly.
And it will make the entire process faster.
Thank you for all the effort that you have put into
this and that your city staff has, and I hope that you
will look at the recommendations that we are
presenting.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
The next speaker.
>>> Roger Gurnt, an architect.
I have been for two years the chair of the Barrio

Latino commission, review commission.
I am currently your City Council representative to the
Barrio Latino.
I'm an architect.
My practice is mostly in historic architecture.
I just wanted to talk about number 7, approval of the
demolitions, and the additions should not be delegated
to staff review.
That is our position.
Yet we want to improve the ordinance.
Don't misunderstand us.
But when you are, should be a staff requirement.
The first problem here is that whether something is
contribute, the map is not perfect.
There are structures on the map that are labeled
contributing that perhaps should not be.
There are the opposite also exist structures which are
not, and which should be.
Why was that?
Simply because of human error.
So demolition of noncontributing structures come
before the full review of the A.R.C.

B.
Decisions.
You recall the diagram that Mr. Snelling showed you.
That was a full facade, as Mr. Dingfelder pointed out.
Why would you have a noncontributing structure, a new
structure, for instance, an in-fill project, come
before the A.R.C., where it has to be thoroughly
reviewed, and then turn around and say that particular
owner can change the facade, the entire facade of that
structure, without A.R.C. review?
It's common sense.
The one action negates the good work of the initial
work of the design review.
We even had council people in the past who did not
understand the difference between retaining walls and
walls, as some of you remember that.
We feel that that also should come before full review
of the A.R.C.
So our wording is installation of wood fences that
does not require variance from any applicable code
requirement, and does not adversely impact original
fabric that is able to be rehabilitated, repair or

replacement of exterior roofing material providing
that the exterior -- well, my time is up.
But please remember the three issues.
That's the fencing, the 15% we are against.
We want the noncontributing structures before the
A.R.C., and the decision making as to demolition must
come before the A.R.C.
Thank you for your time.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>> I have got a speaker waiver form.
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair?
>>CHAIRMAN: Not a public hearing.
You cannot have a speaker form.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: How much time do you think you
need, Ms. Johnson?
>>> I probably only need four minutes.
I can try to do in the three.
Elizabeth Johnson, 1919 Richardson place.
I think it's important to understand in the beginning
how we got here.
In February of 2006, certain properties were being
considered for designation.

We, in the preservation community, brought two
members, two attorneys from the national historic
preservation, they were not able to speak.
There was no public hearing at that time.
That became the impetus for the HPC side.
At the same time everyone thought we are going to look
at HPC, let's look at A.R.C., too.
And Joanne peck wrote her wonderful letter about being
a little bit overwhelmed with the process at that
time.
But I think what's important to understand is that you
deal with a double edged sword on the preservation
ordinances.
I hear staff say they want to make it easier for
citizens to come through the door.
But in my experience, we also have to think about the
big developer who is represented by a seasoned last
use lawyer, and we don't want to bring too many things
behind the scene, because then what happens is that we
who live in a historic district feel like, gee-whiz,
if you're a big developer, if I want to change my
window or alter my front porch I'm overwhelmed the W

the process.
Where they have done positive things -- and I
really -- they are making staff meet the deadline of
the A.R.C. hearing.
So you go before as a mom and pop and the tree
department person wasn't weighed in and transportation
person hasn't weighed in, they solved that problem, in
my personal experience, and I don't ever represent the
big developers, sometimes very rarely a small
neighborhood person will pay me to represent them, but
it's rare.
In my experience, that is the frustration, that that
occurs.
The key issues where there is, I think, some very
great danger is bringing rezoning applications to the
staff.
Rezoning applications in a historic district are best
understood by the ARC that monitors that district.
We can come and to those meetings and I think you get
the benefit of having the seasoned recommendation of
the A.R.C. in that context.
Another big danger zone that I see in this ordinance

is we can come to a public hearing before the A.R.C.
and get -- we being the neighborhood -- see that a CA
is denied or see that a variance is denied.
What is changed in this ordinance, and I don't see it
on his chart, that it's changed in -- I'll give it to
you later.
I can see I am going to run out of time.
But if we have a victory, or the CA is denied, or the
variance is denied, then we don't want staff behind
the scenes making the decision that something is
substantially different.
Already it's bad enough because the A.R.C. gets to
hear from the expert land use lawyers that something
is substantially different, and we can't even speak.
I think Thom said it's like a public hearing.
But it really isn't, because I have sat in this
audience many times, and kind of glared at the A.R.C.
because I couldn't speak.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to give her another minute.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: You have to wrap it up, Mrs. Johnson.
>>> Yes, ma'am.

What I'm trying to say is that I wanted a provision in
there where if reconsideration was requested, we would
be able to speak.
Not only was that rejected, they have taken it behind
the scenes even further and said the A.R.C.
administrator is going to make it.
It is not a matter of trust.
We trust the staff.
But there's many times I think when we have brought
knowledge to you, and the A.R.C. has brought knowledge
to you, and in an effort to help the small homeowner,
which I think they are doing, let's not forget about
the big developers that are trying to tried on our
historic district.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next.
>>STEVE MICHELINI: I would like for you to consider a
couple of things.
One is that your certificate of appropriateness has
expired.
And this isn't just about big development.
You're making policy.
Some people are concerned about making policies based

on large projects.
Large projects are the minority, not the majority.
And it's bad policy to make ordinances strictly
relating to large projects.
The majority of these things that come from the A.R.C.
are small projects.
They are homes. They are small businesses.
And they are trying to fit in.
And they are not all in South Tampa.
So you are directing a code that's addressing issues
that may be unique to Hyde Park, that they are
affecting Seminole Heights, and they are affecting the
city and they are affecting some other areas.
The certificates of appropriateness should be allowed
to be expended by the staff and not you go through
expensive process of a rehearing to reexamine the same
issues with the same plan, because the time limit has
expired.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: What section is this?
The staff isn't going to sell the process down the
drain because if the plans are consistent and because
of timing, financing, or timing, because of their

inability to get the architectural plan converted from
design to construction documents, takes too long, then
they shouldn't be penalized.
And the staff recognized that and they placed that as
a request to change that to allow the staff to do
administratively approve the extension of certificate
of appropriateness.
Not all are back and they shouldn't be painted with a
broad brush that says this is bad.
So the staff is doing a good job.
They are diligent in their review and the before the
A.R.C. and the BLC.
So everyone is being heard.
No one is being cut out.
And when the staff is talking about doing things, it's
not behind the scenes.
Those an open forum.
The administration is involved.
And it is fully aware of it and conducted through due
process.
So I respectfully request that you allow the staff to
have the latitude they need to expedite the process of

not bog down the public hearing process.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The recommendation that I thought
everybody agreed on at the little meeting was to
extend it from one year, 12 months, section 218.
I can't find the page.
>>> I believe it's page 14.
Or page 7.
>> In the red line version.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Page 14?
>> I don't know where the page numbers are.
I know that it's in here.
>> I think everyone was pretty much in agreement to
extend the certificate of appropriateness from 12
months to five years.
But then after five years it kind of drops dead.
So I don't want everybody to think that we haven't
worked on that.
>> I think that it is being addressed, councilman.
I believe there are some recommendations coming from
the floor to change that.
>>> I'm Stephani Ferrell.
I'm pleased to be before you to address two items that

were promulgated by our working committee.
And the first one is in regard to variances in 27-217
B.
It is our view that variances basically should meet
the historic patterns of development and historic --
particularly the problem comes about because the
current zoning for the historic district is actually
in many cases directly counter to the historic
patterns of development.
For instance, the side yard setbacks are for an RF-50
zoning category are 7 or 8 feet.
And typically, often the historic buildings are
located three feet from the side yard property line.
Front yard setbacks for RS-50 are 25 feet.
Typically in the historic district, the historic
buildings maybe 15 feet or 20 feet or even 10 feet
from the property line.
So when someone wants to do something that doesn't
actually meet the historic patterns of the
development, they have to get a variance, because it
conflicts with the suburban code.
So what we are saying here, and what we are requesting

here, is that you don't have -- that it shouldn't be
necessary to manufacture a hardship in order to make
your property comply with the historic pattern in the
district.
So we would actually -- talking with Thom Snelling,
came up with a good solution about not being able to
meet the patterns of development, call that a
hardship.
And so that becomes when it's the means to be able to
develop appropriately in the historic district.
That's the first item I am addressing.
Secondly, currently in the historic preservation
architectural review ordinance, or certificate of
appropriateness by the property owner it is only
required that the property owner post a sign two days
in advance of the public hearing.
The ordinance changes, do a notice of mailing, 250
feet from the property owner.
-- from the property of the applicant.
And in my opinion, sometimes I'll do work for small
mom and pop clients.
And I think that's an undue burden to add to them.

I think it should continue to be what it is, that is
just posting a sign for VA.
-- for CA.
I think notice of mailing is important and desired.
And then lastly just to touchback on a point that Mr.
Paris made, what we are suggesting is in terms of the
electronic filings, is that the only mandatory part of
it is staff that -- that we are requesting that staff
come up with criteria that would allow property owners
or applicants to file electronically.
But it would be mandatory for an applicant to file
electronically.
They could either file electronically, or they could
file in hard copy.
But we need to come up to current standards.
Right now as an architect, you know, in PDF format is
very easy to see and read and so forth.
So this is current technology.
And I think we need to, as a city, catch up with it.
Those are my comments.
>> Stephanie, I have a question about the variance,
the 219.

Was it 219-B, you said?
>>> D.
>> D.
Okay.
So are you disagreeing with what the staff -- the
changes they are making in here?
>>> Stephani: Yes.
Actually, if you look at our comment sheet in the
middle of page 2.
Do you have that handy?
What we are suggesting is that basically we have left
recent conversations with Thom Snelling and the legal
staff, that we basically allow the variances, the
historic setbacks.
We are suggesting there will be some additional
language change to facilitate that.
>>THOM SNELLING: Growth management again.
This is a point we all agree on.
We are trying to sneak through the exact language, to
cover the potential pitfalls.
What's in there now does kind of create this
artificial hardship criteria.

And we want to just make sure we clean it up.
But we are in complete agreement that, you know, if
you have a house and sitting on a structure and it was
built in 1930 or whatever it was, you should be able
to put it right back where it is without having a
variance.
How we get exactly there and the exact languages we
really need to work out.
>>> We meet conceptually with Thom and staff but
that's not reflected in the current city draft.
>>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
>> I'm Anna Thomas, president of Tampa Preservation.
And I have been a resident of an historic district for
30 years.
And I am just going to follow up on the marks made by
Mr. Paris, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Ferrell to say we are
very appreciative of the city's allowing us to be
included in the effort to try to buy into the A.R.C.
process.
You heard how everyone, personal or professional
experience in working with the A.R.C. on a variety of
matters.

The A.R.C. has most definitely afforded many positives
and many safeguards to the protection of our historic
district.
So we support a holistic approach that involves
involvement in all affected city departments early on
in the process.
And we look forward to working with Thom Snelling and
staff to work to address the tweaking issue that he
has previously mentioned.
And just in closing, we do ask that in order for this
to be the most effective process possible, for both
the A.R.C. staff and the public, that the seven points
that we've laid out for you be given very serious
consideration.
Thank you for your time.
>>> George deacon, south DeSoto, live in the historic
district, and applaud the city staff, worked hard, and
we have worked hard with them.
We agree on the streamlining the A.R.C. process.
But we think that some items being delegated to staff
are important enough that they should really be viewed
by the whole A.R.C., and those are strictly the

rezonings and the land use amendments.
These are really too significant to be delegated just
to staff.
We also want to point out in the city departments,
review of projects before they come to A.R.C., I
think, are one of the specific items should be traffic
and access.
There is a past incidence where a project was
proposing access onto a local road that had 18-foot of
pavement.
And the alternative access was -- it was a right turn
lane to an intersection within 200 feet of an
intersection.
Not meet standard for the city.
I think these issues need to be addressed early
because they affect obviously the layout of the
project, and the so I think that perhaps paying a
little more attention to access early on, so it
doesn't come up later on, can't do that, you know,
within a year and a half.
Additionally, on this project, they thought they had
access to an easement on another property, so I think

these are important issues that need to be worked out.
Obviously affect the design, location, and type of
structure, et cetera, et cetera.
Anyway, we just degree with the streamlining process,
to keep some of the A.R.C. reviewing the rezoning and
the land use plan amendment.
Thank you.
>>> Henderson, 2001 Bayshore Boulevard, a member of
the board of Historic Hyde Park neighborhood
association.
I would like to read a letter into the record.
From the association.
Historic Hyde Park neighborhood association would like
to express their full support of the AIA,
architectural heritage committee.
Summary of working group position, May 1st, 2007.
The continued success of our neighborhoods and the
lives of a strong preservation ordinance.
Thus we do not want the ordinance diluted under the
guise of streamlining.
We feel that the document produced by the
architectural heritage working group eliminates

unnecessary loss of time and expense, while at the
same time strengthening the guidance of our historic
neighborhood, and will make Tampa a model of
preservation success.
We emphatically urge to you support in its entirety
the suggestions listed in the summary of working
group's position.
Thank you.
Signed by president Roger Flunkey.
I would like to say, the members of that committee,
just want to express my appreciation for the
incredible hours they have put in Saturday after
Saturday after Saturday.
And just to help make our community a better place.
We really do thank you.
>>> My name is Agnes Stanstil, I live at 2112 Deakle.
I think we have to realize life has changed. I'm 56.
I remember my grandmother's car sat high off the
ground, had running boards.
And you walk around the neighborhood, could you see
situations where there's a wall that is a safety
hazard, and should not have been built, because there

are visibility standards, 30 inches and 8 feet.
And I think most of the alley and the cars were
smaller and could turn and you got garage doors from
the alley, and that I know that we have Woodrow
students won't be heard from schools through our, and
they go to the Palma Ceia neighborhood.
And for middle school, it's a very boring place to
walk so they walk in alleys because this is what
middle school children do.
So if you have -- because of what they did years and
years ago, we need to focus on some of these things
and pay more attention to the safety standards, and,
and even at Roger park, the schools are maxed out,
near the railroad tracks in Mississippi, and the
boundaries of schools.
We really can't say there used to be a -- this
building in Roger park and ready to go to school.
I think we need to be careful about this sort of
thing.
>>> Randy BARON, 217 west Comanche Avenue, president
of the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood association.
The first item of business.

We have an e-mail that was sent late last nature.
I'm not sure if you had an opportunity to read it.
I want to submit it for the record.
We have three minutes.
We fully support the working document from the
preservation group.
I worked on some of those Saturdays.
There has been a lot of thought, a lot of review.
I happen to come from a little bit different angle.
We are in the process of trying to get a historic
district right now in Seminole Heights, Temple Terrace
area.
So rather than looking through the abstract of an
ordinance change we are actually living it and I have
several meetings every month with people who are
concerned about the A.R.C. process. The concern is
obviously the length of time it takes, things like
making 30-day notice, 250 feet, is going to be
interpreted as increasing the burden on the small
homeowner.
So we have to look at that.
The other thing is, though, the pro -- protection of

the neighborhood has against some of the development
that's going on.
Right now the 15%, that's been proposed, 15% can be
changed by staff, and some other things that can be
changed by staff.
There's no public input, there's no notice as far as I
can tell.
We would recommend that at the very least, if you need
to make a 15% change, although we oppose even that.
But if you have to do it, put a sign up.
Have something where it's -- within two weeks if
anyone opposes or have concerns, then kick it up to
the full board.
Then you have public input, public comment.
What's lacking from staff review is public input and
public comment and the ability to create a record.
And that's what we need.
Because ultimately it may come before this body.
So we are very concerned about the increase in the
staff authority, without some sort of public comment.
The other thing about the 15% is it doesn't just -- it
can't just be tacked onto the back of the house.

That can be tacked onto the side of the house.
You can do a lot with 15% of a 2000 square foot house.
And I'm still concerned about councilman's
Dingfelder's comment about whether or not if you
change a facade, whether that would qualify in the 15%
rule.
If you cut out one inch is that now considered an
addition and therefore you can now avoid full A.R.C.
review?
In conclusion we do support making this easier on the
average homeowner.
In the historic districts you have people who just
want to change a window, or do a small addition.
They want to have the process streamlined.
They want to make sure that everything is available up
front so that they don't have to appear before the
A.R.C. and then have something continued.
I think staff has done a good job trying to create
this review committee that will prevent that.
But I want to see how it works.
And afford neighbors the opportunity to make
considerable changes.

Thank you.
>>> I welcome -- my name is -- the Ybor City
preservation.
Because historic preservation is a topic today I
thought I would wear this T-shirt in honor of our Ybor
City and West Tampa historian, the editor of the city
magazine, Marilyn Figaretto.
Thank you.
It is the consent of the Board of Directors that we
support the preservation community and agree with
their recommendation and proposed revision of the
amended ordinance for the A.R.C. and the HPC that is
being presented to you today.
As you know, the board historic and civic association
did not support an opt-out or an owner consent
provision.
Now the owner consent has been added in the revision
by the city legal staff, it is imperative that this
council not listen to hardship criteria or allowing
any further weakening of our preservation.
The City Council should follow the suggestions of the
preservation community, and we believe that it's

actually your and all our duty to save our heritage
and preserve our history.
I think it's more important regarding all our historic
buildings, but I think it becomes even more important
when we are talking about the few cigar factories that
are left unprotected in north Ybor, Palmetto Beach and
especially nine or ten in West Tampa.
Thank you very much.
>>> Laura Lockett, 836 S. Dakota. First I want to
thank you. I was here six weeks ago and complained
about the process and asked you for more time.
And I think there wouldn't be a person in the room who
worked on this that would say that what we have today
was a much better policy than what we had six weeks
ago, and particularly we worked very hard with staff.
And I want to commend staff and legal for all of their
time that they put in along.
I think it boils down to A.R.C. issues, three major
things.
On the variance issues, you have got this problem with
historic pattern being inconsistent with the zoning
category, the applicant doesn't have to create some

sort of artificial hardships.
And the few proposals that we have talked about that
are not in the draft you are looking at are
essentially the consistency of the hardship which kind
of -- on the administrator to approve setbacks that
are consistent with his pork pattern.
We really love the streamlining that's generally been
done.
But what we are balancing here is notice, public
comment, participation, in the process.
And as we have instructions, as the draft instructions
now, anything done by the administrator on his own or
her own doesn't have any kind of notice to the
community.
That's particularly troubling with the addition,
controversial, and obviously the rezoning, the land
use amendments.
Those are really the hot points in the neighborhood.
I don't know if I can do this justice because I am not
an architect, but zoning sometimes defines the major
feature of the development.
And obviously massing and setback, those kinds of

things, zoning issues, would be more character
defining than maybe windows.
So if they have a situation where the A.R.C. has not
given you input on the front end on those issues, we
think that's particularly important that you get them
before you kind of make a zoning decision, so we don't
end up with you making a decision and coming back, and
fundamentally having that be inconsistent with the
historic district.
Finally, another comment being the garden variety
certificate of appropriateness that the homeowner is
going to bring.
That should not require the written notice.
It's just going to add time and expense.
And I think you are going to end up hearing back from
the constituents that that is an unnecessary burden.
So, again, all of these improvements that have been
made.
And the areas of agreement are phenomenally more than
they were.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The concern I have on the
certificate of appropriateness -- I wanted your input

on this -- I hear what everybody is saying.
For just a little small project.
But aren't there some projects where there might be a
threshold where you really would want, you know,
notice?
I mean, I don't keep up on these as much as you guys
do.
But, you know, are there any concerns that a sign
might be inadequate for a large project that's still
just a certificate of appropriate ration and not a
variance?
>> My sense is the largest project typically involves
the rezoning, and obviously in the variances are going
to have to have notice factor.
But just for the simple typical CA, maybe there's some
room for additional discussion, and coming to some
happy median.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: How many years did you serve on a
board?
And how many years have you been involved in improving
this ordinance?
>>> Well, I was on the HPC for six years and I think

working on it for five of those six years.
And there's definitely a lot of history.
And the number of workshops and council input and
round table and we have a much improved product.
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our ordinance for first
reading.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
>>GWEN MILLER: If you are going to speak, get up.
>>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America plaza.
I'm not here on behalf of any client on this
ordinance.
I grew up in Hyde Park before, during and after the
A.R.C. was created.
My mom and dad first organized folks to try to save
the bridge streets in Hyde Park and remember them
holding coffees in our living room.
So I hold Hyde Park in very, very high regard.
It's where I grew up. This ordinance is not perfect.
I'll tell you there's a lot on the cutting room floor
of what's been drafted with this ordinance.
But it is more objective.
It's less subjective.

I think it's workable.
I think that homeowners can get their arms around it
and work with the staff.
And maybe come to a certificate of appropriateness a
lot quicker.
My parents could have survived this process in the $60
and '70s when Hyde Park was coming into its own.
It shouldn't require an architect and lawyer every
time they want to do something.
I think it's worth a try to go with what we have and
maybe come back in a year from the A.R.C. staff and
say this is where it's working and this is not working
and maybe fine tune in another year.
But it's been quite laborious.
Let's go it with.
The city attorney has certainly recommended it.
So has administration.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for legal.
>>GWEN MILLER: Come on up, Ms. Kert.
>>REBECCA KERT: I have a couple of comments but I'm
happy to answer your question first.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question would be, since the

comments of the architectural heritage commission are
in legal form, draft form, could we move this with the
substitution of their suggestions?
>>REBECCA KERT: Actually, if you are going to do that,
after I make a couple of comments, some of those I'm
not sure, at least some of them I would strongly
recommend that you don't, but this is going to have to
come back to first reading, because that affects the
changes.
They may be minor.
For example, the first one that I want to talk to but
is the demolition of a noncontributing structure.
I think that there is complete confusion about this.
The suggestion is to strike the approval by staff,
demolition of noncontributing structures.
Based on some of the comments I heard, I think that
the working group is under the assumption that that
will then put it to the A.R.C. for approval.
Noncompeting structures do not go to the A.R.C. for
approval for demolition at the current time. In fact
right now there's nothing in the code about
noncontributing structures.

That's one of the major differences between
contributing and noncontributing structures.
It's my idea to put this in the list because I was
confused about was I missing sore something, or by
noncontributing structures by staff?
I was confused by what the process was.
And when somebody comes in, it's like demolition for
noncontributing structure in a historic district,
affects the A.R.C. administrator, does several checks
to see whether or not it was designated as
noncontributing.
I just thought it would be nice if people were able to
figure that out instead of having to make phone calls,
on the ordinance.
The express concerned by the working group is there
may be structures in the historic district that are
designated noncontributing that people feel should be
contributing.
That, however, is not a change you can do on the
A.R.C.
The A.R.C. does not have -- that would have to be a
change to the HPC ordinance.

In addition that is a major policy decision.
If you are going to continue to make a decision to
continually reevaluate whether something that has been
designated through the process are contributing or
noncontributing, regardless, is not something that can
be done in the A.R.C. ordinance.
The other thing that I just want to point out based on
some of the discussion of having mandating two
registered architects, certainly I think everybody is
supportive of the -- thible oh objection we have is
making it mandatory because the way the language is
set up right now if you are going to make --
registered architect mandatory, you put your board in
jeopardy, if in fact you don't have a registered
architect and that's our concern and why we don't
support that.
>>MARY MULHERN: I was wondering if maybe one of the
architects could tell us how many certified architects
we have in Tampa, general number.
>>GWEN MILLER: That want to serve.
>>MARY MULHERN: I'm just curious to know the
difficulty it seems to get two architects.

>>> Stephani Ferrell, architect.
There are 582 registered architects who are members of
the American institute of architects in the Tampa Bay
chapter.
>>MARY MULHERN: Thanks.
>>> That may be the number.
That doesn't mean they all live in the City of Tampa.
The Tampa Bay chapter includes the entire Tampa Bay
area, Hillsborough County, Pasco County, they cannot
serve on the board.
So I don't think 500 people, we are --
>>GWEN MILLER: If they live in the City of Tampa they
may not want to serve on the board either.
>>> That's what we find.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to be very careful, though,
when we are talking about getting an attorney involved
to represent the City of Tampa.
I want to be very careful with that, okay?
I think we need to stick with that to protect the
city.
If you want to make changes either make them to the
City of Tampa to include them on the draft that we

have.
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let's focus on the architect issue.
I don't have the code in front of me but I thought the
variance board code is not necessarily optional.
I thought the variance code, the makeup of the
variance board, doesn't it say it shall be this and
shall be that?
One lawyer, one --
>>> Yes, Mr. Dingfelder.
And I understand your point.
Previously the way the A.R.C. was it does say you
shall have this and shall have that.
And we did not say that the board would certainly
dissolve.
Our concern is the way it's placed now with clearly
some people being optional and two as being mandatory
but you are raising the possibility that someone can
make that argument.
And we feel it's a legitimate concern.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have brought it to you.
>>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?

Ms. Kert, you have to bring this back.
>>REBECCA KERT: It depends on what council's motion
is. If you would like to go forward with the draft
that you have in front of you, then it's ripe for
first reading.
If you would like to make some recommendations to make
some changes, we can come back with that.
>> Two weeks?
>>REBECCA KERT: I would say he would be able to come
back in two weeks.
But you may have to look at the suggestions that were
made for changes, see if staff has a response to any
of them.
Maybe they agreed with some of them, you know.
And make your motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I defer to Mr. Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to suggest that we
initially accept the staff changes.
But then that we go through the five or six items and
vote on them separately sort of as a straw vote.
That will give, I think, good direction to legal staff
to what revision is to come back -- come back.

So with that, why don't we just start and March
through the six as fast as we can?
The first one being the two registered architects.
Should it be mandatory?
Or should it be flexible?
>>THOMAS SCOTT: I think it would be helpful, I would
much rather we use the city attorney's document.
That's what we should be using.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: And what I'm saying --
>> Put that up there.
>> I just want to clarify.
>> We have paid legal staff to represent the city.
And I think we need to look at that document and go
downed and then point out the changes, and
recommending any changes that need to be made.
And that would be prudent in my opinion, you know, if
you have a legal staff.
>> Just for clarification, if I could.
We are on the same page, Tom.
What I said was let's start off by saying let's accept
all the basic documents from legal staff, or accept
that.

Then we will go to the yellow highlighted versions but
you can't really deal with the yellow highlighted
versions without looking at the group's
recommendation.
Because the yellow highlighted version as Thom
Snelling mentioned only takes -- only identifies this
as an area of, quote, conflict.
Then we have to go to the group's recommendation,
which are in blue and red, page by page.
And that's all I was going to do was March through the
group's recommendation item by item and vote item by
item on a straw vote.
>>MARY MULHERN: I think there are a few things on this
most recent document we got today from the
preservation community but I have not necessarily
highlighted them yet. If we go through the yellow and
miss something, then maybe go back.
>> Housekeeping item, the Planning Commission needs to
get on the record.
>>GWEN MILLER: Planning Commission.
>>> Lindsey Mineer with the Planning Commission.
On March 12, 2007 the Planning Commission did review

the amendment to the architectural review commission
and found the amendment consistent with the City of
Tampa comprehensive plan.
>>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: If I could just March through.
But I'm going to suggest that we accept staff
recommendation on the two registered architects issue.
And it's legal's recommendation.
I hear their legal concern and I think it's
legitimate.
On that one I am going to move that we leave the staff
one alone and make it --
>> Second.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Everybody can make their best
effort to find architects to serve on this.
But if it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: With the interest in moving things
along, I'll support that.
But I'll tell you that council makes some of these
recommendations and I'm sure we can find some
architects.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.

>>THOMAS SCOTT: In terms of some of these appointments
anyway, we get a chance to have opportunity to make
sure they are there.
You have, what, four.
So you have opportunity.
3 and 1.
So you have opportunity to make sure it happens.
>> Call the question.
(Motion carried).
>>MARY MULHERN: No.
>> On page 2 tracking the group's recommendation for
simplicity in the blue.
And this is the one that's a fairly significant one.
This basically says with the administrator has the
ability to review and make recommendations to us about
rezonings and land use changes in the historic
districts.
That, I believe, is significant change from the
current code, the current code basically says that the
board itself reviews the rezoning. And I'm going to
give you all an example or two.
The one Bayshore project -- Linda, is that correct?

The one Bayshore project, I think at least part of
that project came, had an exhaustive review by the
board, A.R.C. board, and then they did a lot of work,
and this goes to what your concern is, Tom.
They did a lot of leg work in terms of windows and
then the other one apparently going on right now, Old
Hyde Park Village. The Old Hyde Park Village changes
which is a major, major change, goes through the
A.R.C. board before it comes to us and they are giving
it a lot of massage before it comes to us.
I like their change.
I think -- I mean I like the way they have put it
which is to leave it in the board's hands and not
delegate that discussion.
That would be my motion.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>> That specifically is 217 -- 27-213-A-2 to go with
the group's change.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me go back to legal, and address
that, why then you made the change?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Or is it a legal question?

>>REBECCA KERT: It's kind of a legal and policy
question.
I don't believe it's actually legally mandated but is
done by staff to. Do it that way would be consistent
with how you do other recommendations, in rezoning you
have a staff do that recommendation, but this is a
policy decision.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: So my question for continuity in terms
of consistency, it would be consistent with your
zoning policy now, is what you are saying.
>>> Yes.
It would be a change from how the A.R.C. handles it
but consistent with how you handle your other staff
recommendation in the rezoning process.
They don't go before other boards or committees.
>> So it would be consistent.
I heard what you sed say.
So is the opportunity, though, for the A.R.C. to
review that with staff and allow staff to make a
recommendation to City Council?
>>> The way it's proposed, the A.R.C. would review it
after the rezoning. The A.R.C. commission would

review it, after the zoning has been in place they
would review for certificate of appropriateness
focusing on the design guidelines, design standards,
and the architectural features.
And we actually added language in the section on new
construction to clarify that if the design standards
were more restrictive, then zoning approval, then the
A.R.C. is allowed to be more restrictive and
consistent with design guidelines.
So that's how we have a tendency to address any
problems with the A.R.C. not seeing it before the
zoning process.
>>MARY MULHERN: As far as it being consistent with the
other zonings, the point this is not the same as
another zoning, it's a historic district, and the
architectural review commission input is going to be
important.
So I think that's the difference.
It may be consistent.
But the whole point of this is that it's not the same
thing.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the point of that also is what

is a standard test or legal challenge in court that
you have two different systems going on.
Legal.
When you deal with zoning, the court is going to look
at, you know, what's there.
And is there a discriminatory practice of one versus
the other?
>>> We like to have the record as clean as possible
when it goes before if there's a challenge to the
zoning.
Again I don't see too much -- to the policy, I think
people, when something is very politically charged,
when are you going to get your most straightforward,
professional recommendation?
And I think that's a policy decision.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
floor.
All in favor of the motion say Aye.
Opposed, Nay.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: As fast as possible down to the
bottom of page two, what is this one?
Somebody help me.

>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It was a variance issue brought up
in the blue version.
Additional this is the additional zoning criteria.
Okay.
So as to all the blue at the bottom of page 2 and then
continuing through the middle of page 3, the variance,
changing the variance criteria, I think staff actually
seemed to be pretty okay with it.
>>> We'll work that won out.
>> It may not be exactly this but we'll direct staff
to take extensively this language or something similar
and come back.
And I'll move that.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>THOMAS SCOTT: So this is the one they will take back
and work on and massage and bring it back.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>> Bottom of page 3.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: May I help?
This is the one where the architectural review group

suggested that the staff not decide whether it could
come back and just be reviewed by staff but that it be
triggered back to the A.R.C.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: You want to do that one?
I'm okay with the staff approach on this one.
I think the staff -- it is consistent with the way it
is in zoning, that basically if the A.R.C. dense a
project they have to come back 12 months later.
If the applicant wants to come back to the
administrator and say "I've got something that's
substantially different," you know, and then the
administrator will make that decision and see if he
wants to process it.
And I think that's okay.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was 27-214-D.
Go with the city.
The next page, top of page 4.
27-215.
That is whether or not there should be electronic
submission.

Seems like we should get staff to work with the group
a little more on this issue, and try and figure out a
way to go with optional electronic.
>>> I would be very much in favor of.
I can work with that.
>> I agree.
>> So I'll just move that for purposes of moving.
27-215.
We'll just move that the administration will work with
the group to try and come up with some common ground
on that one.
>>MARY MULHERN: Just to be consistent, if we do that
for A.R.C. items, isn't it something we should look at
for variance and rezonings and everything else?
>>THOM SNELLING: That general theme we can start to
craft that kind of a thing.
Absolutely.
>> And I'll agree with that.
That's progress.
And the thing of it is, we talk about moving to the
big time.
This is the big time.

We are moving into computer and technology, that we
should have the capability, not make it mandatory but
it should be available that persons can do that.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: The next one that starts at the
bottom of page 4 and continues on through the middle
of page 5.
My motion is to agree with the group, except, with one
exception.
On the demolition of noncontributing structures, I
fully agree with Ms. Kert and her analysis on that.
I didn't realize some of the things that she explained
to us a minute ago.
So demolition, contributing structures, needs to stay
the way it is and just be an administrative task.
Because the board -- you can take it to the board and
what's the board going to do?
The board can't do anything so it's kind of a
ridiculous part of it.
So my motion would to be accept all the changes that
they have there, except for the -- where they struck

provision 2-C, and also provision 1-B on the
demolition of noncontributing structures.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to speak to the
demolition issue real quickly.
What we need and what we heard from the group, we need
better maps that are more accurate.
That's where the problem lies.
So therefore, what we need to do is come up with a
time to have the staff have better base maps because
the ones now have maybe a 15% error rate.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I heard the word demolition this
morning quite often.
How many have applied for demolition, and how many
have been granted, and how many have been --
>>> In the historic district?
>> Just ballpark?
>>> Good question.
>>> Architectural review commission.
Talking about contributing or noncontributing
structures?

>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, talking about non.
>>> Noncontributing structures?
The request for demolition of noncontributing
structures are accessory structures, primarily
garages.
And really, homes or structures built after World War
II.
An absolute number, about 5 to 15.
They are noncontributing structures.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So how many have applied?
>> 16.
I think recently we found one that -- if we do the
research, we found that initially indicated it was
noncontributing, that we did research and checked the
historic preservation and it was a contributing
structure.
So we found one, research methods.
And that's what attorney Kerr was stating, that she
wants to quantify.
We have essentially been doing it voluntarily. It's
not in the ordinance.
And one is to be codified.

So that irregardless of who is there, that process
goes -- we do a three-part checking.
The map, our internal site files, and the State of
Florida site files.
>>MARY MULHERN: Is that written into -- I'm kind of
losing track.
>>> It would be written in.
>> It's written into the code but you are going to
determine that when someone asks the staff.
>>> Yes.
We do that.
We do it now but now it will be in the code, be
codified.
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
floor.
(Motion carried)
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's it for the A.R.C.
>>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to make sure that the
signage posting that we heard what's being proposed is
a pain in the neck for people who are just getting CA.
And I think we should make it easier on folks that --
the motion is for a CA that they just post a sign.

>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>> One last question, on the very first page where we
had talked about any changes, to not extend the time
frame, and we are not extending the time frame.
Just kind of address everything.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: So all those changes in connection,
to direct staff to come back in two weeks with a first
reading?
>> Second.
>> What do you want, three weeks?
In three weeks.
>> Two?
Second.
>>GWEN MILLER: Three weeks?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Two weeks.
My motion is two weeks.
Five weeks?
>>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, may ski for a clarification?
Is it your intention to have this put where it is now,
under ordinances for first reading, and then not take
additional comment and just have it set for first

reading, is your direction consistent with W this and
then bring it back for second reading?
>>GWEN MILLER: I think so, yes.
How many weeks do you really need?
>> Two weeks is good.
>>GWEN MILLER: All right two. Weeks.
Motion and second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, we break for lunch.
I was going to say that we are not going to item
number 7 till after lunch.
But we will have committee reports.
We can do those in four minutes.
We will go to our committees reports.
Parks and recreation.
>> Move resolutions 8 through 11.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Public works, Mr. Charlie Miranda.
>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move item number 12.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).

>>GWEN MILLER: Finance Committee, Mr. John Dingfelder.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move items 13 through 19.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Building and zoning, Mr. Joseph
Caetano.
>>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone)
>>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
(Motion carried)
Transportation, Mary Mulhern.
>>MARY MULHERN: I move item number 30 through 32.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll set items 33 through 35.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Substitute on 33.
>>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, substitute on 33.
>> Second.
(Motion carried).
>>GWEN MILLER: Now we will go into recess until 1:30.

(The meeting recessed at 11:58 a.m.)



TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
May 3, 2007
1:30 p.m.

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.


>>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called back to
order.
01:37:46 Roll call.
01:37:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
01:37:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
01:37:48 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Here.
01:37:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
01:37:53 We're going to start with item number 41, because it's
01:37:55 going to be a continuance, so is someone here for 41?
01:38:04 >> Barbara Lynch, Land Development Coordination.
01:38:07 The petitioner did send an e-mail to council

01:38:07 requesting a continuance to July 19th at 10 a.m.
01:38:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved, Madam Chair.
01:38:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Need a motion and second.
01:38:14 >>THE CLERK: You need to open your public hearing.
01:38:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
01:38:20 All in favor, aye.
01:38:20 [Motion Carried]
01:38:21 We have a motion to continue to July the 19th, all
01:38:24 in favor, aye.
01:38:25 Opposed, nay.
01:38:26 [Motion Carried]
01:38:26 Now we go back to item number 7.
01:38:34 >>DAVID SMITH: Good afternoon, David Smith, City
01:38:38 Attorney.
01:38:39 I was going to try to provide you a little background
01:38:42 just to provide a context, give everybody an
01:38:46 opportunity to get adjusted from lunch.
01:38:49 So let me go ahead and start.
01:38:53 As those of you who have been here for a long time
01:38:58 know, this has been in front of City Council for a
01:39:00 while.
01:39:00 There was a previous direction by Council pursuant to

01:39:01 5-2 vote that we evaluate whether we can do an opt-out
01:39:05 provision.
01:39:06 We came back to you with the suggestion that we were
01:39:08 concerned that opt-out in and of itself could
01:39:11 complicate and compromise the ability to keep the
01:39:13 ordinance as effective as it should be.
01:39:15 We came up with an alternative approach, if you will,
01:39:19 a surrogate approach, by looking at the hardship
01:39:24 criteria and adding owner consent as a factor to be
01:39:28 considered prior to designating.
01:39:31 Your previous ordinance simply recited criteria.
01:39:34 It either met the criteria and was designated or it
01:39:37 did not.
01:39:37 There was little or no evaluation and owner consent
01:39:42 was irrelevant.
01:39:46 That's what we did.
01:39:46 That ordinance went to the Planning Commission.
01:39:48 They approved it as consistent.
01:39:50 I think Lindsey Mineer is here.
01:39:54 She'll tell you that herself.
01:39:55 It went to HPC, as is required by ordinance.
01:39:59 They had some changes they wanted to make.

01:40:02 And those issues were outstanding at the time we were
01:40:06 last down here, which was May 15th in front of the
01:40:09 prior Council.
01:40:10 HPC had -- March 15th.
01:40:14 I have an "M" problem lately.
01:40:16 Everything is May rather than March.
01:40:17 The three changes -- actually, I think there were
01:40:19 four, that HPC wanted were as follows: One, they
01:40:23 wanted to make sure that the commission member
01:40:25 requirements be the same for A.R.C. as HPC; two, they
01:40:30 wanted kind of a technical glitch to reiterate that
01:40:34 the application in 27231-4-C says it's for landmarks,
01:40:41 landmark sites and multiple properties.
01:40:43 We thought that was redundant but didn't cause a
01:40:46 problem.
01:40:46 So that change was made.
01:40:47 The third was demolition by neglect and how to treat
01:40:51 demolition by neglect should be treated in the
01:40:54 ordinance.
01:40:54 And one of the proposals was that we possibly talk to
01:40:57 code, and if we have code enforcement issues, that
01:40:59 would be evidence, per se, of neglect.

01:41:02 The last was economic hardship.
01:41:05 They wanted to move some of the criteria from optional
01:41:07 to mandatory.
01:41:09 All of those changes were made.
01:41:12 They were incorporated in a version of the ordinance
01:41:14 dated March 20, 2007.
01:41:18 It was distributed to the various participants who
01:41:21 have been sharing with us their views on this
01:41:25 ordinance for quite a while.
01:41:28 It was distributed to the new Council on April 7th.
01:41:32 With the HPC changes, since they were relatively
01:41:34 minor, we do not have to reinstitute the process.
01:41:37 We do not have to go back through the Planning
01:41:39 Commission.
01:41:40 And that's an important thing to consider.
01:41:44 At the March -- yes, March 15th hearing, I believe
01:41:48 Ms. Saul-Sena indicated that we are close.
01:41:51 I think that was a fair characterization.
01:41:57 The historic preservationist gave us a rewrite of the
01:42:02 ordinance as they saw it.
01:42:03 I think we received that April 16th.
01:42:06 I don't want to overstate it, but by the same time,

01:42:09 the analysis showed 195 changes.
01:42:12 In fairness, though, that analysis sort of doubles the
01:42:15 changes.
01:42:16 It's probably more like a hundred changes.
01:42:18 So we had another special discussion, actually several
01:42:21 discussions, several meetings and several telephone
01:42:24 conference calls.
01:42:25 We started to discuss items that were not previously
01:42:27 at issue.
01:42:28 It got to be a little unwieldy, but it was a good,
01:42:33 interesting, and lively exchange of ideas.
01:42:35 One thing I would caution you against, it's important
01:42:38 that we try to keep the changes within the scope of
01:42:40 that which has previously been approved by HPC or we
01:42:43 have to, excuse me, the Planning Commission, or we'll
01:42:46 have to start that process all over again.
01:42:49 I think Ms. Saul-Sena characterized the issues
01:42:54 outstanding to time as staff involvement versus board.
01:42:56 You really addressed that issue at the A.R.C.
01:42:58 That was primarily an A.R.C. issue.
01:43:00 The other one was whether we use the undue burden as
01:43:05 the test.

01:43:07 Pursuant to the discussions, there seems to be a
01:43:11 substantial amount of common ground with respect to
01:43:14 what we're trying to accomplish, but less certainty
01:43:19 about how we've gotten there and whether we're there.
01:43:24 Let me try to elaborate on that.
01:43:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do you have a document to give us?
01:43:31 >>DAVID SMITH: There were two documents I'm really
01:43:33 looking at.
01:43:34 One is the one that Gus Paris did, which you have.
01:43:37 You used it last time.
01:43:38 The other one was a document that was prepared by
01:43:41 Donna Wysong that was distributed to you I believe on
01:43:44 April 30th.
01:43:45 It kind of summarizes the differences.
01:43:48 If I could quickly go through those.
01:43:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excuse me.
01:43:53 I don't have that.
01:43:54 I have the ordinance itself, but I don't have like an
01:44:00 executive summary kind of thing.
01:44:01 If you could make that available, I think that would
01:44:03 help.
01:44:04 >>DAVID SMITH: I think we sent it by e-mail.

01:44:06 We'll see if we can get more copies.
01:44:08 I'll walk you through it.
01:44:09 None of these will surprise you.
01:44:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You mean the actual ordinance
01:44:13 itself?
01:44:13 >>DAVID SMITH: The actual ordinance you have.
01:44:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I've read it, but we need it again.
01:44:18 We always need it again.
01:44:29 >>DAVID SMITH: Let me try to walk you through a couple
01:44:31 of things while we are getting that.
01:44:33 I think we need the Council to make a couple of calls,
01:44:36 couple of decisions.
01:44:36 And based upon the decisions Council makes, we can go
01:44:39 back in for a tweaking or a rewriting, depending on
01:44:44 what your decisions are.
01:44:46 After that decision and after that rewrite, which we
01:44:49 think we can accomplish pretty quickly, we are of the
01:44:53 opinion that we could be ready for another first
01:44:56 reading in two weeks just like you have with A.R.C.
01:44:59 So let me tell you what the issues are and where we
01:45:05 need you to make a call, make a decision.
01:45:09 Some of these are relatively minor, and some of them

01:45:14 are more significant.
01:45:15 The first issue, and here I'm looking at Gus Paris'
01:45:19 memorandum that unfortunately I didn't get it until
01:45:23 yesterday at 4:00.
01:45:25 They, like we, have been working on this.
01:45:27 I started again at 3:15 this morning.
01:45:30 Everybody, I think, is working in good faith to try to
01:45:33 get something done.
01:45:33 It just isn't easy.
01:45:35 Also, in fairness to the preservation advocates, there
01:45:39 are a variety of opinions among them.
01:45:42 Some of them are more easily satisfied with certain
01:45:46 things and others are not.
01:45:48 So you may have to hear from them.
01:45:50 I think you're going to hear a variety of opinions in
01:45:53 that regard.
01:45:54 Let me tell you what Gus is -- has summarized the
01:46:00 issues I think fairly accurately.
01:46:02 The first is economic hardship.
01:46:03 Your current ordinance allows for the possibility of
01:46:06 an applicant, a property owner, seeking economic
01:46:10 hardship at the front end when the property is

01:46:13 identified for potential designation.
01:46:15 The property owner can make a showing of economic
01:46:18 hardship and not be designated.
01:46:20 That's your current ordinance.
01:46:22 Now, we're recommending changing some of the
01:46:24 provisions and a little bit of the process.
01:46:29 What I believe is the consensus of historic
01:46:32 conservationists is they don't think that should be
01:46:34 available up front.
01:46:37 We think it should be for a couple of reasons.
01:46:40 One is what we currently have and, two, it does
01:46:43 provide us a fair amount of protection.
01:46:45 And three -- I guess we have three reasons -- it's
01:46:47 almost never been used.
01:46:49 It's a pretty hard burden, but because it's there, a
01:46:54 property owner has the opportunity to establish or
01:46:57 attempt to establish that an economic hardship is
01:47:00 created by virtue of the designation itself.
01:47:03 That's not an easy burden to meet.
01:47:06 But because it's there, we have fairly good protection
01:47:11 with respect to the property owner's participation in
01:47:13 this process.

01:47:16 So we believe that not only a good policy, it's a good
01:47:22 legal position to maintain, and it's not one that we
01:47:26 believe has much consequences for the policies you're
01:47:29 intending to accomplish with this ordinance.
01:47:31 Second is, there are some issues about how the
01:47:38 economic hardship application, what it should include.
01:47:41 And I think we can work that out.
01:47:42 That's not an issue.
01:47:44 I think the only difference that I recall that we had
01:47:46 was there was some discussion about whether the
01:47:48 testimony should only be from an expert.
01:47:51 And the reason why I did not limit it to an expert is
01:47:54 that eminent domain proceedings, for example, a
01:47:58 property owner is always deemed to be credible with
01:48:01 regard to his or her view of the property and is
01:48:03 entitled to testify as such.
01:48:06 I didn't think we wanted to have a more egregious
01:48:09 standard than that.
01:48:10 And I don't think the preservationist did see either,
01:48:12 so I think we can solve that problem.
01:48:14 So I don't really had I that will be a sticking point.
01:48:19 The test is probably -- well, let me go to two other

01:48:23 easier ones, and then we'll come back to the test.
01:48:26 There's a desire on the part of the preservation
01:48:29 advocates that we revisit the interstate historic
01:48:31 preservation trust fund.
01:48:33 We don't have a problem with that.
01:48:35 That's mostly a policy issue, but that will require a
01:48:40 renegotiation of our memorandum of agreement with
01:48:43 F.D.O.T.
01:48:44 We don't know whether F.D.O.T. will do that.
01:48:47 Some people think they will; some think they won't.
01:48:50 We see that as a separate issue and really shouldn't
01:48:52 be tied at this juncture to the ordinance.
01:48:54 That's something we're certainly in favor of trying to
01:48:56 pursue.
01:48:58 The other issue is to enact transfer of development
01:49:01 rights.
01:49:02 Once again, we agree, we being staff that has
01:49:07 participated in this in the Legal Department.
01:49:09 As a matter of fact, Beth Johnson was generous enough
01:49:11 to provide us some information on TDRs quite a while
01:49:16 ago.
01:49:16 I know that we're looking at some of the ordinances.

01:49:19 There's one in Hillsborough County.
01:49:20 I know that David Mechanik recently crafted one for
01:49:23 Charlotte County.
01:49:24 Took him about six months.
01:49:26 The problem with TDRs and where the difference is,
01:49:28 we believe that should not be a condition precedent to
01:49:31 moving forward with the ordinance now.
01:49:32 And the reason is, you need to enact TDRs.
01:49:36 And you need to enact them in a very comprehensive
01:49:39 way.
01:49:39 You need to look at the impact of your comprehensive
01:49:42 plan, because if we're going to allow transfer of
01:49:45 development rights at a density different than your
01:49:48 comp plan, we need to say that in the comp plan.
01:49:50 Otherwise, we're going to run afoul of the comp plan,
01:49:53 and it will be illegal.
01:49:55 We can nonetheless proceed on an ordinance.
01:49:58 Typically you do your comp plan changes in your
01:50:00 implementing LDRs.
01:50:02 We can proceed on the ordinance anyway to know how it
01:50:05 will work and inform the comp plan.
01:50:07 Sort of a reverse process.

01:50:09 But in order for this to be meaningful, the point is
01:50:11 to try to provide the incentives that take away the
01:50:14 perception that there isn't enough incentive to
01:50:17 preserve your property, if it's historic.
01:50:20 TDRs allow for the provision of significant
01:50:23 incentives.
01:50:24 But, in order for it to be real, you need to have a
01:50:27 real market, meaning there has to be a place to which
01:50:30 you can transfer those development rights.
01:50:32 If I'm a property owner and you let me transfer my
01:50:35 development rights but nobody wants to buy them and
01:50:38 there's nowhere to where I can transfer them, they are
01:50:41 really meaningless.
01:50:42 So we want to make sure this is a real remedy and a
01:50:46 real measure.
01:50:46 And that's going to be a little complicated.
01:50:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just in regard to TDRs, I think
01:50:55 it's good -- I think it's mandatory that we do look at
01:50:59 that.
01:50:59 I also wonder while we're looking at that, maybe is it
01:51:05 also a possibility or are you already looking at other
01:51:09 incentives not necessarily transferring them off-site,

01:51:12 but I think we should look at other incentives
01:51:15 on-site.
01:51:16 You know, in terms of -- unless that was the intent of
01:51:19 the TDR.
01:51:21 I thought TDRs usually -- you know, well, we're
01:51:24 going to regulate you here and do something to you
01:51:26 here, but you can take those TDR rights and then
01:51:30 transfer them off-site to a different property.
01:51:33 >> You can, but you can also create a market where you
01:51:35 can literally sell them.
01:51:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
01:51:37 >>DAVID SMITH: You have TDRs, I need more density,
01:51:40 you can sell it to me.
01:51:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think that's a good concept but I
01:51:44 also think we can create incentives on the site in
01:51:47 terms of, you know, increased density or intensity or
01:51:51 maybe a contraction of parking requirements or other
01:51:54 things that might help some of these types of
01:51:58 properties.
01:51:59 And we could just look at those types of incentives in
01:52:01 addition to the TDR option.
01:52:04 >>DAVID SMITH: That's quite possible.

01:52:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sort of create a bundle of
01:52:09 incentives.
01:52:09 That way it will give people more incentive to go
01:52:11 along with the problem and not feel like they have to
01:52:13 get out of the program.
01:52:14 >>DAVID SMITH: I understand the concept, and that will
01:52:16 probably be -- it may be district specific.
01:52:20 I'm not sure what we'll do with an isolated landmark
01:52:24 but it may depend on where it is located.
01:52:27 For example, West Tampa, we're looking at easing
01:52:29 parking restrictions because of the anomaly of its
01:52:32 buildout.
01:52:33 Those are certainly things that can be looked at.
01:52:35 But as you can tell, they are going to vary in
01:52:37 different parts of the city.
01:52:39 Anyway --
01:52:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
01:52:42 I'm making plans to bring Don Rypkema, a nationally
01:52:47 recognized expert in economic incentives for
01:52:49 preservation to Tampa.
01:52:50 I called him this week.
01:52:53 He's most available, soonest available in mid July.

01:52:56 So I'm going to make plans on a day that's convenient
01:53:00 for Council, all the board, everybody I can think of
01:53:02 to come here and share with us different opportunities
01:53:05 we might have for creating economic advantages for
01:53:08 preservation.
01:53:09 >>DAVID SMITH: Great.
01:53:10 Always get the input wherever we can.
01:53:15 If you have the draft of the memo prepared by
01:53:18 Ms. Wysong before you, what I would like to do is walk
01:53:21 through these areas very briefly.
01:53:23 That will kind of complete our presentation, and we'll
01:53:26 hear from the advocates for historic preservation,
01:53:31 make sure I know all of the things they are looking
01:53:33 for.
01:53:33 As I say, it's been a moving target of sorts, and I
01:53:39 realize they have difficulties sometimes reaching a
01:53:41 consensus.
01:53:42 Okay.
01:53:43 If you look at the first page, it says "category one,"
01:53:48 these are the items on which we agree.
01:53:50 Global changes throughout the ordinance.
01:53:52 The term "historic conservation overlay district" in

01:53:56 multiple property designations should be added to
01:53:58 certain sections where applicable.
01:54:00 Not a problem.
01:54:02 Number two, under that same category, secretary of
01:54:04 interior standards is a defined term, so excess
01:54:09 verbiage should be deleted throughout.
01:54:11 Again, that's not a problem.
01:54:13 The third comment under that rubric, cross-references
01:54:15 to the national register criteria should be removed in
01:54:18 the unlikely event that any of the national registered
01:54:22 criteria are modified, there would be internally
01:54:25 inconsistent criteria in the code.
01:54:27 That's fine.
01:54:29 It makes good sense.
01:54:31 The next one, additional criteria, add language to
01:54:35 clarify that economic hardship can only be considered
01:54:38 if timely applied for in accordance with the stated
01:54:41 criteria.
01:54:41 Understood.
01:54:42 That should be stated.
01:54:44 The next one, economic hardship.
01:54:47 This is a comment that I don't believe is from the

01:54:51 preservation advocates.
01:54:52 I think this may have been from one of those who in
01:54:54 the past represented property owners.
01:54:57 The argument essentially was, we need a better
01:54:59 understanding of what constitutes economic hardship.
01:55:01 The argument is essentially for bright line tests.
01:55:06 Bright line tests are a little hard in this area.
01:55:09 For example, if after renovation you had 75% of the
01:55:13 value of your property you had before, that would be
01:55:16 a, per se, economic hardship.
01:55:18 We think you really need to have the criteria, and we
01:55:22 see the information that address the criteria at least
01:55:25 at this juncture.
01:55:26 I don't know that we have agreement on what that
01:55:29 numeric approach should be.
01:55:31 We do agree, a standard is desirable, but it really
01:55:35 should be a standard and we're recommending in here
01:55:38 the inordinate burden standard.
01:55:40 That's the standard contained in Florida statutes
01:55:42 chapter 70.
01:55:43 This is one of the areas of disagreement.
01:55:47 The standard advocated by the historic

01:55:51 preservationists is essentially what I call the taking
01:55:56 standard.
01:55:56 It does look like now it's been modified to attempt to
01:55:57 address some of the inordinate burden standard.
01:56:00 And I do think from a conversation I had with
01:56:03 Ms. Locket before lunch, we should be able to solve
01:56:07 that problem.
01:56:08 What I mean by that, why don't we incorporate by
01:56:10 reference the statute this comes from.
01:56:13 Her preference is take the statute and quote it at
01:56:15 greater length in terms of defining what an inordinate
01:56:19 burden is.
01:56:19 So I think we can get there so we have clarity with
01:56:22 regard to what the standard is.
01:56:23 Category two says these are areas where we disagree.
01:56:26 I'm not sure that's entirely true in every instance,
01:56:29 but let's go through them briefly.
01:56:31 This is about the members of HPC shall not sit as
01:56:35 officers or board members of local preservation
01:56:37 related organizations.
01:56:38 If I'm not mistaken, I thought in our discussion by
01:56:41 phone, April 16th or a recent, maybe it was last

01:56:47 week, actually, April 30th, that this approach was
01:56:51 acceptable at least to those we were speaking to on
01:56:54 the phone from the preservation community.
01:56:56 And the point there is obviously, we just want to
01:56:59 avoid inherent conflict of interest.
01:57:02 It's just the local organizations that cannot be
01:57:05 represented, and it's only as officers.
01:57:07 Because obviously they are advocates for a certain
01:57:11 position.
01:57:11 On the board, they need to be quasi-judicial.
01:57:14 The next comment is really, I think, a
01:57:17 misunderstanding of the language.
01:57:19 There's the perception that by using the term
01:57:21 "received by HPC," it cannot be initiated by HPC
01:57:27 officers or staff.
01:57:28 And that is not the intent, and we can address that by
01:57:31 simply saying including but not limited to HPC staff.
01:57:37 It's not intended to limit that prospect.
01:57:39 And that's essentially the next argument, too, when it
01:57:42 says a person or entity wishes to designate a
01:57:45 landmark, there was the concern that once again, this
01:57:48 was not broad enough so that HPC administrative staff

01:57:52 could not be involved in initiation and certainly it
01:57:54 is intended that they will be.
01:57:56 If we didn't, then it would only be initiated
01:57:59 presumably by the property owner and that's too akin
01:58:02 to the opt-out.
01:58:03 Yes, it's intended professional staff will be able to
01:58:06 initiate these nominations.
01:58:07 Economic hardship then is one of the areas of sticking
01:58:10 point, which is at the bottom of that page.
01:58:13 The question is whether, as I say, you want to provide
01:58:16 that opportunity up front or not.
01:58:18 The previous Council, well, actually, the previous
01:58:21 ordinance had it in there and previous Council's
01:58:23 direction was that we provide the property owner that
01:58:25 opportunity.
01:58:27 The application form, you know, the weight of the
01:58:30 evidence, I think all of those are capable of being
01:58:32 worked out.
01:58:33 We just want to make sure the evidence that comes
01:58:35 before you is reliable, you have the ability to weigh
01:58:37 it.
01:58:38 You make the determination.

01:58:39 Previously, you really had very little if any say in
01:58:42 the process when it came to you.
01:58:46 I think that really covers the next two points on
01:58:49 economic hardship.
01:58:50 It really depends on the application in the criteria.
01:58:53 Now, the next issue here was whether the property was
01:58:56 allowed to fall into a state of disrepair.
01:58:59 This is one of the things that we put in the economic
01:59:02 hardship.
01:59:03 Meaning, if you own the property and you neglected it
01:59:05 and now you're arguing it's going to be so expensive
01:59:07 to fix it because you haven't done anything to it for
01:59:10 ten years, unh-unh.
01:59:11 Well, I won't say unh-unh.
01:59:13 You have the right to consider that as a factor.
01:59:15 Now, the concern of the preservationists was, well,
01:59:18 it's not just the current owner.
01:59:22 It's a good point, but we're limited in how far we can
01:59:24 go.
01:59:24 So what we're proposing is we take that provision and
01:59:28 say the current owner, any affiliates, you know,
01:59:31 relatives, those to whom we can reasonably attribute

01:59:36 succession to, then it's tacked on.
01:59:38 If I own it in Fly-by-Night, Inc. for ten years and
01:59:44 transfer it to historic preservation by Night, Inc.,
01:59:47 and I come to you as that new entity, no, you can tack
01:59:48 it back at the principal affiliated agencies,
01:59:51 basically.
01:59:51 So we think we can address that issue.
01:59:53 I can't go back and get someone legitimately who
01:59:57 transferred it to me a long time ago, or not even a
02:00:00 long time ago.
02:00:04 This next issue was appealed from the decision of the
02:00:07 HPC.
02:00:10 Let me just read what it says.
02:00:12 It says, the recommendations covered by this section
02:00:14 are often based on materials that are open to
02:00:16 interpretation and at times are less than completely
02:00:19 reliable.
02:00:20 The Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's dates for
02:00:23 when structures were built is an example.
02:00:26 Many of these recommendations have to be made without
02:00:28 the benefit of in-depth and complete research.
02:00:30 It would be sensible to allow an appeal on the basis

02:00:34 of misinformation, insufficient information, and
02:00:36 questions of interpretation. This is appeals from
02:00:39 decisions of the HPC.
02:00:40 I guess the point here was, it was to be -- it was to
02:00:44 include recommendations as well as actual decisions.
02:00:55 Have we resolved this issue or is it still
02:00:58 outstanding?
02:01:02 Not yet resolved.
02:01:05 >> [not speaking into microphone]
02:01:08 >>DAVID SMITH: Your point is, there's no appealable
02:01:10 decision.
02:01:11 >> Right.
02:01:12 >>DAVID SMITH: Almost like an administrative
02:01:13 determination.
02:01:14 >> Right.
02:01:16 >>DAVID SMITH: Okay.
02:01:17 I guess our recommendation is, if you don't have a
02:01:19 final decision to appeal, there shouldn't be an
02:01:21 appeal.
02:01:22 Lastly, I think you have the two provisions on here
02:01:25 that deals with economic hardship.
02:01:27 It deals with the definition of it.

02:01:29 Again, it comes down to the inordinate burden versus
02:01:32 the taking test.
02:01:34 And then are various changes to the definitions they
02:01:39 are recommending, which is identified on the bottom of
02:01:41 that page kind of midway through.
02:01:43 You know, I think those are mostly wordsmithing issues
02:01:48 that we can address, as long as they are not
02:01:49 substantive.
02:01:50 Now, there are some policy issues.
02:01:51 I think this is your last page or second to last page.
02:01:56 It's the last page of the summary, in any event.
02:01:58 And this deals with the HPC and HPC staff.
02:02:04 And there's a desire to see a citywide historic
02:02:08 preservation plan.
02:02:10 Don't have a problem with that.
02:02:12 That's a policy decision that needs to be made.
02:02:15 Resources need to be dedicated to it.
02:02:16 We think that's not relevant to the ordinance.
02:02:18 You know, that's a separate decision and a separate
02:02:23 process.
02:02:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just going back to 27523 on the
02:02:29 definition of economic hardship and the Bert Harris

02:02:32 analysis and that sort of thing, I'm reading your
02:02:42 analysis here.
02:02:42 And I'm just wondering, it doesn't seem to me that --
02:02:45 it seems to me that in the context of our rezonings,
02:02:49 which is the most familiar context that we have, we
02:02:51 don't necessarily go into this, you know, maybe it's
02:02:56 better not to have a definition at all in terms of
02:03:00 inordinate burden or the, you know, reasonable
02:03:04 beneficial use.
02:03:06 And just leave it a little more open.
02:03:12 Because, I don't know.
02:03:14 >>DAVID SMITH: I understand what you're saying.
02:03:16 You should hear from a variety of people.
02:03:18 There's going to be some comment on both sides of the
02:03:21 issue.
02:03:22 We're hearing from people that say the problem we have
02:03:24 in our ordinance is no one can figure out how they
02:03:27 comply or not.
02:03:28 We don't even know what we have to show.
02:03:31 So there are people who want to have a clear standard
02:03:34 as to what constitutes an economic hardship.
02:03:37 And there are others that would like to keep it

02:03:39 open-ended.
02:03:41 Generally speaking, when we draft an ordinance, we do
02:03:43 want to try to provide as much guidance as possible.
02:03:46 I realize how difficult it is to give a precise
02:03:48 standard.
02:03:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I mean, even looking at the
02:03:51 variance standards, which we've played with in the
02:03:54 last year or so, variance standards, you've got five
02:03:57 standards.
02:03:58 You know, does it meet one or several of those five
02:04:02 standards.
02:04:03 And then it sort of goes into the mix of the
02:04:06 quasi-judicial process.
02:04:09 And they don't necessarily, you know, go further than
02:04:12 that in terms.
02:04:13 I mean, you give them the five standards.
02:04:15 You give them the five criteria.
02:04:17 And it appears to me under your economic hardship, you
02:04:20 could give them the various factors they should look
02:04:23 at but at some point in time leave it up to them
02:04:28 doesn't meet those factors in order to meet economic
02:04:30 hardship and leave it at that as opposed to trying to

02:04:32 take it one step further and go into a body of case
02:04:35 law about reasonable and beneficial use or inordinate
02:04:39 burden.
02:04:39 Just something to think about.
02:04:41 >>DAVID SMITH: Gotcha.
02:04:43 Anyway, the policy issues created in the citywide
02:04:47 historic preservation plan, that makes sense.
02:04:50 It's a question of resources and time.
02:04:51 The policy issue about transfer of development rights,
02:04:55 our view is, we need to move forward on that, but we
02:04:58 need to not hold the ordinance up until that's
02:05:01 prepared.
02:05:02 And I think that was the last policy issue.
02:05:07 There's some discussion regarding the design
02:05:09 guidelines, but I think those can also be addressed.
02:05:14 But it's not necessary to do in the context of this
02:05:18 ordinance.
02:05:19 Essentially, those are the differences, I believe I've
02:05:22 accurately characterized those.
02:05:26 As I say, it's been a bit of a moving target.
02:05:29 Those here to express themselves can correct any error
02:05:31 in that presentation, and we'll be happy to try to

02:05:35 respond to those things and suggest ways how we can
02:05:37 get to closure.
02:05:38 Any questions before we -- okay, thank you very much.
02:05:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We go to the audience.
02:05:43 Anyone in the public want to speak, you may speak.
02:05:45 If you're going to speak, please get up and line up so
02:05:48 we can move quickly.
02:05:59 >> Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Council members.
02:06:02 My name is Gus Paris.
02:06:06 I hadn't realized until Mr. Smith brought it up that
02:06:09 there were 195 items that we addressed.
02:06:11 I know we spent a lot of time at it.
02:06:13 And we certainly appreciate the effort that everyone
02:06:15 has gone through.
02:06:16 And I think you must all agree that it's astounding
02:06:21 that from 195 items, we're down to three or five or
02:06:24 whatever they are.
02:06:26 That only attests to the hard work of all the people
02:06:31 that are working to make this a better product.
02:06:36 I want to speak on a couple of the items, and then
02:06:40 people that follow will speak on the others.
02:06:46 Our first point was that we think that economic

02:06:49 hardship should only be considered when the owner
02:06:52 wishes to demolish or renovate his property.
02:06:55 And the reason for that is that any other
02:07:00 determination is highly speculative.
02:07:04 When you go to make a determination and the owner is
02:07:08 having to do an economic analysis, he's doing an
02:07:11 economic analysis on unknown conditions, and you're
02:07:14 evaluating on those unknown conditions.
02:07:18 And what -- and whether a project is historic or not
02:07:24 should not stand on economic projections which may or
02:07:28 may not happen.
02:07:29 So what we're saying, that should be pushed off.
02:07:33 They also have the right to bring the economic
02:07:36 hardship question up when it comes before the A.R.C.
02:07:40 That is when the owner is going to make a definite
02:07:43 change in the project, and that is the point when they
02:07:46 can make the economic hardship.
02:07:50 For example, if you're talking about a project early
02:07:53 on, you may not know what you're going to do.
02:07:57 But when you actually are doing a change, you come
02:08:01 before the A.R.C. and say, well, I would like to use
02:08:04 this window instead of this window and these are the

02:08:06 economic reasons why.
02:08:07 And we make the decision at that point.
02:08:11 That seems to be a much better approach rather than
02:08:15 making a judgment about what whether a project is
02:08:21 historic based on speculative, economic projections.
02:08:23 The other thing I would like to say is that we are
02:08:29 very strongly in favor of the transfer of development
02:08:33 rights.
02:08:34 And I think that everyone else is also.
02:08:37 Mr. Smith has indicated that the staff is.
02:08:40 We'd like to see some positive step forward.
02:08:43 We don't want this to fall by the wayside, because
02:08:46 we're making a lot of progress.
02:08:48 I think that everyone can say, look, this is a better
02:08:51 ordinance.
02:08:52 It's more efficient.
02:08:53 Everything is working better, but we also need
02:08:55 economic incentives to the building owners.
02:08:59 And so this is a very strong part of that economic
02:09:03 incentive.
02:09:04 So please, make transfer of development rights a
02:09:08 positive program that you're going to endorse now, and

02:09:11 we understand it will take time to implement, but it
02:09:15 needs to go forward.
02:09:16 Don't let it die and take another six or seven years
02:09:19 to get around to that, because that will hinder all of
02:09:22 the work that we're doing now.
02:09:23 You won't have that incentive, and a building owner
02:09:28 will not have the advantage of that incentive.
02:09:31 Thank you very much.
02:09:32 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
02:09:38 >> Anna Thomas, president of Tampa preservation.
02:09:41 As Mr. Paris has said, we do believe that there are
02:09:46 economic benefits that can be introduced that probably
02:09:51 haven't been as fully explored as they can.
02:09:55 Preservation is economic redevelopment.
02:09:56 I think that's a very important concept.
02:09:59 And we want to enable people to be better stewards of
02:10:02 preservation, make it less onerous for them by
02:10:05 allowing them more incentives than perhaps we
02:10:08 presently have available.
02:10:10 And councilwoman Saul-Sena, thank you very much for
02:10:12 the offer of bringing in Don Rypkema, a noted expert.
02:10:21 Tampa preservation stands ready to help finance

02:10:23 workshops, whatever might be needed.
02:10:25 And Mr. Dingfelder, to your point, it's a personal
02:10:29 belief of mine, we absolutely need to be looking at
02:10:33 more incentives, as I've just said.
02:10:34 And the national trust, historic preservation tells us
02:10:38 there are lots of things that can be done through
02:10:40 rehabilitation tax credits, preservation easements,
02:10:43 property tax abatement, grant and loan program, and
02:10:46 heritage tourism is a very important part of this
02:10:51 city's economic well-being and development where
02:10:55 cities have really started to blend in to one another.
02:10:58 It's kind of hard to tell them apart sometimes,
02:11:00 because they are all taking on that big box kind of
02:11:03 manufacture, Disney-esque look.
02:11:07 Tourists will look to communities that are
02:11:09 distinctive.
02:11:12 They have been able to define themselves by their
02:11:14 cultural heritage.
02:11:15 We are asking for help in this ordinance.
02:11:17 And we are prepared to offer help to ensure that Tampa
02:11:19 enjoys as much viability through heritage tourism as
02:11:23 possible.

02:11:24 Just very quickly as to the economic hardship, I agree
02:11:30 that we want to see -- we want to protect the owner's
02:11:33 right to claim economic hardship, but at a time when
02:11:36 it is appropriate and the cost of such hardship is not
02:11:42 speculative, that it has been spelled out in
02:11:44 materials, dollars, and cents.
02:11:47 Economic hardship should not be based on a use that's
02:11:50 inconsistent with the current zoning.
02:11:53 And I think that it's probably -- and should include
02:11:56 all readily available and relevant information.
02:12:00 And I will conclude my remarks with that.
02:12:02 Thank you for your attention.
02:12:10 >> Elizabeth Johnson, 1819 Richardson place.
02:12:12 I know we're at a different stage with this HPC
02:12:16 ordinance where there's hopefully going to be some
02:12:18 more massaging.
02:12:20 But what I'm concerned about big picture is what have
02:12:23 we really solved here in we have solved some technical
02:12:27 things.
02:12:28 I agree that we're much, much closer, but in
02:12:30 considering the things that are outstanding, please
02:12:33 consider those seriously, because what we've done is,

02:12:37 we've now had owner consent as a factor.
02:12:41 If you were called the preservation community and the
02:12:43 national trust lawyer said that's not a good idea, but
02:12:47 we now have at least as a factor.
02:12:50 That's a big concession from the preservation
02:12:52 community.
02:12:52 And we've looked at the hardship criteria.
02:12:55 Well, in our mind, we're looking at it in a way that
02:12:58 makes it easier than it was before.
02:13:00 So I want to go over those three points very briefly.
02:13:04 And what I'm looking at is a memo that Gus has
02:13:08 provided to all of us.
02:13:10 And I'm going to cover very quickly one, three, and
02:13:14 five in the HPC ordinance issues.
02:13:18 Number one, economic hardship should only be
02:13:20 considered when the owner wishes to demolish or
02:13:24 renovate his property.
02:13:26 Again, it's a rightness issue.
02:13:28 As a constitutional lawyer, I'm very concerned that
02:13:30 we're not trying to decide something in a vacuum.
02:13:34 If you own a piece of property, it's not when it's
02:13:38 designated that's the problem.

02:13:39 It's when the owner goes to do something.
02:13:43 We have had owner after owner in various situations
02:13:45 come up and say, oh, I don't plan to do anything, I
02:13:48 don't plan to sell it.
02:13:49 I'm going to be wonderful about it.
02:13:50 Well, nothing happens with preservation until you go
02:13:54 to do something.
02:13:55 So I believe that having the hardship criteria at the
02:13:59 back end, which is what Betsy Miller and Julia
02:14:02 Miller -- sorry, Betsy Merit and Julia Miller of the
02:14:08 National Trust wanted, and you didn't get to hear from
02:14:10 them last February as preferrable.
02:14:12 An owner should not be able to claim hardship based on
02:14:14 a use that is inconsistent with current zoning.
02:14:17 This is very important.
02:14:17 And if you look at what Gus and also Laurel provided,
02:14:21 Laurel's point is that by changing this economic
02:14:26 hardship, you may allow an owner to claim a hardship
02:14:31 based on something that is not consistent with their
02:14:34 current zoning.
02:14:35 They might look at a speculative future zoning.
02:14:39 Laurel, she's not here right now, but researched this

02:14:41 very significantly and in her view, this was
02:14:46 subsequent to Bert Harris and the lines from Bert
02:14:49 Harris were incorporated in there.
02:14:51 Again, I wonder from a preservation directive what
02:14:55 we're gaining.
02:14:56 We've already included owner consent as a factor, do
02:14:59 we really want to visit that hardship criteria in the
02:15:03 way that staff is suggesting, or do we really want to
02:15:07 go with what was lawyered over six years even
02:15:10 subsequent to Bert Harris?
02:15:12 Finally, TDRs, again, I agree with Gus.
02:15:15 I'm afraid that I'm going to come back three years
02:15:18 from now and there is still not going to be TDRs.
02:15:21 David was right, I gave them a letter in August where
02:15:25 we not only enunciated a lot of example model
02:15:29 ordinances, we attached them.
02:15:30 I'm appreciative that it's where the transfer occurs
02:15:34 that's problematic.
02:15:35 But they've had a year with this ordinance.
02:15:38 I fear we're going to move slow as molasses and we're
02:15:42 not ever going to have TDRs in this thing unless you
02:15:45 do it now.

02:15:46 Thank you.
02:15:51 >> Hello again, Randy Baron, old Seminole Heights.
02:15:56 The question you have to ask yourself in economic
02:15:58 hardship is, does a building have an intrinsic
02:16:04 historic value?
02:16:05 Aside from the current conditions in which you're
02:16:07 reviewing designation.
02:16:09 Whether its owned by person "A" or person "B" should
02:16:13 not determine whether or not that building is
02:16:15 historic.
02:16:16 The time you need to determine if there's an economic
02:16:19 hardship is when that person wants to go and change
02:16:21 the window.
02:16:23 What we're concerned about is someone saying I want to
02:16:25 buy a piece of land that has a current building on it
02:16:28 and somewhere down the road I want to put an 80-story
02:16:32 office tower on it.
02:16:33 And because of the way that this is drafted, I will
02:16:36 have an economic hardship, possibly, down the line if
02:16:39 I still own it.
02:16:41 If I haven't hit the lotto, if for any number of
02:16:44 reasons.

02:16:45 That doesn't change the nature of that building.
02:16:47 That building is still historic.
02:16:48 So I think linking an economic hardship at the time of
02:16:53 designation is inappropriate or to use the legalese,
02:16:58 it's not right.
02:17:00 I would encourage City Council to look at that, but,
02:17:03 of course, by removing that, do you have to add
02:17:06 additional economic incentives.
02:17:07 You have to give the owner something.
02:17:08 This is where the TDRs come in.
02:17:11 They need to happen now.
02:17:12 I think once they happen, you're going to see a huge
02:17:14 market, both in the person who is getting granted the
02:17:18 TDR, but also if you create a TDR bank, for instance,
02:17:22 you've now created a way for zoning issues and
02:17:26 historic preservation to help target development in
02:17:32 other areas, areas that may not be right or need some
02:17:36 help in economic development.
02:17:38 So it's a big picture, but you have to ask yourself,
02:17:41 what is the purpose of historic preservation.
02:17:44 Is it to save the buildings at the fine art heritage?
02:17:49 If it is, why should that one moment of designation,

02:17:52 the circumstances surrounding that one moment define
02:17:56 whether or not that picture is historic.
02:17:58 So please take that into consideration.
02:18:00 Thank you very much.
02:18:06 >> Good afternoon.
02:18:07 My name is Becky Clark.
02:18:08 5139 South nickel street.
02:18:11 Many of you know me.
02:18:13 I've been up here many times.
02:18:14 I've been involved in historic preservation in Tampa
02:18:17 for probably the last 20-some-odd years, longer than I
02:18:20 care to think about.
02:18:21 But for the last two years, I've had the pleasure of
02:18:24 serving as the president of the Florida trust, the
02:18:26 statewide preservation organization.
02:18:28 And I just wanted to stop for a minute and say to
02:18:31 you-all, this is not something unique to Tampa.
02:18:35 It's being done across the state, across the country.
02:18:39 It is doable.
02:18:40 It's supportable, it's defensible.
02:18:45 >> What is it?
02:18:46 >> Preservation.

02:18:47 Historic preservation.
02:18:49 Thank you.
02:18:49 We're not trying -- we don't need to reinvent the
02:18:52 wheel here I guess is what we're trying to say.
02:18:54 The Florida trust has been involved in two different
02:18:57 studies that have come out.
02:18:58 Hopefully you have seen them.
02:18:59 I know I have presented them to Council several
02:19:02 different times.
02:19:02 One on the economic impacts of historic preservation.
02:19:05 The second one that came out within about the last
02:19:08 year is on how historic preservation adds to the
02:19:11 quality of life in our state.
02:19:14 Both are very dynamic studies.
02:19:16 And if you didn't get them, I'd be happy to get them
02:19:19 to you again.
02:19:20 I wanted to just reiterate, too, that we did have
02:19:24 lawyers from the National Trust here about a year and
02:19:27 a half ago.
02:19:29 And even though they weren't able to be heard by
02:19:32 you-all at the Council meeting, they did look at our
02:19:36 ordinance and they did make some observations.

02:19:38 And I just wanted to quote from a letter that they did
02:19:41 send to Tampa preservation saying, most jurisdictions
02:19:44 do not utilize an economic hardship process at the
02:19:49 designation stage because true economic impact of
02:19:52 designation is only theoretical at that stage and
02:19:55 cannot be quantified.
02:19:59 Economic hardship must be examined in the context of a
02:20:02 specific fact situation where an owner has applied to
02:20:05 make changes to his or her property and the city has
02:20:08 responded to the application.
02:20:10 In legal language, the issue is not right because the
02:20:15 city could grant the application or provide incentives
02:20:17 to alleviate the hardship if established.
02:20:20 I just wanted to reiterate that.
02:20:22 Like I said, it's being done around the country.
02:20:25 This is an opinion by national attorneys that deal
02:20:29 with this all the time.
02:20:30 So thank you very much for your attention.
02:20:37 >> I'm going to hit on one point that was mentioned
02:20:40 earlier.
02:20:41 I think David Smith mentioned it earlier.
02:20:43 Yes, I know he did.

02:20:46 My name is Stephanie Ferrel.
02:20:48 Thank you.
02:20:49 And the ability to expand the usefulness of the
02:20:54 interstate historic preservation trust fund to
02:20:58 properties that are not located in the three historic
02:21:02 qualifying historic districts would be useful.
02:21:04 And I can think of two city-owned historic icons that
02:21:09 might find use of it and at least one of them would
02:21:12 not qualify for that fund.
02:21:14 So I would urge you to do that, and I would agree with
02:21:17 David, that doesn't have to be done within the scope
02:21:19 of the ordinance, but I think all the incentives that
02:21:22 we can get, as Mr. Dingfelder mentioned, all -- each
02:21:28 of these including that would be very useful to
02:21:31 stimulate the economic development of other important
02:21:35 and very deserving and maybe even some of the most
02:21:38 important structures within the city's limits, City of
02:21:40 Tampa limits.
02:21:42 And then I would also like to reiterate that we urge
02:21:47 you to undertake the process of adopting a transfer of
02:21:50 development rights ordinance and procedure and look
02:21:57 for other incentives as well that might encourage

02:22:02 historic preservation.
02:22:03 Lastly, I wanted to tell you that Laurel locket had
02:22:07 intended to be here for this section of the public
02:22:10 hearing, but she had a client she had to meet with and
02:22:15 she apologizes for not being here.
02:22:17 But she will be here at future meetings.
02:22:19 Thank you.
02:22:25 >> David Mechanik, 305 South boulevard, Tampa,
02:22:27 Florida.
02:22:29 I'm land use attorney, but I'm not sure representing
02:22:32 anyone.
02:22:33 Just here as an interested citizen.
02:22:37 I guess the first thing I want to say, I think the
02:22:39 draft before you is an improvement over the current
02:22:43 ordinance, and I would certainly recommend you move
02:22:47 forward to adopt it.
02:22:48 I realize David had mentioned a number of fine-tuning
02:22:52 changes.
02:22:53 I think at least several of us would like to sort of
02:22:56 get this process over with, as we've been at it for a
02:23:00 little over a year now.
02:23:04 Like I said, the ordinance does make a number of good

02:23:07 changes and clarifies the economic hardship criteria.
02:23:10 Having said that, as part of the future effort, I
02:23:14 think the economic hardship criteria should be made
02:23:18 more objective.
02:23:21 I don't think they will ever be susceptible to a
02:23:24 mathematical formula, right now, you are really
02:23:29 looking at simply a series of factors, and it doesn't
02:23:32 really allow for the decision-maker to -- it doesn't
02:23:37 guide the decision-maker, either Council or HPC, to
02:23:41 make a decision.
02:23:42 You just look at all these factors and you don't know
02:23:45 quite what to do with them.
02:23:47 I do think it would be helpful to develop some sort of
02:23:51 standard.
02:23:52 And Mr. Dingfelder, part of the problem and one of the
02:23:56 things I've been arguing, which is presumably against
02:23:59 my interest, I think that the average homeowner, for
02:24:04 example, ought not to have to hire a land use lawyer
02:24:08 and a battery of experts to present an economic
02:24:11 hardship case.
02:24:11 And then, frankly, the way that it's set up is you
02:24:14 almost have to do that.

02:24:16 You have to have experts in construction, and you have
02:24:21 to have somebody who can analyze the value of the
02:24:27 property before and after.
02:24:29 So it really is quite a complicated exercise.
02:24:34 On the point about when economic hardship should be
02:24:39 considered, Council has elected not to allow for the
02:24:42 owner opt-out provision.
02:24:45 And I certainly understand the reason for that, but
02:24:47 allowing the economic hardship to be considered during
02:24:50 the designation, at least as a mitigating factor so
02:24:55 that that person knows he can at least make that case
02:25:00 when his property is being considered for designation.
02:25:04 And I would say, it's not any more speculative to do
02:25:09 that at that point than it is at a point of
02:25:12 demolition.
02:25:13 You still have to make all kinds of assumptions about
02:25:18 what the cost of construction would be, what the use
02:25:20 would be.
02:25:22 And so it's no more or less speculative whether you do
02:25:26 it at the designation process or at some point down
02:25:30 the road during demolition.
02:25:32 So it is a good thing to have that at the designation

02:25:35 stage.
02:25:36 Thank you.
02:25:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: David, I hear the discussion now
02:25:43 for the second or third time talking about the poor,
02:25:46 pitiful single-family homeowner who goes into this
02:25:51 process.
02:25:52 But correct me -- you're aware of it, but I don't
02:25:56 think the HPC has been pulling single-family homes
02:25:59 that aren't in districts in for designation, you know,
02:26:06 unless they voluntarily come in for designation.
02:26:08 I mean, that's -- we were told that the cigar
02:26:12 factories were the first, quote, involuntary, you
02:26:16 know, group of buildings that were coming in.
02:26:19 I don't want us to -- I don't want Council to get a
02:26:23 notion that this is what the HPC has been about.
02:26:27 I'm not saying it's not possible.
02:26:28 Anything is possible.
02:26:29 But that's not what they've been -- unless you know
02:26:32 something different.
02:26:33 >> Well, no, other than I realize that I think the
02:26:36 districts have been declared off limits as far as
02:26:39 these particular amendments go.

02:26:41 But the burden certainly does exist with respect to
02:26:45 people with homes in those districts.
02:26:48 But it also is quite possible, and I don't know if
02:26:51 there are many examples, but any historic home could
02:26:56 be designated outside of the historic district, and
02:26:59 then it would be applicable.
02:27:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's my point.
02:27:02 I'm not saying it's not possible.
02:27:03 Anything is possible.
02:27:04 The HPC could get more aggressive.
02:27:06 But up until now, outside of the district,
02:27:09 single-family homes have not been the target.
02:27:17 >> Hi.
02:27:17 Missy Smith.
02:27:18 I reside at 5018 the riviera.
02:27:22 I'm on the Board of Directors of Tampa preservation.
02:27:24 I wish to speak to you today about one issue alone,
02:27:27 and that is economic hardship.
02:27:29 In two sections of the proposed ordinance.
02:27:32 Section 27231.6 and then section 27523, which are the
02:27:41 definitions that define everything in the ordinance.
02:27:45 We are very concerned about changing from the no

02:27:49 reasonable beneficial use to a lower standard of
02:27:52 inordinate burden.
02:27:54 According to the city, the tests for economic hardship
02:27:57 must be changed to reflect the reality of the existing
02:28:00 state standard to ignore the lesser standard set forth
02:28:06 in Bert Harris subject the ordinance to challenge and
02:28:10 to the city's liability.
02:28:12 This conclusion is based upon the false premise that
02:28:15 Bert Harris subjects the city to liability.
02:28:19 Local governments are permitted to require more
02:28:22 restrictive property use regulations if it has a more
02:28:26 restrictive standard and if the state has not
02:28:29 expressly preempted the subject.
02:28:32 I would like to just mention that there are some new
02:28:35 case law on this.
02:28:37 City of Hollywood versus Mulligan.
02:28:40 It's a 2000 case law.
02:28:43 What we are afraid of is that lowering the standard
02:28:47 means that a property owner who wants to utilize
02:28:51 property in a manner inconsistent with our historic
02:28:54 preservation ordinance or for that matter, with any
02:28:57 other zoning restriction will have the ability to set

02:29:01 aside the current zoning restrictions by claiming that
02:29:05 a proposed use that does not meet his specific
02:29:08 development plan constitutes an inordinate burden.
02:29:15 We've already seen that the other language, no
02:29:19 reasonable beneficial use was Penn Central.
02:29:25 Penn Central is the Keystone and that language has
02:29:28 gone all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United
02:29:30 States.
02:29:31 So I urge Council, and I urge everyone else to
02:29:35 research this and to give it their really serious
02:29:39 consideration.
02:29:39 Thank you all once again for allowing TBI to
02:29:44 participate.
02:29:44 We have been working with the city since 1984 with the
02:29:48 Ybor City ordinance, then the ordinance that created
02:29:51 the historic preservation ordinance, the Hyde Park
02:29:54 ordinance, and also the HPC ordinance, and we really
02:29:59 are grateful for the city for having such an open
02:30:04 process.
02:30:05 So thank you once again.
02:30:10 >> Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the City
02:30:11 Council, my name is John Grandoff, suite 3700, Bank of

02:30:15 America plaza.
02:30:18 Again, went through several, several drafts of the
02:30:20 ordinances before you, especially on the economic
02:30:22 hardship issue.
02:30:24 If you read through it, you'll see it's extremely
02:30:27 subjective.
02:30:28 And had untold arguments over this with the City
02:30:31 Attorney's office and other folks.
02:30:34 And we've basically decided we'll see how it works.
02:30:37 Mr. Dingfelder, on your question that no resident has
02:30:43 to possibly face the economic hardship test,
02:30:46 Harborview.
02:30:47 The Harborview Avenue folks that I represented were
02:30:51 looking straight in the eye of being designated and
02:30:53 would have had an opportunity to prove hardship for
02:30:56 that designation.
02:30:58 There was an election not to designate them, and that
02:31:01 passed.
02:31:02 But also --
02:31:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I clarify, John and hold your
02:31:06 time one second?
02:31:07 Two things, the Harborview Avenue was being considered

02:31:11 as a minidistrict.
02:31:12 It wasn't -- I was referring to individual homes.
02:31:15 So, yes, I agree with you.
02:31:18 Those were individual homes, but they were going to
02:31:21 be -- and Dennis, you can correct me if I'm wrong --
02:31:24 but they were going to be sort of a minidistrict.
02:31:27 I think we can agree on that.
02:31:29 >> Alternatively, someone could have said I want to
02:31:33 designate 4302 Harborview as historic building and
02:31:36 that owner would have been looking down the barrel of
02:31:39 designation.
02:31:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But that never happened.
02:31:41 >> Give some thought to a church, nonprofit or
02:31:44 charitable organization that has a potentially
02:31:47 historic building, how they would send off the
02:31:49 designation.
02:31:50 If you look at that criteria, appraiser, engineer,
02:31:53 economist, architect, pay for all of that out of a
02:31:56 charitable budget.
02:31:57 So it's not just a big buildings, big owners issue.
02:32:04 We could debate this for many, many more months.
02:32:07 I think it's as close as we're going to get.

02:32:10 Again, as I spoke on the A.R.C. ordinance, let's give
02:32:13 it a try for a year and see how it works.
02:32:16 I think the TDR idea is remarkable.
02:32:18 I'm totally in agreement with the preservation
02:32:20 community on that.
02:32:21 It's what I think made the Penn Central case make
02:32:24 sense.
02:32:24 And I look forward to working with you all and your
02:32:27 City Attorney staff on that.
02:32:28 Thank you for your time.
02:32:33 >> My name is Agnes Stansfield, 2112 West Eagle.
02:32:39 And when our neighborhood association, not a
02:32:41 homeowners group, a neighborhood association was
02:32:44 established in 1996, you have to start somewhere, and
02:32:48 you evolve and grow, which is natural.
02:32:50 But we have not yet evolved and not yet grown where
02:32:54 any owner of business property in our historic
02:32:57 district is allowed to be a member of the association.
02:32:59 If we put something on the e-mail, they don't see it.
02:33:02 They are not allowed to see it.
02:33:03 They don't get fliers.
02:33:05 We have finally reached the point of hand delivering

02:33:08 flyers, and we will put them in a tenant building.
02:33:15 We don't always know who owns the house, so we put it
02:33:18 at the front door because we don't know.
02:33:19 If you put a flyer at an apartment building, that's no
02:33:21 guarantee the owner of the apartment will see it.
02:33:24 And although the bylaws do not forbid putting a notice
02:33:28 in a business, it's generally not done.
02:33:32 So we have business owners who may not know anything
02:33:36 about these provisions.
02:33:37 And it seems to me -- I know in other communities,
02:33:40 they have a different project.
02:33:41 Here in Tampa, we have the tan organization and office
02:33:46 of neighborhood relations.
02:33:47 In other communities, they have one organization, and
02:33:51 when a residential Neighborhood Association is getting
02:33:54 started, they have to submit their bylaws to approval
02:33:57 to the city organization or county organization and
02:34:02 certain provisions in the bylaws are considered
02:34:04 unacceptable, that organization can legally
02:34:07 incorporate, but they cannot be a part of the umbrella
02:34:10 city organization.
02:34:11 Every time the bylaws are changed, again, the bylaws

02:34:14 have to go for approval to the city group, and if the
02:34:18 city group says -- you just can't shut people out.
02:34:24 So I think this is something that needs to be worked
02:34:29 on.
02:34:31 I know there are property owners given full things.
02:34:35 I know the Tampa Park association.
02:34:38 Tenants are included and business owners are included
02:34:41 if a parks and recreation site is being upgraded, but
02:34:44 you cannot shut out someone who owns a business.
02:34:47 You cannot shut out a tenant, your right to
02:34:51 citizenship.
02:34:52 We do allow tenants now to be owners, I mean, paid
02:34:54 members, and they can come to meetings if they are not
02:34:54 an owner.
02:35:00 This is something to work on.
02:35:04 We have no provision for reaching property owners who
02:35:06 do not live in Tampa.
02:35:08 We have people who own homes in my neighborhood who
02:35:10 live in other countries.
02:35:11 They don't have any idea this is going on.
02:35:13 Thank you.
02:35:21 >> Hi.

02:35:21 Lindsey Mineer with the Planning Commission.
02:35:24 I just wanted to put on the record on March 12th,
02:35:27 2007, the Planning Commission did review the proposed
02:35:31 amendments to the historic preservation commission
02:35:33 regulation and found the amendments consistent with
02:35:36 the intent of the goals, objectives and policies of
02:35:39 the historic resource element of the City of Tampa
02:35:42 comprehensive plan.
02:35:44 Thank you.
02:35:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And Lindsey, for future reference,
02:35:48 usually if the Planning Commission gets the esteemed
02:35:50 position of coming right after staff.
02:35:52 So feel free -- I know you're new to our process, but
02:35:56 feel free to jump in right after staff.
02:35:58 Isn't that right, Madam Chair?
02:36:00 >> Thank you.
02:36:03 >> David Smith, City Attorney.
02:36:07 I think we've heard a couple of ideas that will allow
02:36:09 us to close the gap even further.
02:36:11 I think we have a very narrow gap as a matter of fact.
02:36:14 Let me make sure a couple of things are clear, though.
02:36:16 We are not talking about districts.

02:36:18 I think somebody did mention this.
02:36:19 These are landmarks.
02:36:20 Only applies to individual landmarks, landmark sites
02:36:24 and potentially multiple property landmark sites but
02:36:27 not districts.
02:36:29 One of the other things that's relevant to your
02:36:31 consideration and why we're recommending economic
02:36:34 hardship as an up front process at least, you'll give
02:36:38 the property owner a shot, however small that shot may
02:36:42 be, because the burden of proof is pretty difficult.
02:36:44 We don't currently have in the A.R.C. an economic
02:36:48 hardship at the C.A.
02:36:50 Our only economic hardship is at demolition.
02:36:54 Truly, I think David Mechanik characterized it
02:36:57 correctly.
02:36:58 The facts you have at demolition are akin to the facts
02:36:58 you have up front.
02:37:02 You really do need to have an economic hardship process
02:37:04 that fits in when you apply for a certificate of
02:37:06 appropriateness.
02:37:07 Then they can have some more concrete data.
02:37:10 But the reason why we think you should have an

02:37:12 economic hardship up front, it hasn't happened very
02:37:15 often.
02:37:16 I don't know of any, but it does give a property owner
02:37:19 an opportunity to do that.
02:37:20 I think it provides some force for our statute, our
02:37:23 ordinance.
02:37:25 TDRs, I agree with the frustration of the time
02:37:28 period.
02:37:29 I would recommend that we come back to you with the
02:37:34 next cycle.
02:37:35 That's not the July cycle.
02:37:37 We're not going to be ready in July, but we have a
02:37:39 cycle in January.
02:37:40 We have got to address this anyway.
02:37:42 We've got to help you get a grip on that when it comes
02:37:45 to the comp plan as well as your mass transit and your
02:37:48 general transportation plan.
02:37:50 One of the things about TDRs, however, in terms of
02:37:54 being a true incentive, it really depends upon the
02:37:56 market and the market is going to depend on what else
02:37:59 is out there.
02:37:59 Right now, you have a lot of condominium developers

02:38:02 that haven't come vertical, would be happy to sell
02:38:05 their development rights.
02:38:06 That can depress the market.
02:38:09 It's a very subtle and complicated issue.
02:38:11 We need to do it.
02:38:12 We need to do it right.
02:38:13 But it is not the current solution.
02:38:18 I'm just trying to make sure we respond to all the
02:38:20 issues.
02:38:21 One of the issues was the concern about it being too
02:38:24 speculative.
02:38:24 Let me tell you in thinking here maybe what we can do.
02:38:27 Look hardship criteria.
02:38:29 Look at the definition of hardship, and rather than
02:38:31 try to incorporate any kind of statutory standard,
02:38:35 we'll use the specific language from the statute that
02:38:38 works and not that which doesn't.
02:38:41 For example, I don't think we're going to use anything
02:38:44 that is speculative.
02:38:45 I believe, for example, even under Bert Harris, it
02:38:48 talks about vested rights.
02:38:50 You don't have a vested right to get you maximum

02:38:53 density under the land plan.
02:38:54 You have a vested right in your zoning.
02:38:56 So I think we can narrow, again, that gap, so we don't
02:38:59 have the kinds of speculative values that people are
02:39:02 concerned about.
02:39:06 I think that that issue had come up repeatedly, and I
02:39:10 think that is the same solution to the problem.
02:39:14 Let me just make sure I've covered everything for you,
02:39:17 and then I would suggest we go back and walk through
02:39:20 the issues that you need to address.
02:39:25 Agreed, historic preservation trust fund, we can
02:39:27 address that issue subsequently.
02:39:33 I think, really, we probably have covered most of it.
02:39:36 There was a little confusion about Penn Central.
02:39:39 Penn Central is, in fact, a U.S. Supreme Court case.
02:39:41 So it wasn't a case that ultimately found itself
02:39:44 there.
02:39:44 The opinion we all cite is the Supreme Court case, and
02:39:48 it did deal with, among other things, the fact that
02:39:51 TDRs were available.
02:39:53 I don't recall whether or not that property owner had
02:39:55 consented to the original designation, and this was

02:39:58 redevelopment or not.
02:39:59 But it comes down to this, we need your guidance in a
02:40:02 couple of areas.
02:40:03 I think we can work with the language uses we've
02:40:05 talked about.
02:40:06 But we need to know whether this board, like the
02:40:08 predecessor board, is still of the opinion that there
02:40:11 should be an opportunity for a property owner to have
02:40:15 an economic hardship determined at the front end or
02:40:19 not.
02:40:19 And if you guys will discuss that and direct us in
02:40:23 that regard, that will have some impact.
02:40:25 The ordinance as it's currently drafted contemplates
02:40:29 keeping that.
02:40:30 We are happy to go back and tweak the criteria and try
02:40:32 to clarify some of that, but we need to know whether
02:40:35 you'll keep that up front or not.
02:40:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, David, Donna, and
02:40:42 everybody else who has worked so hard on this from the
02:40:45 community.
02:40:46 David, I recall, and I think you've said it a few
02:40:50 times in regard to the economic hardship criteria, my

02:40:53 recollection was, when the vote was taken and I don't
02:40:56 have the minutes with me, but maybe you can help, part
02:41:01 of the decision was that economic hardship would be
02:41:02 made a criteria, one of the criteria that the HPC
02:41:09 would use in determining their recommendation.
02:41:11 And ultimately, we would use in determining our
02:41:15 designation.
02:41:17 That was my recollection, was a criteria.
02:41:22 Do you differ with that?
02:41:24 >>DAVID SMITH: I'm not sure it was a criteria.
02:41:26 Let me tell you what I think I recall.
02:41:28 Owner consent was a criteria, could you give whatever
02:41:31 weight you felt was appropriate to it.
02:41:33 Economic hardship was another surrogate to accomplish
02:41:35 that.
02:41:36 It seems to me that we really -- I don't know that
02:41:39 we've really addressed in the ordinance --
02:41:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me show you a little problem I
02:41:47 have.
02:41:48 Page 18 at the top of the strike-through ordinance, it
02:41:50 says, in addition to the criteria set forth before,
02:41:53 and it mentions all the other criteria, the HPC and

02:41:58 City Council shall consider the following factors for
02:42:01 a landmark designation.
02:42:03 And then it says, whether or not the owner support,
02:42:05 I'm on page 18 at the top, whether the owner has
02:42:09 adequately established an economic hardship and
02:42:11 whether economic incentives are available.
02:42:15 And I think that that's fairly consistent with the
02:42:18 motion that was originally passed by the prior board.
02:42:21 But then, when you go to page 24 at the bottom on
02:42:26 paragraph F, page 24, bottom of paragraph F, it's the
02:42:32 third line from the bottom, it says, if the HPC finds
02:42:37 that economic hardship has been demonstrated, the
02:42:40 designation process shall cease.
02:42:43 Now, to me, I mean, we need to get into these other
02:42:47 philosophical issues, but I just noticed that.
02:42:50 But to me, what that says in this proposed language
02:42:53 that's coming from staff, says that basically,
02:42:56 economic hardship is not just a criteria.
02:42:59 Economic hardship is fatal to designation.
02:43:04 And that seems inconsistent with the language on page
02:43:07 18 and also with Council's earlier vote.
02:43:12 So that's something I wanted to point out.

02:43:15 Going to the other issue, we can discuss that among
02:43:19 ourselves, I guess, in terms of, you know, at what
02:43:22 point economic hardship should be in the mix.
02:43:26 But thank you.
02:43:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
02:43:31 I thought that the point that -- I can't remember
02:43:34 which speaker made was really important -- that in the
02:43:40 past, the owner's consent wasn't part of the
02:43:42 conversation.
02:43:43 Now it's one of the five criteria.
02:43:44 So that gives a property owner an opportunity to weigh
02:43:48 in on that as part of the thinking of whether this
02:43:52 property should be designated.
02:43:54 So that's one of the considerations.
02:43:59 The hardship criteria is yet another argument.
02:44:00 And I want to be fair, but I think we're -- I think
02:44:03 what we're looking at here, the whole purpose of the
02:44:06 HPC is to say, is this a historic property that
02:44:11 contributes to our community that should be protected?
02:44:14 And if it is, we know ownership changes, buildings --
02:44:19 these aren't just regular buildings in the district.
02:44:22 These are like pretty significant buildings.

02:44:25 If you are outside of a district, you have to be a big
02:44:28 deal.
02:44:29 You have to be something very special.
02:44:30 Chances are, you're big and you're landmark for folks,
02:44:36 and the buildings can, you know, contribution is
02:44:38 something that's valued by the community.
02:44:41 And I want balance, but I don't want to weight it too
02:44:45 much in terms of a person who might buy a building
02:44:48 speculatively so they can then tear it down and then
02:44:53 it's gone for all of us.
02:44:55 I think that's really important to think about.
02:44:56 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, David Smith, City Attorney.
02:44:58 I think Mr. Dingfelder pointed out what really is the
02:45:01 contradiction that needs to be altered.
02:45:04 If you look at the same paragraph, above that, it
02:45:06 says, in the event of a recommendation of denial by
02:45:10 the economic -- of the economic hardship application,
02:45:12 such a recommendation shall be considered by the City
02:45:16 Council.
02:45:17 HPC only recommends, so the sentence that you read,
02:45:20 Councilman Dingfelder, should actually be deleted.
02:45:23 The sentence that says, if the HPC finds that economic

02:45:26 hardship has been demonstrated, the designation
02:45:30 process shall cease.
02:45:31 That should be deleted.
02:45:32 They only make a recommendation to this body.
02:45:35 This body makes an ultimate determination.
02:45:37 If this body then finds economic hardship, it can
02:45:41 determine that the designation process ceases.
02:45:43 Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but that's an
02:45:47 important discrepancy.
02:45:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
02:45:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
02:45:50 I'm going back to the big picture.
02:45:53 And I have some questions since I wasn't here and four
02:45:56 of us weren't here when you passed the last.
02:46:02 The last motion, was that just referring -- those five
02:46:08 designations that you were talking about, was that
02:46:10 talking about all landmarks or was that just talking
02:46:14 about those cigar factories?
02:46:21 >> I'm sorry.
02:46:22 I was having a little trouble following the question.
02:46:24 Your question was the last motion.
02:46:26 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, not the last motion, but the

02:46:30 ordinance that was passed before we were here that
02:46:32 brought up this whole rewriting the ordinance, right,
02:46:37 had to do with the cigar factories opting out.
02:46:40 >>DAVID SMITH: Okay.
02:46:41 There were 15 cigar factories and there was not a
02:46:44 previous ordinance.
02:46:44 There was a direction by Council precipitated by that
02:46:48 application, yes.
02:46:49 If I'm understanding your question correctly, that was
02:46:52 the context which gave rise to the 5-2 vote to direct
02:46:58 us to come back with an opt-out approach to historic
02:47:01 preservation.
02:47:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
02:47:02 >>DAVID SMITH: Is that responsive?
02:47:04 >>MARY MULHERN: I think so.
02:47:06 Is this the opt-out you're coming back with?
02:47:08 >>DAVID SMITH: No.
02:47:09 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what I'm asking about.
02:47:10 >>DAVID SMITH: No.
02:47:11 We decided that the opt-out had problems.
02:47:13 The problems we thought it had was an improper
02:47:16 delegation of legislative authority.

02:47:17 There are some cases, albeit obscure cases, that
02:47:20 suggest when you have an owner opt-out, in essence,
02:47:23 the legislative body has delegated the authority to
02:47:26 make that determination to the property owner.
02:47:28 If that's accurate, and there are a couple of cases
02:47:30 that suggest it is, that would be improper.
02:47:33 So we came back in with a suggestion trying to respond
02:47:36 to the Council at that time rather than give you an
02:47:39 opt-out, let's give you an economic hardship that's a
02:47:42 little less stringent and let's put owner consent in
02:47:48 as a factor that you can consider.
02:47:50 Previously, you couldn't even consider it.
02:47:51 So it was really a relatively minor adjustment to
02:47:54 where we were.
02:47:55 I know some people would consider it huge, but, you
02:47:57 know, it's just a factor you can now consider.
02:48:00 It's not dispositive.
02:48:02 It's not an opt-out.
02:48:04 You can sorry, you don't want it.
02:48:05 We still think it's so important we're going forward
02:48:08 with it.
02:48:08 Really what you're doing is adding a little more

02:48:11 flexibility at the Council level and HPC level when it
02:48:14 comes to designations.
02:48:15 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what you're asking us to do
02:48:17 now.
02:48:18 >>DAVID SMITH: I'm simply trying to respond to what I
02:48:21 was previously asked to do.
02:48:22 That's what the ordinance currently does.
02:48:24 The one we're asking you to approve today does allow
02:48:27 consent as a factor and does retain economic hardship
02:48:31 as an analysis up front.
02:48:32 >>MARY MULHERN: But the consent was already allowed as
02:48:37 a factor.
02:48:37 >>DAVID SMITH: No, it wasn't.
02:48:39 >>MARY MULHERN: It's not.
02:48:40 So we have not approved consent as a factor in
02:48:43 historic designation.
02:48:44 Okay.
02:48:44 Thank you.
02:48:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
02:48:51 I believe we are really talking about a lot of things
02:48:53 all at once.
02:48:54 I want to narrow this thing, as we were talking, I

02:48:57 started writing down notes about locations.
02:49:00 I'm worried with myself that I'm missing some cigar
02:49:03 factories.
02:49:04 Because on the book that I received from the
02:49:06 preservation which was very well done and I commend
02:49:09 you for that, there was some writing in there that
02:49:11 threw me for a loop.
02:49:13 And, first of all, I don't know what a cigar factory
02:49:15 is.
02:49:16 Is it two people?
02:49:18 500 people?
02:49:19 400 people?
02:49:20 Let me tell you why, and I'm not trying to be
02:49:25 disrespectful to anyone, in the beginning of that it
02:49:28 says Tampa has lost 200 -- there were 200 cigar
02:49:33 factories in the City of Tampa.
02:49:35 I don't ever recall 200 factories in the City of
02:49:37 Tampa, unless you want to consider the buckeyes or
02:49:40 better known as Charlie's.
02:49:43 I do remember and then they said 175 factories have
02:49:48 disappeared.
02:49:49 Well, in my recollection, they never disappeared

02:49:52 because they were never there.
02:49:53 And I may be wrong.
02:49:55 But in my mind, I just started writing down the
02:49:58 factories I remember as I was growing up.
02:50:00 And in West Tampa, you had the White building there on
02:50:03 Howard and Beach across from Joe Diaz Bakery.
02:50:07 Another one at Laurel and Howard, the one on Howard
02:50:09 and the one that Jamaal is doing now, and the one just
02:50:14 three blocks off of that on the west, the one on
02:50:18 Cypress and Armenia which later became Benchmark
02:50:23 Factory, who made clothes.
02:50:25 The one on Armenia and Kathleen.
02:50:28 The one on Armenia and Chestnut.
02:50:31 The one on Habana and Kathleen, which is now a church.
02:50:36 Ybor City had 16th and 19th Avenue.
02:50:40 Ybor Street and 21st Avenue.
02:50:41 Columbus and 17th Street.
02:50:43 4th and 21st.
02:50:47 The Expressway and 12th.
02:50:47 22nd Street and 4th Avenue.
02:50:43 Union and Habana.
02:50:48 Palm and 18th.

02:50:49 And in Palmetto, you had two or three.
02:50:51 So I'm at a loss on what I read.
02:50:55 Because I don't remember 200 cigar factories in the
02:50:58 City of Tampa.
02:50:59 And I'm an old guy.
02:51:02 So either my mind has left me, or it's really stayed
02:51:07 with me.
02:51:07 One of the two.
02:51:08 And I don't know which one.
02:51:10 I've been here so long now for this meeting, I think
02:51:12 my mind has left me.
02:51:14 [ LAUGHTER ]
02:51:14 So what I'm saying is -- I don't know, I'm just
02:51:23 bringing up the conversation.
02:51:24 I haven't said anything in a long time.
02:51:26 But what I'm saying is, when are we going to get to
02:51:30 the pudding here?
02:51:31 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm not going to call you new, but I
02:51:34 am going to call you young.
02:51:35 Because they probably disappeared before you were
02:51:38 born.
02:51:39 Is that right?

02:51:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Look at my birth certificate.
02:51:47 >> [not speaking into microphone]
02:51:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Excuse me.
02:51:51 You can't talk out like that.
02:51:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll bring it from the office and
02:51:54 show you.
02:51:55 After the meeting, please come with me.
02:51:58 No problem.
02:51:59 It talks specifically about the demise of 175
02:52:02 factories.
02:52:02 I was appalled because everybody in my family either
02:52:04 worked in a cigar factory or a waiter at the Columbia
02:52:07 or somewhere else.
02:52:12 I don't remember those factories.
02:52:13 I remember going since two or three years old driving
02:52:17 around the factories seeing different things.
02:52:19 I just don't remember 200 factories.
02:52:21 I'll show it to you.
02:52:22 Please stay with me after the meeting.
02:52:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think I can move this along,
02:52:26 which I think we're all interested in.
02:52:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Are we ready for the first reading?

02:52:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, that's what I'm getting to.
02:52:35 I'm looking at the list that we received from
02:52:37 Mr. Paris of five items.
02:52:38 I think the bottom two we can deal with in other ways,
02:52:41 the interstate historic preservation trust fund we can
02:52:43 deal with different ways.
02:52:44 We heard from Mr. Smith that the transfer of
02:52:46 development rights we'll deal with in the January
02:52:50 batch.
02:52:50 Top three are economic hardship, economic hardship and
02:52:53 economic hardship.
02:52:53 So what I would like to do is move the ordinance, but
02:52:57 substitute the inclusion of the recommendations made
02:53:01 on the different thinking about economic hardship
02:53:06 proposed by the architectural heritage committee.
02:53:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Can we move the ordinance --
02:53:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no, we're not going to move it
02:53:14 today.
02:53:15 I said, well, it has to go back to legal.
02:53:19 Madam Chairman, I was trying to get my thought out.
02:53:22 >>DAVID SMITH: David Smith, City Attorney.
02:53:24 I would think the best we could hope for today is

02:53:27 direction from Council on these issues.
02:53:28 And then in two weeks' interim, we'll come back with a
02:53:32 second first reading just like you'll have for A.R.C.
02:53:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's my motion.
02:53:38 >>DAVID SMITH: We need direction on the issue of
02:53:40 economic hardship up front or not.
02:53:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Not up front.
02:53:43 >>DAVID SMITH: And loosen the criteria or -- well,
02:53:45 we'll work on the criteria.
02:53:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I thought that the best suggestion
02:53:49 was the one by Mr. Dingfelder to not define it, to
02:53:55 just look at the five criteria and let it be debated
02:53:58 by the group that it's before like we do with so many
02:54:01 things.
02:54:01 >>DAVID SMITH: My only response to that would be, I
02:54:03 need to tell you, I'll feel compelled to at least
02:54:06 provide you enough definition to afford guidance.
02:54:09 You need to have a standard you're applying, or it
02:54:13 becomes standardless and then it's not --
02:54:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But that it not be --
02:54:18 >>DAVID SMITH: We can work on specific language as
02:54:20 opposed to --

02:54:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: But that it not be undue burden.
02:54:25 >>DAVID SMITH: I talked to Laurel locket about, we
02:54:28 talked about simply taking the language out of the
02:54:30 statute that's applicable, putting the language of the
02:54:34 statute directly in your ordinance that deals with the
02:54:36 exceptions.
02:54:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
02:54:38 >>DAVID SMITH: Well, you have to have a standard of
02:54:41 some kind.
02:54:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We have the five considerations
02:54:44 including the owners -- owner's consent.
02:54:48 >>DAVID SMITH: But it has to be measured against
02:54:50 something.
02:54:51 Is your standard going to remain the taking standard?
02:54:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe you can work on it.
02:54:55 No.
02:54:56 >>DAVID SMITH: You want something less than a taking
02:54:58 standard but not an inordinate burden.
02:55:00 Well, you guys need to make a decision.
02:55:02 I think that's what you're saying.
02:55:04 Your preference would be not a taking standard but not
02:55:06 an inordinate burden.

02:55:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think if Mr. Smith feels
02:55:10 extremely strong that there has to be some standard
02:55:12 there, although I don't think there's a standard in
02:55:14 the VRB, but if you do, then I would say go to the
02:55:19 taking standard.
02:55:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Go to the taking standard.
02:55:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, if that's part of her motion.
02:55:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's part of my motion.
02:55:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second the motion, if I could,
02:55:29 Madam Chair.
02:55:29 I want to point out why I really do agree, very
02:55:32 quickly, why I really do agree with the issue that if
02:55:38 you do that economic hardship analysis too early, that
02:55:45 is premature and speculative.
02:55:46 If you look on page 21, one of those criterion, item
02:55:51 number six at the top of the page says that the
02:55:54 applicant has to provide estimated costs, fees and
02:55:57 expenses as appropriate for the demolition,
02:55:59 relocation, removal, rehabilitation, or restoration of
02:56:03 the property.
02:56:04 Well, at that given moment, okay, when the property is
02:56:08 coming in for designation, how would they know?

02:56:11 How would anybody know what they are going to be
02:56:13 doing?
02:56:14 Do they just arbitrarily pick one of those, demolition
02:56:18 relocation, removal, rehab or restoration?
02:56:21 They don't know, nobody knows because it's totally
02:56:24 speculative and that's what all the professionals who
02:56:26 have been involved in this for so long are telling us.
02:56:29 So it's not that we don't want to have a reasonable
02:56:33 economic evaluation, but that evaluation needs to come
02:56:38 at an appropriate time.
02:56:39 And that appropriate time would be when they come in
02:56:42 asking for relocation, when they come in asking for
02:56:46 rehabilitation.
02:56:46 And they say, you know what, I want to rehab this.
02:56:49 I want to put in these different windows, and it's an
02:56:52 economic -- you know, it's an economic burden for me
02:56:55 to do that and here is why.
02:56:58 To me, that makes an abundant amount of sense.
02:57:00 That's why I support Ms. Saul-Sena's motion.
02:57:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Mulhern.
02:57:04 >>MARY MULHERN: That's what I was going to say, but I
02:57:07 think -- I don't know if you made it clear, but I

02:57:09 think you need to do what they ask for in the number
02:57:12 one, which would be -- not consider hardship until
02:57:18 there was a request for demolition.
02:57:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's the motion.
02:57:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda.
02:57:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There were two buildings right
02:57:26 close to this building here.
02:57:27 First the police station right next door just to the
02:57:30 South of us and across the street where now the police
02:57:33 station originally was the county courthouse.
02:57:35 I also remember that.
02:57:36 That being said, this same building that we're in and
02:57:39 technology has changed a lot and when I heard the word
02:57:42 windows three or four times, I remember in the past
02:57:44 the amount of thousands of dollars we had to spend on
02:57:46 fixing the windows on the 7th and 8th floor of
02:57:49 this building because they leaked.
02:57:51 They were made out of wood on the outside.
02:57:53 I don't know if that's A.R.C. or whatever is going --
02:57:57 are these things going to change?
02:57:59 Are they still going to replace these windows under
02:58:02 these economic hard times we're facing?

02:58:04 Because the legislature may not let you put in money.
02:58:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dennis can probably answer that
02:58:10 better.
02:58:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And there's another thing, as
02:58:14 Mr. Dennis comes up, there are two things that the
02:58:17 historical trust fund could look at.
02:58:19 Refurbishing things and buying things that are --
02:58:23 where people can go in the houses and look around.
02:58:25 That's Hall of Fame home that belonged to Al Lopez and
02:58:29 soon-to-be Hall of Famer Tony LaRussa, the only second
02:58:34 manager to win a world series of both the national
02:58:36 league and American league.
02:58:37 Both those residences are still there.
02:58:39 They are both in deplorable shape.
02:58:42 Sooner or later we will lose them.
02:58:43 They will be barren ground.
02:58:47 >> Dennis Fernandez, Historic Preservation Manager.
02:58:50 Going back to your first question on the specifics of
02:58:53 this particular building.
02:58:54 This building is designated a local landmark, the old
02:58:57 City Hall.
02:58:58 As such, any changes to the building would have to go

02:59:00 through the architecture review commission.
02:59:03 However, in the early '80s, this building went
02:59:05 through a major renovation.
02:59:06 The original windows were removed at that time.
02:59:08 And at that time, a what I would consider inferior
02:59:13 wood window was replaced into the building which is
02:59:15 the newer woods are much softer.
02:59:18 There could have been other materials that were used.
02:59:20 The secretary of interior standards allows for that.
02:59:22 There could have been more modern materials.
02:59:25 That's not what they chose to do at the time.
02:59:29 We've sought grants for the windows in this particular
02:59:32 building.
02:59:32 The funding, as you said, has been cut at the state
02:59:35 level.
02:59:35 We weren't successful in that venture a couple of
02:59:39 years ago.
02:59:39 I think it's the intent to continue to pursue monies
02:59:42 to fix the windows in this particular building as
02:59:45 well.
02:59:46 Those are usually -- grants are usually available to
02:59:49 governments, nonprofit agencies, and such.

02:59:52 Your second part about the baseball legacy of the
02:59:56 city --
02:59:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm using that as a reference, not
03:00:01 about baseball.
03:00:02 I'm using it to a reference to two individuals who
03:00:05 have certainly, in my estimation, did a lot for the
03:00:08 city without even trying.
03:00:09 >> I agree.
03:00:12 Designating the building isn't always the appropriate
03:00:14 way to commemorate an individual's participation in
03:00:18 the community.
03:00:20 Sometimes there are other ways to do that.
03:00:22 We can look into that at the HPC.
03:00:24 We're always looking for opportunities to do that.
03:00:28 So once again, you know, I'm very much in support of
03:00:32 that.
03:00:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me -- I have a mind that
03:00:36 wanders a lot.
03:00:37 So I'm not opposed to helping save all these
03:00:41 buildings.
03:00:42 How many of these buildings can you put in a tour, if
03:00:45 you're going to have tours, look, a beautiful

03:00:48 building, can I go inside?
03:00:49 No.
03:00:50 >> Well, they are under private ownership, many of the
03:00:53 buildings.
03:00:54 The ones we have, we try to work with the communities.
03:00:57 I know that some of the districts do home tours and
03:01:01 allow individuals from the public into their homes.
03:01:04 Usually either seasonally or annually.
03:01:07 We are working with some other commercial buildings.
03:01:11 You can go into plant hall, University of Tampa to
03:01:15 take tours, the more public buildings.
03:01:17 However, there are buildings designated where the
03:01:18 owners don't particularly want public going in for
03:01:21 various reasons.
03:01:22 We have buildings that are scientific laboratories
03:01:25 where it wouldn't be appropriate.
03:01:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What is the time frame of your
03:01:31 direction?
03:01:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let me ask Mr. Smith.
03:01:34 Mr. Smith, is two weeks realistic for this?
03:01:38 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, it is.
03:01:39 And let me tell you a couple of things I want to make

03:01:42 sure you know, if you change the standard, we're going
03:01:45 to have to go back to HPC -- excuse me, Planning
03:01:48 Commission.
03:01:49 And if we make the change that you need to make to
03:01:52 avoid the problem to the A.R.C., which is to allow
03:01:56 economic hardship when you issue a CA, we need to go
03:01:58 back to the Planning Commission.
03:02:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Madam Chairman, I've worked on this
03:02:02 eight years.
03:02:02 Another going back to the Planning Commission will not
03:02:05 an ordinance break.
03:02:06 I appreciate the clarification.
03:02:09 Thank you.
03:02:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I know we're talking about taking out
03:02:15 the hardship language, and you are recommending that
03:02:18 we quote the statute.
03:02:20 Is that right?
03:02:21 >> I was recommending you use the burden that's in the
03:02:24 statute.
03:02:25 You're subject to it anyway.
03:02:26 It covers us.
03:02:27 If we meet the taking standard, guess what, we're

03:02:30 liable.
03:02:30 If someone comes in and proves we've taken this
03:02:33 property, then we have potential liability beyond
03:02:35 that.
03:02:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That would be my next question, from a
03:02:40 legal standpoint, I guess you just answered this.
03:02:43 As a government entity, agency or body, you got to
03:02:48 always look at that.
03:02:49 And you have to make sure that you have legal ground
03:02:51 and legal standing that we're following the statute
03:02:56 and that we have that in place.
03:02:57 If we don't, then we're opening the city up, ourselves
03:03:00 up for litigation.
03:03:02 >>DAVID SMITH: Considering this is never -- excuse me,
03:03:05 never yet happened.
03:03:06 Never.
03:03:07 We've had this in the ordinance for six years, and it
03:03:11 has never, as in never happened.
03:03:13 Why would you run that risk for something that's never
03:03:16 happened?
03:03:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You had what in the ordinance?
03:03:18 >>DAVID SMITH: We had the provision in the ordinance

03:03:19 for six years that you could make an economic hardship
03:03:22 showing up front.
03:03:23 We're not changing that.
03:03:25 That's currently existing.
03:03:26 It's already there and been there for six years.
03:03:28 No one has ever met that standard.
03:03:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I thought you were focusing on a
03:03:34 different question right now, not going back to that
03:03:37 issue which already has a motion and second.
03:03:40 >>DAVID SMITH: I thought his question was the
03:03:43 standard.
03:03:44 Taking standard.
03:03:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Not the economic, where are you
03:03:46 going to put the economic hardship in the process.
03:03:49 But the taking standard.
03:03:50 Because I wanted to focus back again on taking
03:03:52 standard.
03:03:53 Then you jumped to the other one.
03:03:56 On the taking standard, David, has there been a case
03:04:00 litigated under Bert Harris for historic preservation?
03:04:04 >>DAVID SMITH: I would have to do the research.
03:04:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Donna, are you aware of any?

03:04:09 I'm sure if there was, you would have told us about
03:04:11 it.
03:04:16 >> [not at microphone]
03:04:17 >>DAVID SMITH: It doesn't mean the burden doesn't
03:04:17 apply. That's irrelevant.
03:04:18 The question relevant is, what's the burden?
03:04:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's not irrelevant.
03:04:22 >>DAVID SMITH: Yes, it is.
03:04:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can argue about it all day long.
03:04:25 But I think that to be running scared of, you know, of
03:04:28 lawsuits --
03:04:29 >>DAVID SMITH: No one is running scared of lawsuits.
03:04:31 That's what I do for a living.
03:04:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand there are a hundred
03:04:35 lawsuits or more upstairs, and I look at them
03:04:37 regularly.
03:04:42 I just think -- I'm very comfortable with the standard
03:04:47 and the burden that came out of Penn Central 30
03:04:51 something years ago.
03:04:52 And I recognize that this statute, okay, had created a
03:04:55 different burden that has come up typically in the
03:05:00 rezoning context.

03:05:03 But until I saw -- I see a case where it brings it up
03:05:06 in the historic preservation context, I think that if
03:05:09 we say all reasonable beneficial use and we have an
03:05:15 economic, you know, incentive package and we have the
03:05:19 economic burden test and all of those things, I think
03:05:23 we're protecting ourselves pretty well.
03:05:25 Can we always protect ourselves from lawsuits?
03:05:28 No.
03:05:29 >> And let me just be clear what my recommendation is.
03:05:31 My recommendation is simply that you use Bert Harris,
03:05:34 because unlike Penn Central, we have the statute.
03:05:38 They didn't.
03:05:38 Secondly, Penn Central had TDRs.
03:05:40 We don't yet.
03:05:41 So I think having the economic hardship test at the
03:05:44 front end is insulation, cost-free insulation.
03:05:49 We've never done it.
03:05:50 Why would we take the risk when we don't have to?
03:05:53 It's not going to affect anything.
03:05:54 We're going to have TDRs hopefully in the January
03:05:59 sequence.
03:05:59 Then you can evaluate or reevaluate your hardship

03:06:04 criteria, which you've currently had for six years.
03:06:06 I'm clear on my recommendation.
03:06:08 You guys have to make the call.
03:06:09 Thanks.
03:06:10 >>GWEN MILLER: What was your motion, Ms. Saul-Sena?
03:06:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Does the clerk have my motion or do
03:06:15 you need me to restate it?
03:06:17 My motion was this: If you look at the list of five
03:06:21 issues from Mr. Harris, we don't deal with four and
03:06:24 five. The first three we move the economic hardship
03:06:28 consideration not to the beginning of an evaluation
03:06:30 but when a person has something specific to bring
03:06:32 back.
03:06:33 Number one, the economic hardship will only be
03:06:35 considered when the owner wishes to demolish or
03:06:38 renovate his property very specifically, not when it's
03:06:40 just proposed for designation.
03:06:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can we have it in a separate motion
03:06:45 unless you want to take it all together?
03:06:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to take it all together,
03:06:49 because it's hand in glove.
03:06:49 Number two, that the economic hardship application

03:06:50 will include all information.
03:06:51 And lastly, that an owner shall not be able to claim
03:06:55 hardship based on a use that is inconsistent with
03:06:58 current zoning.
03:06:59 So that's my motion.
03:07:04 >> Second.
03:07:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
03:07:05 Any question of the motion?
03:07:07 All in favor, aye.
03:07:08 Opposed, nay.
03:07:13 >>THE CLERK: [speaking off microphone]
03:07:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with everything that's
03:07:19 said.
03:07:19 >> Let's get a clarification on the vote.
03:07:19 Madam Clerk?
03:07:21 >>THE CLERK: [microphone is not on]
03:07:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we raise the hands.
03:07:29 >> All in favor.
03:07:30 That's four.
03:07:31 All opposed.
03:07:32 Three.
03:07:34 >>THE CLERK: [microphone not on]

03:07:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The item not challenged is being
03:07:39 moved.
03:07:40 It's something that has never been challenged should
03:07:42 remain.
03:07:44 >>GWEN MILLER: That's what I agree with.
03:07:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The attorney made it clear, it's been
03:07:54 there for six years.
03:07:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Point of order.
03:08:03 Point of order takes precedence.
03:08:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We're going to move on.
03:08:11 There's a point of order --
03:08:13 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Motion for reconsideration.
03:08:17 >> I second it.
03:08:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second for
03:08:19 reconsideration.
03:08:20 All in favor, aye.
03:08:22 Opposed, nay.
03:08:24 >>THE CLERK: Saul-Sena and Dingfelder no.
03:08:26 >>MARY MULHERN: I said no, too.
03:08:30 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I want the motion to come before us
03:08:32 again.
03:08:40 [microphone is not on] make that a motion please.

03:08:48 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What is your motion?
03:08:49 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I was on the prevailing side,
03:08:51 correct?
03:08:51 So I have right for a motion for reconsideration.
03:08:54 And that's what I want to do.
03:08:56 I want it brought back before us so I can reconsider
03:08:58 my vote.
03:08:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: So that motion is back on the floor.
03:09:01 You voted to reconsider that motion.
03:09:04 So it's back on the floor.
03:09:05 >>GWEN MILLER: It's back on the floor.
03:09:07 You need to make the motion.
03:09:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, it's back on the floor.
03:09:11 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: The main motion is back.
03:09:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena, the motion again was --
03:09:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to speak to the motion
03:09:16 I made and I want to clarify it.
03:09:18 What is before us is not our existing ordinance.
03:09:23 If it was our existing ordinance, it wouldn't be back
03:09:25 here.
03:09:26 It's a changed ordinance which includes owner consent
03:09:28 as part of the consideration.

03:09:30 I strongly feel that owner consent addresses the issue
03:09:33 of being able to weigh in about how you feel about
03:09:36 your property.
03:09:36 And I feel that what's before us is good but not
03:09:41 great.
03:09:42 What it needs are these improvements.
03:09:44 I really encourage you all to make these improvements,
03:09:46 as we heard from people who are very knowledgeable and
03:09:49 have worked a very long time on this.
03:09:59 >>GWEN MILLER: Point of order, Mr. Shelby.
03:10:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The clerk, do you want to recite the
03:10:02 motion or restate it?
03:10:05 >>THE CLERK: The motion was on the floor and the vote
03:10:08 is now changing based on Mr. Caetano --
03:10:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: But the motion -- does the motion
03:10:13 need to be restated by --
03:10:16 >> No.
03:10:16 >> I don't think so.
03:10:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's fine.
03:10:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's no second on that motion.
03:10:19 I'm going to make a different motion.
03:10:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, no, no.

03:10:22 The motion is back on the floor.
03:10:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That motion can come back without a
03:10:26 second?
03:10:27 >>GWEN MILLER: It did.
03:10:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It was back to reconsider.
03:10:31 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: When you reconsider the motion, it
03:10:33 comes before you, the motion that passed.
03:10:34 I was on the prevailing side, so I want it back on the
03:10:38 table for a revote.
03:10:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As it was before.
03:10:41 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: Right.
03:10:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can I withdraw my second?
03:10:45 >>THE CLERK: Mulhern seconded the motion.
03:10:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The only reason I was going to
03:10:49 change the motion, go with Mr. Shelby's original
03:10:51 advice which was to split the two main issues in half.
03:10:55 That way if people have trouble with one part and some
03:10:58 have trouble with another --
03:11:00 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
03:11:00 I'll withdraw my motion.
03:11:02 Mr. Dingfelder, would you like to split it in half and
03:11:05 make a proposal?

03:11:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby, you need to come in here.
03:11:14 She can withdraw her motion once we have --
03:11:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, it did pass and then the
03:11:22 motion to reconsider it passed.
03:11:24 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: So the motion is before us, we have
03:11:26 to take a vote.
03:11:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the proper thing would be
03:11:33 to vote on what's before you now.
03:11:34 If that motion should fail, then another motion could
03:11:38 be addressed that way.
03:11:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Your motion --
03:11:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you like me to try it again?
03:11:47 >>THE CLERK: I don't have it verbatim.
03:11:49 The motion was made to address the first three
03:11:51 recommendations regarding economic hardship, to
03:11:53 consider when the owner wants to renovate.
03:11:56 The second was economic hardship will include all --
03:11:58 application will include all information.
03:12:01 The third was the owner still -- I have still not
03:12:05 claim hardship, and then the motion was reconsidered
03:12:08 as far as the vote.
03:12:12 Verify the action motion there.

03:12:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: What's on the floor,
03:12:18 Ms. Saul-Sena's motion passed 4-3.
03:12:20 Then after that vote was taken, Madam Chair,
03:12:22 Mr. Caetano wished to reconsider his vote.
03:12:25 So it came back and I guess motion was made and a
03:12:29 second.
03:12:30 And I guess it passed 4-3, if I recall.
03:12:33 And now what is here is the main motion back on the
03:12:38 floor that passed 4-3 earlier.
03:12:41 Now we have to vote on that one again.
03:12:43 And then another motion by Council members, they are
03:12:46 certainly entitled to do that.
03:12:47 >>GWEN MILLER: We're going to vote on the motion.
03:12:49 All in favor of the motion, aye.
03:12:50 Opposed, nay.
03:12:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That motion was passed already to
03:12:58 reconsider.
03:12:59 We're voting on the original --
03:13:02 >> Voting on the main motion Ms. Saul-Sena made.
03:13:04 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: It went 4-3, now it's the opposite.
03:13:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, what is before you now is
03:13:11 Council member Saul-Sena's motion, and that's what

03:13:14 you're considering now.
03:13:16 It has been -- there was a motion that passed to
03:13:19 reconsider.
03:13:21 >> It's in essence a revote.
03:13:23 >> It is a revote on Ms. Saul-Sena's motion.
03:13:25 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of Ms. Saul-Sena's motion,
03:13:27 raise your hand.
03:13:30 Those who say nay, raise your hand.
03:13:33 >>THE CLERK: Miranda, Miller, Scott and Caetano voted
03:13:36 no.
03:13:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
03:13:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
03:13:41 I'd like to split this into two pieces, because I
03:13:44 think there are two pieces and we could see where that
03:13:46 goes.
03:13:49 I feel very strongly about what I said before about
03:13:53 the speculation.
03:13:57 And I was just wondering, Mr. Caetano, maybe that was
03:14:00 part of your problem.
03:14:03 But in regard to speculative, if you had tracked along
03:14:07 with me on page 21, all those issues related to
03:14:11 relocation, removal, rehabilitation, restoration do

03:14:14 not -- are not happening when a property is coming in
03:14:19 for the designation.
03:14:20 So any of that information would be totally
03:14:23 speculative.
03:14:24 And that's the part I have a problem with.
03:14:26 And I think the testimony we heard from the public,
03:14:29 from our constituents was very clear on that, that it
03:14:33 is speculative.
03:14:35 So my first motion would just be to direct staff to
03:14:40 relocate that economic hardship process to come in
03:14:46 later in the process, you know, to -- when it's
03:14:51 appropriate.
03:14:52 When they are coming in for the relocation, removal,
03:14:54 rehab or restoration.
03:14:56 So I'll just start off with that as the motion and
03:15:00 then we can either get or not get to David Smith's
03:15:03 issue.
03:15:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
03:15:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is my motion clear?
03:15:08 >> No, not really.
03:15:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My motion is very simply to take
03:15:11 the provision, take the entire provision about

03:15:14 economic -- the owner's proof of economic hardship and
03:15:17 take it out of the front end, which is -- that's the
03:15:21 designation process, and put it deeper into the
03:15:25 process so it comes up at a more appropriate time when
03:15:29 that information is not speculative.
03:15:31 And that's what the testimony from all of the
03:15:34 community was in support of.
03:15:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
03:15:39 If I remember correctly, is this the part, Mr. Smith,
03:15:42 where it's never been tested in six years?
03:15:45 >>DAVID SMITH: I was wrong.
03:15:46 It's never been tested in ten years.
03:15:48 It was longer.
03:15:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But we've never had involuntary
03:15:53 folks come in either in that period of time.
03:15:55 The cigar factories were the first ones that were
03:15:58 involuntary.
03:15:59 So to say it's never been done is a little bit
03:16:02 disingenuous for that reason.
03:16:05 >>DAVID SMITH: No, it shows your staff uses judgment.
03:16:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, it shows it has never had to be
03:16:11 done because it was never an involuntary process.

03:16:13 >>DAVID SMITH: But it currently exists for those
03:16:16 people if they are brought back there again.
03:16:19 You guys can do what you want, obviously.
03:16:22 Well, I've made my recommendation.
03:16:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The way I judge this thing, just
03:16:31 from being over at Jefferson High School, it was the
03:16:33 same motion that was turned over earlier.
03:16:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I split it in half.
03:16:37 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Still, instead of being in the
03:16:39 front, it's in the back.
03:16:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There were two parts to
03:16:41 Ms. Saul-Sena's motion and there were three parts.
03:16:44 I only addressed one of the three parts.
03:16:46 The part I addressed is to take the economic test and
03:16:50 instead of putting it on the front end of the
03:16:52 criteria, to put it more toward the middle as a
03:16:56 different criteria.
03:16:56 Yes, it's one out of the three things that the
03:16:59 majority of you all turned down.
03:17:01 But I'm hoping you might consider it, and that's a
03:17:04 motion.
03:17:05 >>MARY MULHERN: I'm sorry, David, I need you to --

03:17:11 okay.
03:17:12 So economic hardship came into play in historic
03:17:16 designations when --
03:17:19 >> It's been in your ordinance for ten years.
03:17:22 >>MARY MULHERN: But I thought it was just when the
03:17:24 opportunity to opt out --
03:17:26 >>DAVID SMITH: It currently exists in the ordinance in
03:17:28 two locations.
03:17:30 One is at the front end.
03:17:31 So that's your existing ordinance.
03:17:33 Second is when you seek a demolition permit.
03:17:36 So you have two opportunities to prove economic
03:17:40 hardship currently.
03:17:40 You actually don't have the alternative that's being
03:17:43 suggested as -- which is at the C.A., when you get a
03:17:48 certificate of appropriateness.
03:17:50 If we do add that, then that ordinance also has to go
03:17:52 back to the Planning Commission.
03:17:53 So it really depends on whether you want to throw the
03:17:56 whole shooting match back to the Planning Commission
03:17:58 or whether you want to move forward, consider this not
03:18:01 that huge, and make your changes in the next cycle.

03:18:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't want to confuse the issue any
03:18:09 more than it is, but if you are talking about going
03:18:11 back to the A.R.C. ordinance, that's already been
03:18:14 addressed today.
03:18:14 And that would have to be taken up again as a motion
03:18:17 to reconsider if you want to bring that back.
03:18:18 >>DAVID SMITH: Right, exactly.
03:18:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't want Council members to be
03:18:22 put off by sending something back to the Planning
03:18:25 Commission.
03:18:25 That's what they do.
03:18:27 They consider our things, and it's no big deal.
03:18:30 And frankly, I think they should be grateful for
03:18:32 whatever we do about preservation, because it's a good
03:18:35 thing for the community.
03:18:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a motion on the floor with
03:18:47 regard to the first item on the list.
03:18:49 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder's motion we're on now.
03:18:51 All in favor of that motion, raise your hand.
03:18:54 Opposed, nay.
03:18:57 >>THE CLERK: [Speaking off microphone]
03:19:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

03:19:05 I'm not against preservation.
03:19:07 In fact, I was one of, I guess 25% of the vote to save
03:19:11 the Tampa Theater.
03:19:13 But there's a property issue here.
03:19:16 And I read the article about so and so sued the city
03:19:20 of Miami and the courts didn't look at it.
03:19:23 Well, the courts didn't look at it, because the city
03:19:26 of Miami, the suit was premature, at that time, the
03:19:29 individual wasn't told by the city what it was going
03:19:31 to do with it.
03:19:33 I'm not a lawyer, but I just feel that there's got to
03:19:36 be a compromise somewhere.
03:19:37 I voted for everything else other than one item.
03:19:40 And this is it.
03:19:41 And I feel very strongly about that, that those
03:19:44 individuals should at least be given an opportunity in
03:19:47 the front.
03:19:48 And that's it.
03:19:51 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
03:19:52 We're going to move on on our agenda.
03:19:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We haven't done anything yet.
03:19:57 We just had a lot of things fail.

03:19:59 >>GWEN MILLER: So what do we do?
03:20:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What is your direction?
03:20:04 You are either prepared to do the first reading with
03:20:06 the ordinance as presented.
03:20:07 But I believe Mr. Smith's recommendation is to tweak
03:20:10 some things.
03:20:10 I don't know if you wish to have counsel make a --
03:20:14 Council make a recommendation to the Legal Department.
03:20:16 >>DAVID SMITH: I think there's a 4-3 vote to at least
03:20:18 economic hardship in at the front end.
03:20:20 If there's a motion and something to that effect, we
03:20:22 still need to come back with a revised first reading
03:20:24 to try to address some of the specific issues with
03:20:28 those people who are interested.
03:20:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I agree.
03:20:30 >>GWEN MILLER: What are we going to do?
03:20:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There's a motion on the floor with
03:20:33 regard to resolving that issue.
03:20:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm moving what the City Attorney just
03:20:39 recommended, and that is leaving the economic hardship
03:20:41 on the front end.
03:20:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a second by Mr. Miranda.

03:20:45 All in favor of that motion, aye.
03:20:47 Opposed, nay.
03:20:54 >>THE CLERK: [microphone not on]
03:20:59 >>GWEN MILLER: What are we doing now, Mr. Smith?
03:21:05 >>DAVID SMITH: I think it would still be advisable to
03:21:07 give us two weeks to bring it back for first reading
03:21:11 pursuant to the direction you have given us.
03:21:13 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second --
03:21:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have a friendly amendment.
03:21:16 Friendly amendment.
03:21:18 Another thing that I did notice in here -- and I don't
03:21:22 know, Donna, if you can tell me.
03:21:25 I didn't see anywhere in here where the information
03:21:27 that was provided included property tax records and
03:21:30 property appraiser records.
03:21:33 I was looking for that on page 22 and thereabouts.
03:21:36 But anyway, if it's not there, we don't even have to
03:21:40 answer it today.
03:21:41 But my friendly motion, Charlie, would be if it's not
03:21:44 there, I would suggest that that would be very, very
03:21:48 pertinent information to the HPC and to City Council
03:21:51 when you're determining economic hardship, property

03:21:53 tax records and property appraiser records.
03:21:55 And that's also very objective information.
03:21:58 >>GWEN MILLER: They looking --
03:22:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would agree with that.
03:22:04 I believe we did some years back in Hyde Park and had
03:22:06 to bring that to qualify for some benefit tax break
03:22:09 and so forth, that those records had to be pertinent
03:22:11 to that case.
03:22:12 >>DAVID SMITH: It is in page 20.
03:22:14 Under the application form on page 20, it's B-12, two
03:22:21 little I.
03:22:22 According to the three most recent assessments --
03:22:25 >> I'm sorry I missed that.
03:22:26 >> That's okay.
03:22:27 There's a lot in here.
03:22:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second on the
03:22:29 floor.
03:22:30 All in favor, aye.
03:22:31 Opposed, nay.
03:22:32 All right.
03:22:32 It will be back in two weeks.
03:22:36 All right.

03:22:36 On our agenda, we're ready for our second readings.
03:22:42 Anyone in the public going to speak on items 36
03:22:44 through 39, you need to stand and raise your right
03:22:48 hand.
03:22:49 Anyone going to speak on items 36 through 39, you need
03:22:52 to stand and raise your right hand.
03:22:54 Nobody.
03:22:55 We need to open the public hearings.
03:22:56 >> I move items 36 through 39, Madam Chair.
03:22:59 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
03:23:00 All in favor, aye.
03:23:01 [Motion Carried]
03:23:02 Is there anyone in the public who wants to speak on
03:23:04 item 36?
03:23:08 We have a motion and second to close.
03:23:09 All in favor, aye.
03:23:11 [Motion Carried]
03:23:12 Mr. Miranda, would you read that, please?
03:23:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, move an ordinance for
03:23:16 second reading being a following ordinance upon
03:23:19 reading, an ordinance vacating, closing, discontinuing
03:23:21 and abandoning a certain right-of-way at the portion

03:23:24 of poinsettia street lying South of Osborne Avenue
03:23:27 North of Noel Street, East of 20th Street and West
03:23:31 of 22nd Street, in Orangewood park subdivision, a
03:23:35 subdivision in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
03:23:37 Florida, the same being more fully described in
03:23:39 section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
03:23:40 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
03:23:42 Vote and record.
03:23:54 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
03:23:56 absent.
03:23:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public who wants
03:23:58 to speak on item 37?
03:24:02 We have a motion and second to close.
03:24:04 All in favor, aye.
03:24:04 [Motion Carried]
03:24:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move the following ordinance
03:24:07 upon second reading.
03:24:09 An ordinance rezoning an encroachment of an existing
03:24:13 building over a portion of the public right-of-way, a
03:24:17 platted 10-inch alley? I would think it's a 10-foot
03:24:19 alley lying in the north one-third of lot D, block
03:24:22 five, Manuel Sanchez addition in the City of Tampa,

03:24:25 Hillsborough County, as more particularly described
03:24:27 herein, subject to certain terms, covenants,
03:24:30 conditions and agreements as more particularly
03:24:31 described herein, providing an effective date.
03:24:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
03:24:35 Vote and record.
03:24:43 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Saul-Sena being
03:24:47 absent.
03:24:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public who wants
03:24:47 to speak on item 38?
03:24:47 We have a motion and second to close.
03:24:49 All in favor, aye.
03:24:49 [Motion Carried]
03:24:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I move to adopt the following
03:24:56 ordinance upon second reading.
03:24:57 An ordinance repealing ordinance number 97-228, making
03:25:02 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol
03:25:04 regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and
03:25:07 liquor, for consumption on premises only in connection
03:25:11 with a restaurant business establishment on that
03:25:13 certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 201-217
03:25:18 South Dale Mabry Boulevard, Tampa, Florida, as more

03:25:21 particularly described in section 3 hereof; waiving
03:25:25 certain restrictions as to distance based upon certain
03:25:28 findings; providing for repeal of all ordinances in
03:25:31 conflict; providing an effective date.
03:25:33 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
03:25:36 Vote and record.
03:25:37 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Saul-Sena being
03:25:45 absent.
03:25:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public want to speak on
03:25:47 item 39?
03:25:49 Motion and second to close.
03:25:50 All in favor, aye.
03:25:50 [Motion Carried]
03:25:51 Ms. Mulhern.
03:25:54 >>MARY MULHERN: I move to adopt an ordinance being
03:26:06 presented for second reading.
03:26:08 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
03:26:10 of 2715 Tampa Bay Boulevard in the City of Tampa,
03:26:13 Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from
03:26:17 zoning district classification RS-50, residential
03:26:21 single-family to PD, planned development, business
03:26:24 professional office, providing an effective date.

03:26:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Have a motion and second.
03:26:28 Vote and record.
03:26:30 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena being
03:26:40 absent.
03:26:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 42 is a continued public hearing.
03:26:48 Staff?
03:26:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Catherine Coyle, Land Development,
03:26:51 if you could go to the next item, he's on his way
03:26:54 back.
03:26:54 >>GWEN MILLER: We can't.
03:26:55 It's an appeal hearing.
03:26:59 He'll have a long wait.
03:27:00 We'll go to 43.
03:27:01 You have appeal hearing.
03:27:05 Those who are going to speak on item 43 and 44, would
03:27:08 you please stand and raise your right hand.
03:27:11 Anyone going to speak on item 43 and 44.
03:27:21 (Oath administered by clerk).
03:27:24 >> I do.
03:27:27 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Does that go also for 42?
03:27:30 >>GWEN MILLER: It's for 42.
03:27:38 >> Honorable chair, City Council, I apologize.

03:27:42 Good afternoon.
03:27:42 Phil Schulz, Land Development Coordination, I have
03:27:46 been sworn.
03:27:47 Item 42, special use V07-06.
03:27:54 At 401 West Bougainvillea Avenue, the church of God of
03:27:59 prophecy is the petitioner.
03:28:00 This is a continuance from 4/12/07.
03:28:03 The development review committee has reviewed the
03:28:06 petition and has no objections to the request.
03:28:10 As of the date of the site plan before you dated
03:28:13 4/20/07.
03:28:15 The current zoning in the area is RS-60, residential
03:28:19 single-family.
03:28:21 The proposed use is the expansion of an existing place
03:28:25 of religious assembly to add a fellowship hall and
03:28:29 additional parking.
03:28:30 There's one waiver per section 27246-K to allow more
03:28:35 than 50% alternative parking spaces on grass.
03:28:39 The petitioner is requesting a special use on the
03:28:41 property of 401 West Bougainvillea Avenue to provide
03:28:45 additional parking in addition of a new fellowship
03:28:50 hall on the existing place of religious assembly.

03:28:54 Currently the church has seating capacity of 112 that
03:28:58 requires 34 parking spaces.
03:29:00 This project will add 17 parking spaces for a total of
03:29:03 51 spaces, which exceeds the required offstreet
03:29:06 parking.
03:29:06 The proposed fellowship hall will be a
03:29:09 3,992-square-foot building, but will not increase
03:29:13 seating in the sanctuary.
03:29:14 The new addition has a front yard setback of
03:29:17 95.1 feet, 64.6 on the West side yard, a 36.1 existing
03:29:24 East side yard and a 79.1 existing rear yard.
03:29:33 ELMO, please.
03:29:36 The current zoning in the area, as you can see, is
03:29:38 dominantly RS-60.
03:29:40 The area highlighted in green is the petitioned area.
03:29:44 This is Bougainvillea.
03:29:46 And this is Ola street.
03:29:49 To also -- this is Seneca to the North.
03:29:52 This portion of Seneca has been vacated.
03:29:56 As you can see by the aerial photo, you can see the
03:30:01 existing church.
03:30:04 This is a picture of the existing church.

03:30:09 Substantially, they are going to be adding a lot of
03:30:11 landscaping.
03:30:12 As you can see, please, by your site plan.
03:30:15 This is looking on North Ola.
03:30:17 All this will be landscaped along here per City Code.
03:30:22 This is looking down Bougainvillea to the East.
03:30:26 This is looking down Bougainvillea to the West.
03:30:30 And this is the school and playground facility
03:30:33 directly across the street.
03:30:35 I'll be available if there are any questions.
03:30:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions for Council members?
03:30:40 Does the Planning Commission staff want to say
03:30:42 anything?
03:30:42 >> They are on vacation.
03:30:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
03:30:48 >> Good afternoon.
03:30:49 For the record, Laura Bellflower, I'm here as a pro
03:30:52 bono representative of the Church of God.
03:30:54 Address is P.O. Box 47451, Tampa.
03:30:59 I can make this very short.
03:31:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Does anyone in the public want to speak
03:31:03 on item 42?

03:31:06 We have a motion and second to close.
03:31:07 All in favor of the motion, aye.
03:31:08 [Motion Carried]
03:31:09 Do we have an ordinance?
03:31:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would like to move an ordinance
03:31:16 approving a special use permit S-2, approving a place
03:31:19 of religious assembly at the fellowship hall in an
03:31:23 RS-60 residential single-family zoning district in the
03:31:26 general vicinity of 401 West Bougainvillea Avenue in
03:31:31 the City of Tampa, Florida, and as more particularly
03:31:33 described in section one hereof, allowing more than
03:31:37 50% alternate parking space on the grass, providing an
03:31:41 effective date.
03:31:42 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
03:31:44 All in favor, aye.
03:31:45 [Motion Carried]
03:31:46 We need to open item number 43.
03:31:50 We have a motion and second.
03:31:51 All in favor, aye.
03:31:52 [Motion Carried]
03:31:53 Ms. Coyle, are you in charge of the appeal hearing?
03:31:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, Council, just very briefly,

03:32:06 with regard to the appeal hearings, it's been
03:32:08 Council's custom that staff very briefly presents the
03:32:13 facts of the case and the procedural history to date
03:32:15 and then turns the case over to the appellate.
03:32:18 Then the presentations are limited to 15 minutes with
03:32:22 a three-minute rebuttal after additional testimony.
03:32:26 And again, Council, it's testimony only of those
03:32:29 people who have participated in the proceeding below.
03:32:32 And this one is a review of the variance review board.
03:32:37 I'm going to pass out for Council to refresh your
03:32:41 recollection, section 27-373, sub 8, again, this is a
03:32:54 certiorari standard and basically what you're doing is
03:32:58 looking as to the record by low to see whether it
03:33:02 meets the criteria, whether the essential requirements
03:33:04 of law have been met and whether due process has been
03:33:07 afforded.
03:33:10 And I believe --
03:33:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Sir, you have to wait until the staff
03:33:15 speaks.
03:33:15 You have to wait a few seconds.
03:33:17 Have a seat and then the staff will speak first.
03:33:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that the standard of review

03:33:22 that the variance review board uses is contained in
03:33:26 the staff report, which is contained in your backup
03:33:29 material.
03:33:30 >> Good afternoon, Council.
03:33:31 Marty McDonald, Land Development, I have been sworn.
03:33:35 This is a property at 4008 Ohio Avenue.
03:33:40 The petitioner's name is Carlos Rivera Morales.
03:33:43 This came before the variance review board
03:33:46 March 13th, 2007.
03:33:48 And the variance review board denied.
03:33:52 The request was to reduce the front yard setback from
03:33:54 25 feet to 13.5 feet with the allowed encroachments of
03:33:59 eaves and gutters in order to retain a double carport.
03:34:02 The petitioner testified that he hired a contractor.
03:34:06 The contractor reiterated that he would pull the
03:34:09 permits, and he built the carport.
03:34:13 Never pulled the permits.
03:34:14 I guess he's long gone.
03:34:16 So that's the situation.
03:34:17 The variance review board did deny it.
03:34:20 Some of the pictures that were provided as part of the
03:34:23 record on the ELMO, please.

03:34:29 The petitioner showed 30-some carports in the
03:34:32 neighborhood that have been built, two-car carports.
03:34:36 And I believe this is a picture of his existing
03:34:42 carport.
03:34:43 There were no objections from transportation or parks
03:34:46 and parks and recreation.
03:34:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A couple of things.
03:34:54 Was there any objection from the community?
03:34:57 >> No.
03:34:57 He had letters in support of.
03:34:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And what criteria was the board
03:35:03 operating under in March at this hearing?
03:35:06 We revised the variance criteria, was it -- looking at
03:35:10 his application, he filled it out under the old one,
03:35:14 but then by the time it got heard, maybe the new one
03:35:18 was in place.
03:35:19 I don't know.
03:35:20 >> The new one in March was in place, but they didn't
03:35:23 have to consider all -- they didn't have to show
03:35:25 how -- he did not have to show how he met all five.
03:35:29 They could consider how they could have just met one
03:35:33 hardship criteria.

03:35:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Under the new criteria, that was
03:35:37 the consideration that they were giving or should have
03:35:40 been giving, and then they wouldn't have had to find
03:35:45 all of them, at least just one.
03:35:47 >> That is correct.
03:35:48 It was the first meeting where they had the option to
03:35:50 look at it differently.
03:35:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
03:35:52 Thank you.
03:35:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair, 4008 Ohio, that's
03:35:58 correct -- the address is 4008 Ohio?
03:36:01 >> Yes.
03:36:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Is that on the West side of Dale
03:36:04 Mabry?
03:36:06 >> I don't think I have that information.
03:36:09 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I think it's two or three blocks.
03:36:11 >> I'm not sure.
03:36:12 It's West of Dale Mabry.
03:36:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: West of Dale Mabry.
03:36:15 That's in the Drew Park area?
03:36:17 >> No, South of Gandy.
03:36:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Oh, the other Ohio.

03:36:21 There are two Ohios.
03:36:22 >> If you want to look on the ELMO, this is the
03:36:25 portion of Ohio Avenue.
03:36:26 I know it's not exactly what your question was --
03:36:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just for the record, Ohio is on --
03:36:33 every street is named after a state, Wisconsin, Iowa,
03:36:36 Ohio, so on and so forth.
03:36:38 Ohio is the one behind me where I live.
03:36:40 So there are two Ohios.
03:36:41 >> Yes, there are two Ohios.
03:36:43 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you.
03:36:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, you can come up now.
03:36:53 >> Good afternoon, members of the City Council board.
03:36:54 My name is Carlos A. Rivera Morales.
03:36:58 4008 Ohio Avenue.
03:37:01 Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to
03:37:04 ask for reconsideration of this variance request.
03:37:09 I am requesting a setback, front setback from 25 feet
03:37:13 to 13.5 feet, so I would be able to maintain double
03:37:16 carport.
03:37:19 Back in 2005, I was trying to find a way to make some
03:37:23 home improvements.

03:37:25 Help the community look better.
03:37:26 I look around, I made a decision since so many people
03:37:32 have been building carports and garages in the area,
03:37:35 so I thought it was a good idea for me to convert the
03:37:37 existing carport into a garage and build a double
03:37:41 carport so we can have protection for our vehicles.
03:37:44 At the same time, since I have many medical problems,
03:37:47 I thought it was a good idea for me to park the car in
03:37:50 front of the house because the main entrance to the
03:37:53 rear access, easy to go in and out of the car if it's
03:37:56 raining or sun light, whatever the situation, that
03:37:58 could be easy for me to get in and out, come back to
03:38:01 the house, no problem there.
03:38:04 I did hire a company from Kissimmee.
03:38:06 They told me that they will take care of the
03:38:09 paperwork.
03:38:11 Once we finish, one day the code enforcement personnel
03:38:15 arrived to my house and asked me if I had a permit for
03:38:18 the construction.
03:38:20 I said, no, I did not have one.
03:38:24 Mr. Victor Miguel supposed to be taking care of that.
03:38:28 At that time, I was cited a violation for building

03:38:31 without a permit.
03:38:32 When I applied for the permit for the garage, and also
03:38:36 the carport, the carport was denied because they say I
03:38:40 had to apply for the variance first.
03:38:42 From that time, I have to do the paperwork and apply.
03:38:46 So the point right now is I do, in fact -- I need the
03:38:51 carport.
03:38:52 It helped the house.
03:38:55 It helped to protect the vehicles.
03:38:56 It also is a great for me to have easy access to the
03:39:02 front under the inclement weather.
03:39:07 The carport is 22 by 24.
03:39:10 The distance from the fence to the existing roofline
03:39:14 is 35.5 feet.
03:39:18 The gate is ten feet wide, which is easy access to --
03:39:23 I don't have to expand the gate.
03:39:24 I don't have to expand the driveway.
03:39:26 The existing garage is too small for me.
03:39:30 Small for the car.
03:39:31 That's why I decided to have the carport on the
03:39:34 outside so I can park both cars outside.
03:39:36 My son use the small car garage.

03:39:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Any questions from Council members?
03:39:45 Can anyone speak from the public?
03:39:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, anybody who participated in the
03:39:50 hearing below has the opportunity to speak into
03:39:53 anybody in the public who was at the hearing like to
03:39:56 speak today?
03:39:57 We have a motion and second to close.
03:39:58 All in favor, aye.
03:39:59 [Motion Carried]
03:40:00 Mr. Dingfelder.
03:40:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was looking through the
03:40:03 transcript, and on page 16, one of the board members,
03:40:07 I can't tell who, did an analysis, hardship by
03:40:10 hardship.
03:40:11 And one of the things -- and one of the things that he
03:40:16 or she looked at when they said it is hardship number
03:40:19 two, which says, will it interfere with the rights of
03:40:24 others, and he or she concluded no.
03:40:29 Which is hardship number two, excuse me, hardship
03:40:31 number three.
03:40:32 The variance if granted will not substantially
03:40:34 interfere with or injure the health, safety and

03:40:37 welfare of others.
03:40:38 And so I think that in light of that, I think -- also
03:40:42 in light of the fact there was no objection from any
03:40:44 of the neighbors, it seems to be a common trend
03:40:47 through that neighborhood that I'm very familiar with.
03:40:50 I'm comfortable with granting the reversal -- granting
03:40:54 the petition for reversal on that basis.
03:40:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: We're not in a position to be able to
03:40:59 do that yet.
03:41:00 We're still operating under the remand until chapter
03:41:03 27 changes come back, what you set today.
03:41:06 So basically, if it's Council's decision that the
03:41:12 hardship criteria -- and you made a specific reference
03:41:15 to it -- had been met, you could remand it with that
03:41:20 instruction that they consider that.
03:41:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I apologize to everybody
03:41:23 involved, including the VRB and the petitioner.
03:41:27 We have this kind of messed up rule that we're in the
03:41:31 process of fixing.
03:41:32 But for now, I'm going to motion that we rule in your
03:41:35 favorite.
03:41:36 Remand it back to the variance review board and give

03:41:38 them another opportunity to revisit your petition
03:41:41 based upon the statement that I made earlier.
03:41:45 Is that sufficient, Mr. Shelby?
03:41:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
03:41:47 We have a motion and second.
03:41:48 All in favor of the motion, aye.
03:41:50 Opposed, nay.
03:41:51 [Motion Carried]
03:41:52 >> Thank you very much.
03:41:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item number 44.
03:41:54 We have a motion and second.
03:41:56 All in favor, aye.
03:41:56 [Motion Carried]
03:41:57 We have staff for 44?
03:42:22 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Good afternoon, Council, Catherine
03:42:23 Coyle, Land Development.
03:42:27 The petition you have before you is a request -- or
03:42:30 I'm sorry, an appeal of zoning administrator
03:42:32 determination on a special use one application.
03:42:35 The petitioner is requesting an approval of this
03:42:39 appeal for the establishment of a six-bed congregate
03:42:42 living facility at 1605 Idell street.

03:42:45 The property is currently developed for a
03:42:48 single-family structure.
03:42:49 Setback 21 feet from the front, seven feet from the
03:42:51 East side, nine feet from the West side and 31 feet
03:42:54 from the rear.
03:42:55 This site will be modified to provide two offstreet
03:42:58 parking spaces.
03:42:59 This request is before you, basically, under the
03:43:02 special use criteria of section 27272 which you'll
03:43:07 note on the front page of the staff report, as the
03:43:11 zoning administrator, I cannot approve a special use
03:43:14 request that needs a waiver to any of those criteria.
03:43:17 I have to deny them if they do not meet them.
03:43:19 The waiver that you see listed on page one is the
03:43:22 request to reduce the required 1,200 feet separation
03:43:26 down to 805 feet.
03:43:29 There is a 1200-foot radius around these types of uses
03:43:32 that no other similar use can be within that radius.
03:43:36 They do have to have separation between them.
03:43:38 There is another location, as you'll see, on the map
03:43:42 that I passed out, of which I did not keep a copy.
03:43:50 You have it before you.

03:43:51 It shows the other location within 805 feet.
03:43:54 As Council, you can grant the waiver to this if you
03:43:56 feel that it meets the general standards of 27269.
03:44:02 You'll note at the bottom of page one, going on to
03:44:05 page 2, the development review committee did not have
03:44:11 any objections to any of the technical standards.
03:44:14 It actually met all the provisions of code for
03:44:16 parking, landscaping and tree preservation.
03:44:23 This is a picture of the site as well.
03:44:28 The applicant is here to describe the use, answer
03:44:34 questions and basically ask for approval.
03:44:36 If you have any questions, I'm available.
03:44:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
03:44:49 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Planning Commission is here as
03:44:50 well.
03:44:53 >> Lindsey Mineer with the Planning Commission.
03:44:57 This is a request for group home at 1605 Idell Street.
03:45:02 The request is not in compliance with the intent of
03:45:04 the goals, objectives and policies that the City of
03:45:06 Tampa -- of the City of Tampa comprehensive plan.
03:45:10 Policy B 2.1 of the future land use element recognizes
03:45:14 the importance of stable neighborhoods to the social

03:45:16 and economic health of the city and stresses the
03:45:19 careful consideration of this when implementing the
03:45:22 city's code.
03:45:24 The request for a group home requires the waiver to
03:45:27 the distance separation from a similar facility.
03:45:32 The Sulphur Springs neighborhood speaks to improve the
03:45:36 condition of the neighborhood through a balance of
03:45:38 uses.
03:45:39 The existing code requirement of a distance separation
03:45:41 is one way of helping the neighborhood achieve such
03:45:45 balance.
03:45:46 A waiver to the separation requirement would create a
03:45:50 concentration of uses that does not readily lead to
03:45:54 stability for the Sulphur Springs neighborhood.
03:45:55 The Planning Commission staff finds the special use
03:45:59 request inconsistent with the provisions of the Tampa
03:46:02 comprehensive plan.
03:46:03 Thank you.
03:46:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a quick question.
03:46:07 Ma'am, hello?
03:46:09 According to my calculations, this structure is about
03:46:12 1600 square feet.

03:46:14 Do you all consider what a minimum size is for a
03:46:18 six-person congregate living facility where I assume
03:46:21 the operator of the facility is also living on-site?
03:46:25 Do you have any dimensional requirements or do you
03:46:28 consider that?
03:46:32 >> Not at the Planning Commission.
03:46:33 I don't know if they do --
03:46:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, I was just asking you.
03:46:37 Thank you.
03:46:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
03:46:42 >> Good evening.
03:46:43 I'm Novelette Tomlinson.
03:46:46 I'm an R.N. for 21 years, working in the field of
03:46:51 pediatrics.
03:46:52 I decided to buy this home after I spoke with the
03:46:54 Department of Children and Family Services.
03:46:59 At that time, they gave me an approval because the
03:47:02 requirement was within 1,000 feet.
03:47:05 And their calculation said that the other home, which
03:47:08 is an ALS, was within 1,000 feet.
03:47:14 Later I found it was only 800 and something feet.
03:47:18 So the requirement of the department, children and

03:47:22 family services is only 1,000 feet.
03:47:25 Also, this is an ALS that is in a complete different
03:47:29 neighborhood.
03:47:29 It's like almost two streets over, and it does not --
03:47:36 my home is not going to alter the appearance of the
03:47:40 community in no way.
03:47:42 There's not going to be a sign posted.
03:47:44 It's not considered a commercial use.
03:47:49 It's a private family home where kids that are
03:47:51 disabled that need medical, physical care can be put
03:47:59 into a house which, you know, they'll have a family
03:48:03 life.
03:48:06 So it's really not going to change anything in Sulphur
03:48:08 Springs.
03:48:10 There's a rehab that fits in right there at the
03:48:13 corner.
03:48:14 To me, that attracts more undesirable than a private
03:48:19 group home.
03:48:21 So I think I've met all the criteria which has been
03:48:26 costing me a lot of money, not only to pay the
03:48:29 mortgage, but for all these appeal hearings and
03:48:32 whatever.

03:48:33 I feel like I can be an asset for these children
03:48:40 because I've been working in the field for several
03:48:42 years.
03:48:44 There are other facilities that are within the Sulphur
03:48:46 Springs area.
03:48:48 There are like ten more.
03:48:50 But the only reason why we're here at this public
03:48:55 hearing is because I need a variance.
03:48:57 These homes are usually open in these neighborhoods
03:49:00 and most of the time, the neighbors don't even know
03:49:03 they exist, because it remains a private home and, I
03:49:10 mean, you know, I don't see a problem why I couldn't
03:49:14 be granted the use of this facility to take care of
03:49:18 the six children.
03:49:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, ma'am.
03:49:24 Your property proposed is on Idell, according to this
03:49:28 map.
03:49:28 >> Yes, sir.
03:49:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And what street is the other one
03:49:30 that's within 800 feet?
03:49:33 >> It's on Elmer.
03:49:38 8108 Elmer.

03:49:42 It's an ALS.
03:49:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: How would you get there?
03:49:45 You go over Idell and up 17th.
03:49:47 >> Up to mark and maybe two streets you have to go
03:49:53 down.
03:49:54 It's not like you can see.
03:49:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, there it is.
03:49:57 It's starred on our map.
03:49:59 You go up and over and it's like four blocks away.
03:50:02 >> Exactly, sir.
03:50:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I had a question for legal.
03:50:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ma'am, I'm sorry.
03:50:08 Before you go on, I neglected to ask you if you were
03:50:11 sworn in.
03:50:11 >> Oh, I don't think so, sir.
03:50:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair --
03:50:16 >> I didn't know what --
03:50:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My mistake.
03:50:18 >>GWEN MILLER: If anyone else is going to speak, would
03:50:21 you please stand and raise your right hand.
03:50:23 (Oath administered by clerk).
03:50:27 >> Yes, ma'am.

03:50:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: And everything you've said up to this
03:50:30 point has been the truth, is that right?
03:50:32 >> Yes.
03:50:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
03:50:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right now, the application that's
03:50:38 in includes a site plan, which is good.
03:50:43 And it just describes -- on our staff report,
03:50:47 described as congregate living facility.
03:50:50 Can we tighten up the description of the use either on
03:50:54 a site plan or in the staff report or something else,
03:50:57 so it says congregate living facility for limited to
03:51:01 disabled children?
03:51:03 Because if that's her intent and if, in fact, we can
03:51:06 legally do that, it might help the neighbors feel a
03:51:09 little more comfortable as compared to just leaving it
03:51:12 wide open, which could be, you know, alcohol, drug
03:51:16 treatment facility or something like that.
03:51:18 So any help on that?
03:51:21 >> Legal Department.
03:51:21 I was actually pondering that exact question.
03:51:24 Julia Cole.
03:51:26 Cathy Coyle and I were chatting about that.

03:51:28 Can we allow, I know there are some folks who need to
03:51:31 speak, allow them to go ahead and speak and let me
03:51:33 look at the criteria and see if that's something we
03:51:35 can do in this process or alternatively we may have to
03:51:38 recommend a rezoning process.
03:51:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Ma'am, sit down for a moment.
03:51:43 We'll let the persons speak.
03:51:44 Anyone in the public want to speak on item 44, come up
03:51:48 and speak.
03:51:54 >> Good afternoon, City Council.
03:51:55 My name is Mr. Christopher Jordan.
03:51:58 I'm actually the business manager for Mr. and
03:52:03 Mrs. Tomlinson who are speaking to reverse the
03:52:07 appeal -- you know, have the appeal going right now.
03:52:11 My input is that during the renovation of the
03:52:16 property, which as she stated, they've sunk numerous
03:52:19 dollars into the property to renovate it, to meet
03:52:23 specification and guidelines.
03:52:26 I spoke to several individuals, neighbors, people in
03:52:29 the community who basically had general questions,
03:52:33 well, what are you guys doing?
03:52:35 What's going on there?

03:52:36 And all of them gave me very positive feedback.
03:52:39 And I actually was notified by a former resident of
03:52:44 the neighborhood that there was only one individual
03:52:47 who opposed it, and I guess they had some kind of
03:52:51 verbal conversation about it, and I guess that's the
03:52:55 party that's supposing today that they had an issue
03:52:59 with it.
03:52:59 But everybody else seemed to think it was a good thing
03:53:03 for the community which honestly needs revitalization.
03:53:06 You know, you have, like Mrs. Tomlinson said, a drug
03:53:10 rehab, I believe, up at the corner which is also, I
03:53:15 guess, they deem necessary.
03:53:17 But as I stated, there's been no negative feedback --
03:53:22 not that I've heard.
03:53:23 And just to state on the record that Ms. Tomlinson,
03:53:29 Mrs. Tomlinson would not be residing there.
03:53:32 The only people that would be residing there are the
03:53:34 individuals for care.
03:53:35 So, you know, it's not that you need the zoning for,
03:53:41 say, the owner plus six individuals who are going to
03:53:46 be cared for.
03:53:47 It's going to be a care facility for six individuals

03:53:49 with either, you know, retardation issues or, you
03:53:55 know, any other needy issues.
03:53:59 I just want to say that.
03:54:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
03:54:02 Anyone else like to speak?
03:54:09 >> Hi.
03:54:09 My name is David Marshall.
03:54:13 I have been sworn.
03:54:14 I live at 1607 East Idell street, which is
03:54:17 approximately nine feet away from this halfway house.
03:54:24 As already stated, there is another halfway down the
03:54:26 street.
03:54:27 It's not invisible.
03:54:28 We see the police blue lights down there very often.
03:54:34 My house, like I said, which is nine feet away from
03:54:37 there, has had four cars stolen from it this year.
03:54:41 Somebody has come in the backyard, stolen my dog.
03:54:45 I've had a riot of 45 people in my front yard.
03:54:49 I didn't know a one of them, two weeks before stand
03:54:53 your ground law came into effect.
03:54:56 My wife has 50 pages of sexual predators which are
03:54:59 local with about six people per page.

03:55:02 This is not the neighborhood for children of any type.
03:55:06 And if it wasn't for all the disasters happening to my
03:55:11 family, we would have gone a long time ago.
03:55:16 And now somebody for-profit, without making sure that
03:55:20 their Is were dotted and their Ts were crossed in
03:55:24 the hopes of whether sneaking this in under the line
03:55:27 or whatever thing that they went and spent all this
03:55:31 money to start a for-profit in a residential 50 zone,
03:55:38 I say, sorry, but, no, we already have halfway houses.
03:55:45 Mayor Greco when he closed down the housing, we got an
03:55:49 absurd amount of section 8 that if you remember, Susan
03:55:53 Greenbaum, professor of anthropology, USF, came and
03:55:56 did a dispensation study on that in front of the
03:56:02 Council.
03:56:02 And we got an observed amount.
03:56:05 And now we have 50% of the cars have stereos as big as
03:56:10 their engines.
03:56:12 We have all sorts -- but it's coming around.
03:56:15 And the neighborhood looks a whole lot better these
03:56:18 days, but you will tell the resident owner from the
03:56:23 other residents that are now living in there by the
03:56:26 people that take their trash cans in after they've

03:56:29 been emptied.
03:56:30 By the people that have a car with an engine that's
03:56:33 not bigger than their stereos.
03:56:37 This is what concerns me.
03:56:39 It concerns me that somebody is using business tact is
03:56:45 not smart enough to get with us residents.
03:56:49 I used to live next door.
03:56:51 I'm out front all the time doing yard work.
03:56:53 They never approach me.
03:56:55 I asked one of the contracting workers that was there
03:56:57 what was going on.
03:57:00 And I went to the corner.
03:57:03 But we're working.
03:57:05 Not everybody can take a whole day since I've been
03:57:08 here since 9:30 this morning to sit in a Council
03:57:11 meeting and try to get heard to protect our property
03:57:13 that we protect on a daily basis.
03:57:18 And I beg you, this is where I live.
03:57:24 No more business.
03:57:25 No more for profit.
03:57:27 We have to protect our own.
03:57:29 I've done enough for the community, was with the

03:57:34 action league three years.
03:57:36 Their vice president.
03:57:37 The federal weed and seed program restoration
03:57:39 Chairman, paint your heart out captain for five years,
03:57:43 policy Council rep for Hillsborough head start.
03:57:45 I have nothing against anybody.
03:57:47 I'll paint your house for you.
03:57:49 But guess what, I need a little time to know that my
03:57:52 family is safe.
03:57:54 And no more businesses next door, for profit.
03:58:00 It's a residential -- thank you very much.
03:58:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone else like to speak?
03:58:06 >> Good afternoon.
03:58:06 My name is Cynthia chimes.
03:58:09 1607 East Idell street.
03:58:13 I'm here because I'm concerned.
03:58:16 I'm a mom.
03:58:18 I'm a mom.
03:58:20 And I was so concerned that I felt like I needed to
03:58:24 come here and speak this morning.
03:58:28 I looked on the Web site for sexual predators.
03:58:34 I have 53 pages with average of 10 offenders per page

03:58:41 that live in our neighborhood.
03:58:45 We have seven within walking distance which a majority
03:58:52 of them have numerous charges of child pornography
03:58:57 against them.
03:58:58 And they list this as their permanent resident.
03:59:03 How can you bring in children who are defenseless,
03:59:08 unable to defend themselves by -- because they are
03:59:13 crippled or they have physical or mentally -- or
03:59:20 mental defects, how can you bring these children in to
03:59:23 this kind of environment and think that they can be
03:59:25 safe?
03:59:27 I mean, how can you do this?
03:59:29 How can you in good conscience even propose such a
03:59:35 facility be brought into place with this kind of
03:59:40 environment.
03:59:42 Sulphur Springs is overwhelmed.
03:59:44 We already have in excess of 3,000 children living in
03:59:48 Sulphur Springs area.
03:59:50 And we have one recreation center that will serve 200
03:59:56 children.
04:00:00 This is not the place to be putting defenseless
04:00:06 children to live and have any preponderance that these

04:00:12 children will be safe.
04:00:14 It's just -- it's just unthinkable that someone would
04:00:19 even contemplate this.
04:00:23 Now, I know that a lot of you know Joseph Robson of
04:00:28 the Sulphur Springs action league.
04:00:30 He wanted to be here this afternoon, but his wife is
04:00:34 now in intensive care, and he is at her side at the
04:00:37 hospital.
04:00:37 And he asked me to please relay to you that he is
04:00:46 very, very distressed about this proposal.
04:00:50 With the overwhelming -- this neighborhood is just
04:00:55 overwhelmed trying to provide for the children we have
04:00:58 now, that we just don't feel in good conscience that
04:01:01 it would be to the best interest of the children or
04:01:04 the neighborhood for this facility to be allowed to be
04:01:10 rezoned.
04:01:11 And they are talking about these other facilities, I
04:01:14 mean, that right there, that right there is telling
04:01:21 you that these rules and these -- what seems to be
04:01:24 just a few hundred feet or this or that were put in
04:01:28 place to help the Sulphur Springs community grow and
04:01:31 prosper and become a place like it was when I was a

04:01:37 little girl and when Charles was a little guy.
04:01:41 That it was a great place to go and a great place to
04:01:44 visit.
04:01:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
04:01:45 Next speaker?
04:01:46 Anyone else like to speak?
04:01:47 If you spoke once, you can't speak again.
04:01:51 Petitioner, do you want rebuttal?
04:01:56 >> What the neighborhood has failed to realized --
04:02:01 realize, as I said before, this is a home.
04:02:03 This is a place -- Sulphur Springs has homes.
04:02:09 Children are already living in Sulphur Springs. So it
04:02:14 is no different bringing other children into the
04:02:19 neighborhood.
04:02:20 The state mandates that the workers or the staff we
04:02:25 hire, they are properly screened, and that includes
04:02:30 FDLE background check.
04:02:32 They are properly trained to protect the children.
04:02:39 If the neighborhood is so bad, why are you even living
04:02:44 there if you put it to the point that children
04:02:48 cannot -- it cannot be a home.
04:02:51 If I did not see where it could not be a home for

04:02:56 these children, I've worked in group homes for many
04:02:58 years.
04:02:59 I've been taking care of children in the home.
04:03:00 It is very private.
04:03:02 It is not disruptive.
04:03:04 You are constantly supervised by the state.
04:03:08 You have to maintain the home environment, the outer
04:03:11 exterior.
04:03:12 They come in, they make sure that your front yard is
04:03:16 cleaned, your facility is clean.
04:03:20 It can only enhance the beauty, the safety of Sulphur
04:03:25 Springs.
04:03:26 It cannot jeopardize anybody in Sulphur Springs.
04:03:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There seems to be some confusion
04:03:35 about the type of children that you'll be supervising
04:03:39 or taking care of.
04:03:40 If they are disabled children or even disabled young
04:03:43 adults, I guess as they get older, it would appear to
04:03:47 me logic would say they are not going to go out
04:03:49 unattended, right?
04:03:51 >> No, sir.
04:03:53 They will always -- the state mandates that you have

04:03:57 proper staffing.
04:03:59 You have to install a fire sprinkler so that if
04:04:04 there's a fire, these children can be properly
04:04:07 evacuated.
04:04:07 And you have to have enough staff to safely get the
04:04:12 children out.
04:04:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In terms of sexual predators, that
04:04:15 doesn't seem to be relevant because they will always
04:04:18 be supervised.
04:04:21 >> They will always be supervised.
04:04:23 It's a 24-hour staffed facility.
04:04:26 >> Would you agreeable if we put a condition in the
04:04:29 approval that would limit this facility to just what
04:04:32 you've told us and testified to us that this would be,
04:04:36 disabled children or young adults or whatever language
04:04:41 that works for your program, your business plan or
04:04:45 your license or what have you.
04:04:48 >> I have no problem because that's what I am licensed
04:04:51 under.
04:04:51 Department of children and family service.
04:04:54 And that little limit me to what you're seeing.
04:04:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's not going to be a halfway

04:04:59 house that these folks --
04:05:01 >> No, sir.
04:05:01 I don't have a license for that.
04:05:03 And that would be a different situation whatever.
04:05:08 But that was never my intention.
04:05:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: My question is to staff at this point.
04:05:15 My question is, they are seeking a variance because it
04:05:18 did not meet the setback requirement, is that right?
04:05:22 It is required that they have a thousand feet?
04:05:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: 1200 feet.
04:05:28 It's 1200 feet by code, and they are 805 feet away
04:05:31 from another facility.
04:05:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So if they have that requirement, then
04:05:34 they wouldn't be before us.
04:05:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They wouldn't be here.
04:05:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The issue is they came up short.
04:05:40 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They are 395 feet off.
04:05:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can grant it with an additional
04:05:47 condition over and above what we normally do.
04:05:49 Normally we would grant it and say, yeah, we'll waive
04:05:52 the distance requirement.
04:05:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You have the ability to place

04:05:55 additional conditions that you feel meet the needs to
04:05:59 protect the public safety, welfare.
04:06:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, the issue I was trying to raise
04:06:03 so that we can be more focused is the variance, that
04:06:07 if they met the requirement, they would not be here at
04:06:10 all.
04:06:11 They could still move forward, not even come before
04:06:14 us.
04:06:14 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That's correct.
04:06:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's the issue I was trying to
04:06:17 raise.
04:06:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Any other questions?
04:06:19 We need to close the appeal.
04:06:21 >> So moved.
04:06:22 >> Second.
04:06:22 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second to close.
04:06:24 All in favor, aye.
04:06:25 [Motion Carried]
04:06:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move to grant the appeal, but
04:06:32 direct staff to revise the ordinance and possibly the
04:06:37 site plan with specific limitations on the use of this
04:06:41 property, specifically limited to disabled children or

04:06:45 adults.
04:06:48 Any other suggestions from legal counsel, I'm amenable
04:06:52 to.
04:06:52 >>JULIA COLE: That's fine.
04:06:53 One week would be fine with me.
04:06:55 What I would need to do is revise the ordinance in
04:06:57 looking -- and within our code, there are some
04:07:01 provisions that we will add in there that will allow
04:07:04 us to limit the use in that manner.
04:07:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And just the maker of the motion,
04:07:10 to be abundantly clear, if this was any other kind of
04:07:12 use, halfway house or what have you that I would see
04:07:16 as a threat to the neighborhood or as a business that
04:07:18 would disrupt the neighborhood, then I agree
04:07:20 wholeheartedly with the next door neighbors.
04:07:22 But in this case, this is about children.
04:07:24 It's obviously about needy children who need a place
04:07:27 to go.
04:07:28 They have a nice lady here who is willing to take care
04:07:31 of them in a quiet environment, and I think we should
04:07:34 do it.
04:07:34 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

04:07:36 All in favor of the motion, aye.
04:07:37 Opposed, nay.
04:07:39 [Motion Carried]
04:07:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question?
04:07:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Direct staff one week.
04:07:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I want to confer with staff.
04:07:48 One week?
04:07:53 >>GWEN MILLER: All right.
04:07:54 We now go to information from Council members.
04:07:56 Mr. Caetano.
04:08:03 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: I would like to have administration
04:08:04 in conjunction with the code enforcement
04:08:06 administration to review and establish a list of
04:08:09 outstanding monies due as a result of code violations
04:08:13 that have been assessed on various properties.
04:08:16 Have all properties identified by date that the
04:08:20 violation was determined and to identify all
04:08:22 properties that are considered homesteaded.
04:08:26 On all properties, list the amounts of assessed fines
04:08:28 and compute the total of all assessments.
04:08:32 And to present to the City Council within two weeks of
04:08:35 its finding.

04:08:36 And my reason for this, as I understand this, millions
04:08:39 of dollars out there in this blighted area, I saw some
04:08:43 areas around Harrison and Florida Avenue.
04:08:47 If we're going to be the next great city, we have to
04:08:50 start cleaning up downtown.
04:08:51 And it's a shame that you have some viable businesses
04:08:54 around there, and I've looked at them this week a
04:08:57 couple of times, and it's a shame.
04:09:00 So we need to either foreclose on these properties or
04:09:04 sell the foreclosures or do something because we are
04:09:07 in need of money.
04:09:09 And I understand it's in the millions of dollars.
04:09:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
04:09:14 I wasn't clear on the time frame.
04:09:16 I think it's probably going to take them a little
04:09:18 while --
04:09:19 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: We'll give them whatever time they
04:09:22 need.
04:09:23 Do they need 90 days?
04:09:28 It should be part of their system.
04:09:30 I talked to Mr. Lane yesterday and he said he'll put
04:09:33 some figures together.

04:09:34 >>GWEN MILLER: Well, 90 days then.
04:09:36 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: We'll make that 90 days.
04:09:37 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
04:09:39 Opposed, nay.
04:09:40 [Motion Carried]
04:09:40 Anything else, Mr. Caetano?
04:09:43 >>JOSEPH CAETANO: That's it.
04:09:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Madam Chairman and to the board, we
04:09:47 voted to have a workshop on the CRA.
04:09:51 The question out there is, do you want that televised
04:09:54 or not televised?
04:09:57 And I needed to hear from you on that?
04:09:59 >>THE CLERK: Madam Chair, we have received an e-mail
04:10:01 from cable, they will be broadcasting it.
04:10:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: As I understand from Mr. Huey, it was
04:10:08 raised and he felt that Council may want to weigh in
04:10:10 on that, I guess.
04:10:12 I don't know what your policy is when you meet, do you
04:10:15 have everything televised?
04:10:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Will it be here in Council
04:10:23 chambers?
04:10:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.

04:10:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is not the retreat.
04:10:30 It -- usually when we have it here, it's televised.
04:10:34 People are interested.
04:10:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
04:10:35 We'll televise it.
04:10:37 That's fine.
04:10:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
04:10:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a few things.
04:10:43 One, I know you opened the meeting speaking about
04:10:47 Hart's Executive Director Mr. Miller passing away.
04:10:49 I would like to prepare a commendation posthumously
04:10:53 and present it to his family.
04:10:56 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
04:10:57 [Motion Carried]
04:10:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Great guy.
04:10:59 And number two, on a happier note, Jill Buford down in
04:11:05 Port Tampa, I think most of you all know Jill, but she
04:11:10 finally turned over the reins on being president, but
04:11:13 she will still be involved.
04:11:14 I want Council to give her a commendation.
04:11:16 I think she's been president for about ten years down
04:11:18 there.

04:11:18 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
04:11:20 All in favor of the motion, aye.
04:11:21 [Motion Carried]
04:11:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll see if she wants to come in or
04:11:24 else we'll just give it to her at a meeting.
04:11:27 Third, did you all read in the paper about this
04:11:30 festival last weekend where the people couldn't get the
04:11:34 water, and then they started -- they could buy plenty
04:11:38 of beer?
04:11:38 It was over at Raymond James Stadium, but it was so
04:11:40 hot out and they couldn't buy water, that they started
04:11:44 passing out en masse.
04:11:46 Yeah, it was on the news.
04:11:48 And literally, they had 250 people in the first-aid
04:11:52 tent.
04:11:52 They sent five people to the hospital.
04:11:55 And unfortunately, as I looked into it, you know, we
04:11:59 gave them a one-day permit.
04:12:04 I think selling the beer in the heat exacerbated it,
04:12:06 but they had a very limited access to water.
04:12:08 The woman on the news story said she had to wait an
04:12:10 hour in line in the heat for a bottle of water.

04:12:14 Anyway, I'd like to just ask staff to take a look at
04:12:17 that situation, see if there's anything we can do
04:12:19 better in terms of mandating that there's plenty of
04:12:22 water available at these types of things.
04:12:29 I'll give them four weeks.
04:12:33 Maybe we need to tie the water to it.
04:12:35 I don't know.
04:12:35 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion, aye.
04:12:38 [Motion Carried]
04:12:38 Anything else?
04:12:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Could have been very dangerous.
04:12:41 No, I think that's it.
04:12:42 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda.
04:12:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Since Mr. Dingfelder is caring
04:12:47 enough to bring water in, I would like to ask the
04:12:49 administration to give us a weekly update on supply,
04:12:52 average river flow, average reservoir level, average
04:12:53 reservoir augmentation, average reservoir loss,
04:12:56 average river augmentation, the Tampa bypass canal,
04:13:00 what are we doing on the A.R.C. -- excuse me, A.S.R.,
04:13:04 aquifer storage and recovery, is there any left, what
04:13:08 the demand is from week to week, what the average

04:13:11 flow, if we're buying any water at that time from
04:13:13 Tampa Bay Water and what the average system pumpage is
04:13:16 for that week.
04:13:17 And also what citations were issued, if any.
04:13:22 A written report.
04:13:23 >>GWEN MILLER: A written report.
04:13:25 We have a motion and second.
04:13:26 Question, Mr. Shelby?
04:13:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You wanted a weekly report on an
04:13:30 ongoing basis.
04:13:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Written.
04:13:32 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Not whether it's 2 billion gallons
04:13:36 over the river, but this area where we're having a
04:13:39 shortage of water.
04:13:40 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
04:13:42 Opposed, nay.
04:13:43 [Motion Carried]
04:13:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quickly, I'd like to move to change
04:13:46 the date of the underground special discussion from
04:13:49 Tuesday, May 8th to Wednesday May 9th at 9:00 in
04:13:53 the Mascotte Room.
04:13:55 It's a motion.

04:13:55 >> Second.
04:13:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I sent you all a memo on this.
04:13:59 I have to do it officially.
04:14:06 Utility undergrounding.
04:14:08 >> That's TECO.
04:14:10 We have a motion and second.
04:14:11 All in favor, aye.
04:14:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Secondly, I would like to thank
04:14:15 Reverend Scott for his work on the retreat.
04:14:17 We got the memo.
04:14:18 I gave a suggestion for who I thought would be a good
04:14:20 facilitator.
04:14:21 And so I say, you know, upward and onward.
04:14:26 Thirdly, I'd like to do a commendation to the Lockhart
04:14:30 all girl -- Lockhart School all girl team for the
04:14:34 Odyssey of the Mind.
04:14:34 They won the local award.
04:14:36 They won the state award.
04:14:37 And they are onward to the national.
04:14:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
04:14:40 All in favor, aye.
04:14:41 [Motion Carried]

04:14:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
04:14:43 Lastly, it doesn't make sense to me that we have a
04:14:45 public hearing at the second hearing instead of the
04:14:47 first, when we read ordinances.
04:14:49 It seems to me it would be more efficient if we're
04:14:51 going to make changes to make them at our first public
04:14:54 hearing.
04:14:54 So I would like to request that Mr. Shelby put that on
04:14:57 our agenda for our retreat to look at having public
04:15:01 hearings when we have a first reading of an ordinance.
04:15:04 I think that makes all the sense in the world.
04:15:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, I believe you just sent
04:15:09 today chapter 27 changes that will come back to you on
04:15:11 June 14th.
04:15:12 If you like, I can work with Ms. Coal to discuss
04:15:16 that -- Ms. Cole to discuss that issue and bring --
04:15:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All ordinances.
04:15:21 Why should we have hearings at the second reading
04:15:25 instead of the first?
04:15:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That's a major policy discussion
04:15:27 which could be incorporated in that discussion of
04:15:29 chapter 27 changes, if you wish, unless you want to

04:15:32 save it for the retreat.
04:15:33 I should point out very briefly, under chapter 166,
04:15:36 municipalities on rezonings of quasi-judicial or even
04:15:41 ordinances, legislative ordinances, you're required
04:15:44 two readings, but only one public hearing.
04:15:46 Of course, they have to be at least in some cases,
04:15:49 seven days apart.
04:15:51 The second, it has to be noticed of when people have
04:15:54 the opportunity to be able to speak.
04:15:55 It may change about when things are advertised and the
04:15:59 like.
04:15:59 If you want to save it for retreat, that's fine.
04:16:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to do it both times.
04:16:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then I'll get right on it, if that's
04:16:05 a motion.
04:16:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's a motion.
04:16:07 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
04:16:08 All in favor of the motion, aye.
04:16:09 [Motion Carried]
04:16:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Does that mean we can also look
04:16:15 abolishing the two public hearings and having one?
04:16:19 Thank you.

04:16:19 Wonderful.
04:16:20 Third.
04:16:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And lastly, I would like the city
04:16:25 clerk to report to us in two weeks about if we have
04:16:27 any vacancies.
04:16:30 You all discussed it's hard to find an architect.
04:16:33 I don't know if we have any vacancies, but if we do,
04:16:36 the Council is ready to step into the void and appoint
04:16:38 people.
04:16:38 If the city clerk can provide Council with a list of
04:16:38 any vacancies and we can get busy filling those.
04:16:41 In two weeks.
04:16:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
04:16:43 All in favor, aye.
04:16:44 [Motion Carried]
04:16:45 Anything else?
04:16:49 Mr. Shelby?
04:16:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Nothing.
04:16:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Did you get everybody's answer?
04:16:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No.
04:16:55 And I assume that the answers that I have by the end
04:16:57 of today will be the answers that I'll put forward and

04:17:00 bring a consensus to.
04:17:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Were we supposed to respond to you?
04:17:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, to the Chairman.
04:17:07 >>GWEN MILLER: To me, but I didn't have that many.
04:17:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So we all sent it to different
04:17:13 places.
04:17:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'll make sure before you leave
04:17:17 today, if you wish to give me any further input, I'll
04:17:20 ask each of you if you would like to do that.
04:17:32 >> Just receive and file.
04:17:33 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor, aye.
04:17:34 [Motion Carried]
04:17:35 Is there anyone in the audience who would like to
04:17:37 speak at this time?
04:17:37 (The meeting was adjourned at 4:17 p.m.)
04:17:39