Help & information    View the list of Transcripts

Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 28, 2008
5:30 p.m. session

The following represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file 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.

17:39:03 [Sounding gavel]
17:39:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Tampa City Council is called to order.
17:39:05 Roll call.
17:39:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:39:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
17:39:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
17:39:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:39:15 Item number 1.
17:39:18 Pass a resolution.
17:39:20 Cathy Coyle?

17:39:21 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:39:27 You have before you, I think, three resolutions to
17:39:29 schedule public hearings, and the first resolution you
17:39:31 can go ahead with what you have in front of you.
17:39:34 That's the small scale amendment, moving forward April
17:39:36 10th.
17:39:37 The second resolution, the large scale amendments that
17:39:40 also go to April 10th.
17:39:42 Third resolution related to the overall comp plan
17:39:45 update, and the request of staff, that is being
17:39:47 withdrawn,
17:39:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Public comments?
17:40:01 >>> It is city business so I guess, very quickly.
17:40:06 >>CHAIRMAN: Does anyone in the public want to speak on
17:40:08 item number 1?
17:40:11 >> Move the resolution.
17:40:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there a second?
17:40:14 >> Second.
17:40:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:40:16 (Motion carried)
17:40:17 Number 2.
17:40:18 Anyone in the public want to speak on resolution

17:40:19 number 2?
17:40:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Seeing none.
17:40:25 >>:
17:40:26 >> Move the substitute resolution.
17:40:28 >> Second.
17:40:28 (Motion carried)
17:40:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 3.
17:40:36 >> So moved.
17:40:37 >> Second.
17:40:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
17:40:40 (Motion carried).
17:40:41 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we have number 4.
17:40:43 Continued public hearing.
17:40:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
17:40:47 Actually, I am going to skip over 4 and go to number 5
17:41:00 actually.
17:41:06 I have for you the outline of the tab with summary of
17:41:09 the comments that were made.
17:41:10 And then in blue you will see my responses to those.
17:41:14 And I have got a draft of the marked-up ordinance.
17:41:31 What I did with these ordinances was the last time
17:41:33 they were all very uniform.

17:41:36 There was three of them that were running together.
17:41:39 And they had triggers in each.
17:41:41 What I did was I pulled out what I'm calling the
17:41:44 general amendment, which is what you are being given
17:41:46 right now.
17:41:47 These are the changes to the code that from the last
17:41:50 hearing were the ones that council wanted to move on.
17:41:55 They don't assess the use table, chapter 27-77 and
17:42:01 they don't assess the pieces of code that you wanted
17:42:05 to strike and I'll go through those really quickly.
17:42:08 On the handout, the proposed language to move forward,
17:42:12 tab 1 with the solid waste changes, and you will note
17:42:16 in blue that the four-foot walkway was stricken per
17:42:21 your request.
17:42:22 Tab 2, the bonus provision, the word area was being
17:42:25 added.
17:42:28 Tab 3 was part of a general amendment.
17:42:31 There were no issues noticed by the public.
17:42:34 Tab 4, that was a change on the site plan itself for
17:42:38 certification to recognize the zoning administrator's
17:42:41 signature.
17:42:42 Tab 5, the language requiring the lot width to come to

17:42:48 City Council consideration is remaining.
17:42:51 But everything referenced in the waterfront lot
17:42:54 regulation is being stricken and moved to the July
17:42:57 cycle.
17:42:57 That's to deal with the river setback.
17:43:01 Tab 6 is a special use one appeal request or
17:43:08 regulation.
17:43:09 This consolidates all of the appeal criteria and every
17:43:13 application appeal method into one section.
17:43:20 It codifies your ability to waive criteria on special
17:43:25 use one appeal which is a matter of practice.
17:43:27 It also sets the ability for people when they appeal a
17:43:33 decision of the zoning administrator on a PD site plan
17:43:36 as something you have approved through a site plan
17:43:39 mechanism.
17:43:40 If there's an appeal of that, it technically goes to
17:43:43 the Variance Review Board which is kind of silly, a
17:43:46 plan that you have actually approved so it changes the
17:43:49 appeal to you on a plan that you have approved.
17:43:52 And the last one was something that council actually
17:43:55 had requested, was that if there's a VRB appeal to
17:43:59 you, you don't have to remand it back.

17:44:01 You can overturn it on the first hearing.
17:44:06 The tab 7, central business district, those were just
17:44:09 the modifications to give alternatives to the parking
17:44:12 scenarios, and to the open space requirements.
17:44:16 Tab 8 were the parking requirements.
17:44:22 One unit for senior housing.
17:44:25 And changes medical office to medical use for the
17:44:27 alternative parking scenario.
17:44:29 There was a comment that I noted to be considered for
17:44:33 buildings that were built after 1988 for that 50%
17:44:37 waiver.
17:44:38 I noted in my comments 1988 actually has historical
17:44:41 significance.
17:44:42 That's the year the final zoning conformance was done
17:44:48 December 17th, 198.
17:44:50 Everything built after 1988 conforms to the building
17:44:54 code.
17:44:56 Buildings that were built under the old code under the
17:44:59 old zoning district.
17:45:00 That's the reason for that title.
17:45:02 Kennedy overlay.
17:45:05 That's in the general amendment.

17:45:07 Crematoriums and waterfront lots were stricken and
17:45:10 removed.
17:45:11 Then vendors and alcohol are in a separate ordinance
17:45:15 that I will go over.
17:45:16 Just to highlight in tab 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
17:45:23 are in this ordinance.
17:45:24 These were all of the changes that have no overt
17:45:29 objections of any kind.
17:45:31 Those were just questions and I have given you the
17:45:34 responses from those.
17:45:35 If you want to hear from the public you certainly can.
17:45:37 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
17:45:38 wants to speak on item number 5?
17:45:41 >> May I ask her a question?
17:45:42 On tab 2, I need to maybe just understand this better.
17:45:50 But I'm wondering, is it a bonus density provision
17:45:56 provided as affordable housing?
17:45:59 Is that what we are talking about?
17:46:03 As I explained the last time.
17:46:05 >>> As I explained the last time there are ten items
17:46:08 in the code in the various land use categories in the
17:46:12 city when you go through a rezoning process. This

17:46:15 bonus does not give you above the density that's
17:46:17 allowed in your category.
17:46:19 It gives you the ability to reach above that minimum
17:46:21 threshold.
17:46:22 Like I said last time R-20 you can hit 18 pretty much
17:46:26 by right or by your zoning district.
17:46:28 But when you want to go between 18 and 20 you have to
17:46:31 meet this bonus provision.
17:46:32 Through the site plan zoning.
17:46:34 You can never get above 20.
17:46:36 But just to get between 18 and 20 you have to provide
17:46:38 a bonus.
17:46:39 One of the criteria, one of the items you can select
17:46:42 is affordable housing.
17:46:44 And these have been around since 1991.
17:46:48 They have been around a long time.
17:46:50 And what this does, it was a correction from our
17:46:53 housing department, actually, it said medium income
17:46:56 and it's supposed to say area medium income, AMI to
17:47:00 match the HUD regulations.
17:47:02 >>MARY MULHERN: This may not be the same thing that
17:47:05 spend sore was talking about.

17:47:08 What I don't -- okay.
17:47:10 So it's not giving a bonus density that's beyond the
17:47:14 maximum density in the zoning code.
17:47:16 Is that right?
17:47:18 >> The density in the land use district.
17:47:22 It can't get above that.
17:47:23 Not in this scenario.
17:47:25 >> All right.
17:47:26 I still don't understand that but I guess if they
17:47:28 can't go above that, they can't go above that.
17:47:30 But relating to his 30-year, the difficulty of
17:47:32 monitoring it, it does seem like it would be very
17:47:36 difficult to monitor -- I mean, you're giving -- would
17:47:48 this just be in a PD that you would get this?
17:47:52 >>> You have to have go through a site plan zoning to
17:47:55 utilize these criteria.
17:47:57 >> So if there was a change in use, they would have to
17:48:00 come to you.
17:48:00 That would trigger --
17:48:02 A change in use of a PD has to come back to you.
17:48:05 >> Right.
17:48:05 Okay.

17:48:05 But any kind of change in --
17:48:09 >>> yes, it would have to -- that would be a
17:48:11 substantial change.
17:48:12 In order to get the density that they got, they would
17:48:15 have to keep this provision.
17:48:17 >> Okay.
17:48:19 So someone else buys this property, has to come
17:48:25 back -- I mean, how do you know it's continuing to be
17:48:28 affordable?
17:48:30 >>> In order to utilize this provision the code states
17:48:32 that you have to have an agreement with the housing
17:48:34 community development manager, the legal department
17:48:37 and the zoning administrator.
17:48:38 You can use an array of mechanisms.
17:48:40 I'll give you an example.
17:48:44 This is what I was talking to Spencer, the community
17:48:47 land trust where that trust actually owns the land.
17:48:51 The first right of refusal goes to the land trust.
17:48:54 That kind of mechanism can be used and has to be an
17:48:57 agreement approved by the city as well and we actually
17:49:02 monitor it through our program at HPD.
17:49:05 We actually have the program that you heard from Cindy

17:49:09 Miller about.
17:49:10 The programs actually feed into these affordable
17:49:13 housing units as well.
17:49:17 There is some kind of second mortgage on the deed as
17:49:20 well.
17:49:21 There is land trust.
17:49:22 There is lien.
17:49:23 There's all kinds of things that are placed on these
17:49:25 things.
17:49:25 >> Our hearing already was a zoning request for the
17:49:38 house that was supposed to be affordable housing.
17:49:42 I don't know if you were here.
17:49:44 How do we know that there's always going to be one of
17:49:46 those land trust, or the house that there's always
17:49:53 going to be some mechanism to that?
17:49:55 >> If they are tripping this criteria, then there is
17:49:58 an agreement of some sort that's running with it.
17:50:01 Now, if they are telling you that they are providing
17:50:03 affordable housing and they are not actually
17:50:05 triggering the zoning provision, then it's really up
17:50:07 to them how they do it.
17:50:09 This is only triggered if they actually process

17:50:13 threshold within the land use category.
17:50:15 That's when we actually step in and monitor it.
17:50:18 But if they are only providing 17 units per acre and
17:50:21 they are telling you it's going to be affordable, I
17:50:23 mean, it's really their word to you that it will be.
17:50:26 We won't be monitoring that.
17:50:32 But the issues that you have really are much bigger
17:50:34 than the provision.
17:50:34 I mean, that is wholesale different conversation of
17:50:37 whether or not you want to monitor affordable housing.
17:50:41 How we deal with it.
17:50:43 This as I said has been around for the 18 years, 17
17:50:47 years now.
17:50:48 And this is just a word change.
17:50:49 >>MARY MULHERN: But it is something that I think we
17:50:56 need to look at.
17:50:57 Because we are giving people bonuses for things they
17:51:04 may never, you know, actually adhere to any of these
17:51:10 agreements, because there isn't any mechanism.
17:51:13 >>> Well, there are mechanisms.
17:51:15 I mean, you can certainly ask for a report from that
17:51:18 office if you would like.

17:51:19 And they can tell you all the different mechanisms for
17:51:21 it.
17:51:21 >> I'll bring it up at another time.
17:51:28 I'm sorry oh, no, that's okay.
17:51:30 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone from the public that
17:51:32 wants to speak on item number 5?
17:51:34 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill street.
17:51:40 I talked to Cathy this afternoon, and mainly what they
17:51:43 are recommending, T.H.A.N. I know agrees with, we
17:51:48 still have concerns about the chapter 3 and what's
17:51:53 going in.
17:51:55 Particularly, the mall.
17:51:59 One of the things that was recommended --
17:52:02 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Vizzi, we haven't gotten there yet.
17:52:09 >>> Oh, I'm sorry.
17:52:10 >>GWEN MILLER: We skipped 4.
17:52:13 We are on 5.
17:52:14 We need to close.
17:52:18 Do we close it?
17:52:26 Close the public hearing?
17:52:28 Okay.
17:52:29 Do we have a motion to close?

17:52:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
17:52:34 I apologize.
17:52:35 Cathy, in case I missed something a minute ago, I
17:52:40 appreciate all the work and all the indexing and
17:52:42 everything else.
17:52:45 Didn't we, when we left the subject last time, weren't
17:52:48 there a few more decision points we needed to make?
17:52:52 Or are we already culled out the issues?
17:52:55 >>> The vendor regulations you will have some
17:52:58 decisions to make and that's coming up next.
17:53:00 >> Okay.
17:53:00 >>> And then the alcohol and beverage regulations you
17:53:03 have some decisions to make following that.
17:53:05 These changes were the ones that really had no
17:53:09 outstanding issues.
17:53:10 >> The --
17:53:14 >>> we took care of everything, everything we wanted
17:53:19 to move or strike.
17:53:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to make sure that I'm right.
17:53:24 We are not really discussing now 3 and 27, right?
17:53:27 The alcohol --
17:53:30 >>> alcohol will be after.

17:53:33 >>CHAIRMAN: Okay.
17:53:34 Motion to close.
17:53:34 >> So moved.
17:53:35 >> Second.
17:53:36 (Motion carried)
17:53:39 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
17:53:46 >> Move an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida,
17:53:54 making comprehensive revisions to City of Tampa code
17:53:58 of ordinances, chapter 27, zoning, amending section
17:54:01 27-100, lots, yards and measurements, amending section
17:54:06 27-130, buffers and screening, amending section
17:54:11 27-132, solid waste storage area, amending section
17:54:15 27-148, tents, amending section 27-241, methods of
17:54:32 providing required parking and loading, amending
17:54:36 section 27-242, table 10-1, table of required parking
17:54:37 spaces; amending section 27-245, administrative
17:54:40 variance of required parking spaces, amending section
17:54:41 27-267, classes of special use permits, agent or body
17:54:46 responsible for each general procedure; amending
17:54:46 section 27-323, review; Amending section 27-324,
17:54:48 general requirements; amending section 27-328, bonus;
17:54:52 Amending section 27-373, appeal method; Amending

17:54:52 section 27-440, development design approval and;
17:54:52 Amending section 27-441, development design amending
17:54:52 section 27-442, parking; amending section 27-468,
17:54:52 Kennedy Boulevard corridor district development
17:54:52 design; Renumbering article XXII; renumbering section
17:54:52 27-521, interpretation of terms and; renumbering
17:54:52 section 27-522, definitions of groupings of various;
17:54:52 Renumbering and amending section 27-523, definitions;
17:54:52 reserving article XXII; reserving sections 27-521
17:54:52 through 27-523, repealing all ordinances or parts of
17:55:28 ordinances in conflict therewith, providing for
17:55:31 severability, providing an effective date.
17:55:32 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
17:55:36 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
17:55:37 Opposed, Nay.
17:55:38 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
17:55:41 Second reading and adoption will be on March 20th
17:55:43 at 9:30 a.m.
17:55:44 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We are going to move to vendors,
17:55:50 the first one where I will be asking for the policy
17:55:53 one way or the other.
17:55:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you pass out --

17:55:59 >>> that's what I was going to do.
17:56:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Which one is that?
17:56:02 >>> Actually it's both.
17:56:04 If you go to page 5 of your tab sheets that I gave
17:56:08 you, and go to number tab 12, vendors, in the original
17:56:22 regulations there was five types of vendors, there
17:56:24 were annual special events, entertain; temporary Ybor
17:56:28 City vendors.
17:56:29 They all have special criteria that they had to meet
17:56:32 and they were special use 1.
17:56:36 Spencer did note the summary of his comments, to allow
17:56:41 vendors to operate, limited regulations.
17:56:45 You have a lot of people quote-unquote poorer
17:56:51 neighborhoods that would fall under these regulations
17:56:53 that are just trying to make a living, barbecue --
17:56:57 barbecue vendors, East Tampa, West Tampa.
17:57:00 So what I gave you was based on some of the questions
17:57:05 I had from council about vendors, and Mr. Miranda
17:57:07 raised issues about vendors that were there late at
17:57:09 night creating different kinds of activities, what you
17:57:16 have before you labeled number the 2nd is the
17:57:18 vendor regulation was the annual vendor remaining.

17:57:21 That means that someone could come in on an annual
17:57:24 basis and get a permit to have a vendor site.
17:57:28 And what that would entail is there's actually
17:57:30 criteria in design criteria for the type of cart that
17:57:36 would be required.
17:57:37 More often, if you go to page 11 and 12, they can
17:57:44 certainly provide alternatives as well.
17:57:46 This is just to give some guidance on the general
17:57:48 parameters.
17:57:51 Option 3, the annual vendor is eliminated.
17:57:58 What you have before you is either with an annual
17:58:01 vendor or without.
17:58:03 And based on the commentary and the questions from
17:58:05 council, I was in no position to say one way or the
17:58:09 other, as I said before from the staff perspective and
17:58:12 from a code enforcement perspective and from what I
17:58:15 heard from EPD, we just need a regulation one way or
17:58:20 the other, prohibiting all of them, a Lough them in
17:58:22 certain places, allowing them on an annual basis,
17:58:25 special event basis, however you would like to direct
17:58:28 staff is fine.
17:58:29 And I have given you the options.

17:58:30 Way heard was the annual vendor was probably the one
17:58:33 with the most issues and that's what I broke it down,
17:58:38 with or without.
17:58:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think Mr. Miranda was first.
17:58:49 I'll let you call it.
17:58:51 Cathy, if we were looking for the status quo, which I
17:58:56 heard you say staff might not be excited about the
17:58:59 status quo, code enforcement or what have you, just
17:59:05 out of curiosity, oh do either of these maintain the
17:59:08 status quo or not?
17:59:10 >>> During annual -- not necessarily the status quo,
17:59:13 because we don't have requirements or cart file
17:59:15 requirements or anything like that.
17:59:19 They can go on commercial property.
17:59:21 We issue an annual permit.
17:59:23 There's a little placard that we put on there.
17:59:26 And, you know, it's kind of a loose process.
17:59:31 That's all I can say really.
17:59:33 Just so you know.
17:59:35 There aren't necessarily hours of operation or
17:59:37 anything like that.
17:59:38 >> So we have some sort of process?

17:59:39 >>> We do have a process, yes.
17:59:41 >> Just not very mature.
17:59:43 >>> Yes.
17:59:44 Enforcement becomes a little bit of an issue.
17:59:47 >> And then if we went to number three, then we
17:59:54 eliminate the existing process?
17:59:56 >>> You eliminate the ability for annual vendors.
17:59:59 The process we have now covers special event vendors,
18:00:02 annual vendors, sports entertainment vendors, and the
18:00:06 seasonal temporary vendors, Christmas trees, pumpkins,
18:00:09 that kind of thing.
18:00:09 We do process all of them now.
18:00:12 Option three is to eliminate the people who stay there
18:00:14 year round.
18:00:17 Option two would allow them to stay year round.
18:00:20 >> But with the little stuff.
18:00:24 >>> And only on certain corridors, yes.
18:00:27 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Madam Chair.
18:00:29 If I remember, the annual vendor was one who was
18:00:33 consistent in one place for 45 days, or --
18:00:37 >>> that would be the temporary.
18:00:38 >> Temporary.

18:00:39 And the other one, the one for 90 days, within a year,
18:00:44 which means that you are there for every weekend minus
18:00:47 three or four weekends.
18:00:48 >>> Based on my conversation with you actually, we
18:00:53 changed it to three permanent a year for that
18:00:56 location, no longer than 30 days each.
18:01:00 That's how we dealt with the temporaries.
18:01:02 >> So you still have 90.
18:01:04 >>> 90 days for the year, yes.
18:01:06 But only three permits for the year to cover major
18:01:08 holidays.
18:01:09 >> I can do it.
18:01:11 My wife can do it.
18:01:12 My daughter can do it.
18:01:13 >>> On your location, yes.
18:01:14 >> On my location.
18:01:27 >>MARY MULHERN: I just -- why -- do we need to change
18:01:31 this?
18:01:31 Is there a problem?
18:01:32 What brought the whole process up?
18:01:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The process that we have is based
18:01:37 sole really on a code interpretation.

18:01:39 Not based on any step criteria in the code.
18:01:45 What we have right now in the code vendors is very
18:01:48 limited and if we treat it as a commercial enterprise
18:01:51 on commercial property but there's no criteria for
18:01:53 vendors how long they stay open, what they look like,
18:01:56 what they sell.
18:01:57 >> That's what I'm asking you.
18:01:59 What brought this -- what is the -- what are these
18:02:03 problems that we are having?
18:02:04 >>> This actually started probably four years ago or
18:02:06 so.
18:02:07 There was really an outcry for the from the public as
18:02:10 well.
18:02:10 Vendors have been a problem in different areas of the
18:02:12 city.
18:02:12 And so the first -- tried to actually fully regulate
18:02:17 them in some form or fashion.
18:02:21 A decision from council.
18:02:23 We'll do whatever you want us to do.
18:02:24 We just need a regulation in the code to do it.
18:02:28 It doesn't outright prohibit them.
18:02:30 And we are doing it on interpretation, which is loose.

18:02:34 >> So is this something that was -- was this a
18:02:37 direction from council?
18:02:38 >> Yes.
18:02:39 >>MARY MULHERN: Maybe you can tell me.
18:02:41 >>> I think it even predated you maybe.
18:02:43 It's been a long time.
18:02:53 >> I'm responding to Mrs. Mulhern.
18:02:55 Vendors -- neighbors complained because vendors put up
18:02:58 in a very sloppy way in their neighborhood every
18:03:00 weekend and they thought it was degrading the
18:03:02 legitimate commercial doors in the neighborhood and
18:03:10 they felt it was messy and unsafe and needed -- they
18:03:13 said it makes it look like a third world country.
18:03:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Cole, would this cover all of --
18:03:22 the big bash cues?
18:03:25 >>> That technically is a vendor.
18:03:28 >> They have to have a permit to be there?
18:03:29 >>> Yes.
18:03:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: On page 5, on item 6, the vendor
18:03:42 should be allowed between the hours of 7 a.m. and
18:03:45 7 p.m.?
18:03:46 And I have no problem with that at all.

18:03:49 But what I see the vendors in certain parts of the
18:03:52 city, they are 11, 12, 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning.
18:03:57 So is that a violation now?
18:04:00 Or is this going to clean that up?
18:04:02 Personally, I can only speak for myself.
18:04:05 I have no problem with somebody being there to
18:04:07 legitimate hours, 7:00, 8:00 at night.
18:04:11 But some parts of district 6 are taking a beating, a
18:04:15 real beating.
18:04:17 They are there till all hours of the morning.
18:04:19 >>> That's actually a very valid point.
18:04:22 That's one of the issues we have because we have no
18:04:24 set criteria in the code today.
18:04:26 There is really no mechanism to tell them to leave at
18:04:28 6:00 or 9:00 or 10:00.
18:04:31 And I know that you know even sometimes the vendors
18:04:33 are there after the business itself closes.
18:04:35 But there really is no way to deal with that in
18:04:39 enforcement mechanism unless they are causing some
18:04:41 kind of nuisance or criminal activity, the way that
18:04:44 our regulations are today, doesn't speak to hours of
18:04:49 operation or how they operate.

18:04:51 >> One more question.
18:04:53 Who was going to be the enforcement arm of the city?
18:04:56 Is it going to be code enforcement?
18:04:58 Is it going to be the police department?
18:04:59 Who?
18:05:01 >>> The first level of code enforcement, concern for
18:05:03 special use of property is code enforcement.
18:05:06 Obviously if they are creating some kind of public
18:05:09 issues or criminal activity or something like that, or
18:05:12 noise issues, then it would be TPD.
18:05:16 >> Thank you very much.
18:05:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't know if this is relative
18:05:20 to. This recently, I was requested by the New Tampa
18:05:24 community council, they are going to use the park near
18:05:29 Wharton high school for their taste of New Tampa.
18:05:32 And they wanted to get an alcohol permit for that
18:05:37 Sunday that they are going to have -- Saturday and
18:05:40 Sunday.
18:05:40 Does it fall under this ordinance?
18:05:45 >>> These are vendors.
18:05:46 But you're talking about a temporary wet zoning, or
18:05:49 temporary special use permit which is actually the

18:05:52 next ordinance.
18:05:56 Is it a dead stated city park?
18:05:59 >> Well, it belongs to the school district, I believe.
18:06:01 I'm not sure who technically owns whether it it's the
18:06:05 city or the school.
18:06:07 >>> Well, that kind of scenario, a nonprofit
18:06:09 organization, they would seek a temporary wet zoning,
18:06:12 or the new code it would be a temporary special use
18:06:14 permit.
18:06:16 Which is the same it is today.
18:06:17 >> Not covered under this ordinance?
18:06:19 >>> No. This is the vendors.
18:06:21 >> I understand this is coming up soon.
18:06:22 This is way was told by Karen from recreation.
18:06:26 >>> If it's going through the Parks Department, then
18:06:28 it's part of a special event on city property more
18:06:31 than likely.
18:06:32 It probably is a park.
18:06:34 They process those things.
18:06:35 And then the temporary wet zoning comes to our office.
18:06:37 It will pop up on your consent agenda like the other
18:06:40 one.

18:06:40 >> Thank you.
18:06:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder, we have got a question
18:06:47 here.
18:06:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The locational criteria on page 4
18:06:51 of packet number 2, it's Columbus and 34th street
18:07:01 in East Tampa running further east of city limits.
18:07:06 Is that the only allowable part?
18:07:09 >>> Correct.
18:07:09 >> Why do we pick up on limiting Columbus -- why not
18:07:15 all of Columbus?
18:07:17 >>> It does not go to the west.
18:07:18 You can certainly change it to the west.
18:07:20 >> Is there any reason we picked that 134 and over?
18:07:27 >>> We have been a lot of these in the process, and we
18:07:31 tend to look at the corridors when we are requesting
18:07:33 them, and there are vendors in these areas, and that's
18:07:37 where kind of the highest concentration is today.
18:07:42 But you can certainly move it west.
18:07:43 This is really up to you at this point where you want
18:07:45 it placed.
18:07:47 >> I think it's such a minor change, if we could run
18:07:51 with this and strike -- just say Columbus.

18:07:54 >>> The title, we can certainly make the text change
18:07:59 between first and second reading according to the
18:08:01 legal department.
18:08:01 You can read the title and then I can make the change.
18:08:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Just Columbus drive, period?
18:08:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for discussion purposes.
18:08:09 That would be my leaning.
18:08:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It runs a long way.
18:08:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They might call it Columbus.
18:08:24 I wouldn't want it out there on Boy Scout --
18:08:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The change is Columbus out to Dale
18:08:30 Mabry.
18:08:37 >> MacDill.
18:08:39 MacDill to the east.
18:08:41 >>> You may want to hear from the public.
18:08:44 Maybe they have some other options or alternatives.
18:08:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
18:08:47 wants to speak on the agenda part?
18:08:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chair, if we could have a
18:08:53 motion to open the public hearing.
18:08:54 >>GWEN MILLER: It's continued.
18:08:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, it's still on number 5, though,

18:08:58 I believe.
18:08:59 Number 5 on the agenda.
18:09:00 There was a motion to close number 5 before that
18:09:02 ordinance was read, is that correct?
18:09:05 >> Move to open.
18:09:13 >>> First reading is nonquasi-judicial.
18:09:18 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Now I'll make my comment about them,
18:09:20 too.
18:09:20 The neighborhood had a concern for a long time with
18:09:22 vendors.
18:09:24 This has been going on for four years, maybe longer.
18:09:28 And so they were very anxious to see some kind of
18:09:32 regulation, because some of the things that were just
18:09:40 brought out are concerned.
18:09:41 So I would just hope that council will realize that
18:09:45 that's why the neighborhood, T.H.A.N., would like to
18:09:50 see some more regulations on these vendors.
18:09:53 Thank you.
18:09:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:10:02 >>> Pete Johnson, Druid hills.
18:10:06 You go up Busch Boulevard on Saturday and Sunday, from
18:10:10 a van just piled up and there is not one weekend that

18:10:13 goes by that I do not call code enforcement on these
18:10:16 people.
18:10:17 Code enforcement can't keep up with them.
18:10:19 So when you pass restrictions like this, please
18:10:22 understand, code enforcement needs more support in
18:10:25 order to up hold the ordinance but it is a major
18:10:29 problem.
18:10:30 You go down Busch Boulevard, every gas station has a
18:10:33 vendor, somebody cooking something.
18:10:34 And it's just gotten out of hand.
18:10:37 Thank you.
18:10:42 >>> Susan long, 921 east Broad street.
18:10:46 I agree with everything they said before.
18:10:48 Vendors are a major issue.
18:10:49 We have two or three that keep cropping up in the core
18:10:52 of our neighborhood.
18:10:53 Then we have res some residents that want to dop a
18:10:55 yard sale, they can't do it in their yard so they
18:10:58 sneak over to the gas station and they have stuff
18:11:00 hanging all over everything.
18:11:01 We have had police over there to close them down.
18:11:03 They are gone one week.

18:11:06 Boom, they are back the next weekend.
18:11:07 They need to be licensed, some way to control them,
18:11:10 other than somebody stopping by and saying, gee, you
18:11:13 are not supposed to be here and having them disappear
18:11:16 for an hour.
18:11:16 There's got to be a better way to regulate it.
18:11:19 Thank you.
18:11:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Long, question.
18:11:23 We see that Hillsborough Avenue, it says it would be
18:11:27 allowed on Hillsborough Avenue except Seminole Heights
18:11:30 historic district.
18:11:33 Is that your neighborhood's desire?
18:11:35 >>> I would like to see it gone totally.
18:11:41 Personally, I don't happen to live in the historic
18:11:43 district so I would like to see it not restricted just
18:11:46 to that small little area which is like a two-block
18:11:48 area.
18:11:49 I'd like to see it gone.
18:11:50 And I know there are people who don't live anywhere
18:11:53 near a historic district that feel the same way.
18:11:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
18:12:01 >>> Good evening. Spencer --

18:12:07 I agree, it is a major problem.
18:12:09 Something does have to be done about it.
18:12:11 I just want to find out, two months ago the city had
18:12:15 the East Tampa economic development meeting.
18:12:18 What some of the people were discussing there -- a
18:12:25 group of people in some of the areas that are so
18:12:28 extremely poor that the real question is what's going
18:12:32 to happen?
18:12:33 They are not going to be able to afford them.
18:12:40 There needs to be -- I don't know if there's even a
18:12:43 charge for the permits.
18:12:44 But these are people, literally this is their only way
18:12:47 of making money and I would just hate to see them sort
18:12:50 of tossed out and left to their own devices.
18:12:53 I would rather see them selling something and making a
18:12:55 couple bucks than going around because they need food.
18:13:02 I hope you come up to some sort of compromise that
18:13:04 works for everybody.
18:13:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
18:13:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think the issue that Mr. Couch
18:13:14 just raised is a valid one, and I know maybe two years
18:13:17 ago, the AMIA project was going to create a little

18:13:23 stat Saturday market and that didn't happen.
18:13:25 I'm wondering if anybody knows that the East Tampa
18:13:28 plan contains an idea for a flea market kind of place.
18:13:35 Do you have a substitute ordinance?
18:13:44 >>> I have substitute ordinances.
18:13:47 I'm not sure which one --
18:13:52 >>GWEN MILLER: With annual or without?
18:13:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
18:13:57 If somebody were to be an annual vendor and if there
18:14:00 were to be a problem with them, is there any mechanism
18:14:04 in here to not continue to allow them a permit?
18:14:12 >>> To not grant them a permit?
18:14:14 First and foremost they have to have permission from a
18:14:16 property owner to even apply so if they have an issue,
18:14:19 property owner is probably not going to -- but I don't
18:14:23 necessarily have to grant the permit.
18:14:24 I have to think through that.
18:14:26 >> What I am saying is let's say code enforcement had
18:14:29 a problem with the neighborhood, the association said
18:14:32 we think the drug dealing is really taking place here
18:14:35 under the guise of --
18:14:38 >>> well, that's a criminal issue, if there's drug

18:14:41 dealing going on at that location.
18:14:42 >> Okay, but it's happening under the guise of their
18:14:46 being a vendor there.
18:14:47 So what I am saying, if there's a problem with it,
18:14:50 would we have the ability to say, no, you can't have
18:14:52 another permit?
18:14:52 Just to go over it forever, the temporary one is
18:14:58 occasionally, and then the third option is no vendors.
18:15:03 Those are our three choices basically?
18:15:05 >>> Pretty much, yes.
18:15:06 Unless you want to tweak one of them in particular.
18:15:08 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
18:15:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For compromise, I am always willing
18:15:15 to listen.
18:15:15 But what I mean, if this is going to fall on the code
18:15:20 enforcement, and the code enforcement just came in and
18:15:23 asked us for a bunch of changes regarding the way they
18:15:27 pass on fines, are they going to be able to do the
18:15:30 same thing here?
18:15:31 And if the property owner gives that vendor
18:15:35 permission, who do you fine, the property owner or the
18:15:38 vendor? If that's what they are going to do.

18:15:39 And secondly if it's true we are really going to hold
18:15:42 their feet to the fire from seven in the morning to
18:15:44 seven at night, I have no problem with that.
18:15:46 I don't think very few but me go to seven at night.
18:15:51 It's an age thing.
18:15:51 And so what I'm saying is that -- Joe Caetano knows.
18:15:56 What I am saying is these things happen.
18:15:59 And I'm willing to say that.
18:16:02 But, on the other hand, 10:00 at night, 11:00 at
18:16:08 night, making all kinds of noises, right next to --
18:16:12 not me.
18:16:16 I used to a long time ago but that changed.
18:16:18 So what I'm saying, if they are really going to uphold
18:16:22 this thing and they are really going to hold these
18:16:24 vendors to search in the morning and seven at night, I
18:16:26 think that takes care of the problem.
18:16:29 But that's not going to happen.
18:16:30 You know it and I know it.
18:16:32 The majority of the business is done after 9:00 at
18:16:35 night.
18:16:36 When the bars let out at 1:00 in the morning or 2:00
18:16:40 in the morning.

18:16:40 And that's where the problem compounds itself.
18:16:44 I don't know hop is going to take care of this.
18:16:47 I have some resolutions on how they are going to be
18:16:51 able to have enough man power to continue to follow up
18:16:53 on all these certificates.
18:16:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Number 3 is no annual vendor.
18:17:06 >> I am not against the annual vendor if they are
18:17:09 going to close at seven at night.
18:17:11 But I don't see that's going to work.
18:17:12 I really don't believe that's going to work.
18:17:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: (off microphone).
18:17:23 >> You are the closest man I know to daylight savings
18:17:26 time.
18:17:26 I have to agree with you.
18:17:28 Due to the fact that sometimes at 9:00 at night is
18:17:30 daylight.
18:17:31 And if Ms. Mulhern knows Michigan it's 10:30 at night.
18:17:39 So I think it could be changed, due to the daylight,
18:17:44 or eastern standard or whatever you want to call it.
18:17:46 And it will change to that and I'm not opposed to that
18:17:49 either.
18:17:52 But you're going to need some enforcement, and no one

18:17:55 stepped up.
18:17:56 I don't see the head of code enforcement saying, I'll
18:17:58 take that job.
18:17:59 I don't see chief of police saying, I'm going to
18:18:03 prosecute those people.
18:18:04 I don't see that big push.
18:18:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Coyle, you are reading something.
18:18:11 What are you going to read?
18:18:13 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:18:15 I may be going too far backwards.
18:18:18 Mrs. Saul-Sena raised an issue relating to whether or
18:18:20 not you could not give somebody a permit.
18:18:24 These run with the land, they don't run with the
18:18:27 people who are doing it so it's a little bit of a
18:18:29 hybrid.
18:18:33 There's no way you can draft a regulation which would
18:18:36 prohibit us from giving a permit to an individual fine
18:18:41 for a user of a particular piece of property if it's
18:18:44 shown to have some kind of criminal background.
18:18:46 Because you really are regulating not that person but
18:18:49 the use of the property.
18:18:50 So that's really -- it's a little bit of a hybrid but

18:18:54 something you really need to consider carefully and to
18:18:57 think about.
18:18:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am going to make a stab at this.
18:19:00 I think we should go for the seasonal.
18:19:02 I think that permanent is like giving somebody a
18:19:04 commercial zoning for something that's not up to
18:19:07 standards.
18:19:08 So that would be my intent.
18:19:09 I think that's the way we can vote.
18:19:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Option number 3?
18:19:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
18:19:18 3 is annual vendors.
18:19:22 >> Three said no annual.
18:19:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a problem with passing any of
18:19:26 these, until -- I mean, I guess I phrased my question
18:19:29 earlier really poorly.
18:19:31 But maybe the question isn't what the problem is, but
18:19:34 how are we going to enforce anything?
18:19:36 And why are we changing the code if nothing is
18:19:40 enforceable?
18:19:41 So I'm not sure we need to do this.
18:19:44 Why do we need to do this?

18:19:46 If it's not going to actually have any effect?
18:19:48 >>> Well, right now we have code enforcement issues
18:19:51 for the code that we have.
18:19:52 So either we need to amend section 27-149 and prohibit
18:19:56 vendors completely, and then they are just illegal and
18:19:58 they go through every enforcement action that we have,
18:20:01 everywhere in the city.
18:20:02 Or you take the first step and say no annual vendors,
18:20:06 and we regulate these specific ones.
18:20:08 Or you take the next step and allow them annually, and
18:20:11 there are regulation that is we follow and enforcement
18:20:14 mechanisms for that.
18:20:17 The citation process, they can issue citations for
18:20:22 people that don't follow the code.
18:20:24 And TPD does enforce regulations as well, if there's
18:20:28 someone there causing problems late at night they are
18:20:31 the ones to enforce that.
18:20:33 But not having a regulation and a situation where you
18:20:35 have problems doesn't fix it either.
18:20:37 That's the thing.
18:20:38 Then there's no rule.
18:20:39 >> Right.

18:20:43 I know.
18:20:45 We do have regulations, or --
18:20:49 >>> we have a regulation that a process is interpreted
18:20:53 from.
18:20:55 It's very convoluted.
18:20:57 We issue these permits.
18:20:59 Then we have really no ability to take them away.
18:21:01 It's very -- it's a very strange process that we have
18:21:04 and it makes it very difficult for us.
18:21:09 >>> Legal department.
18:21:10 Basically we have created process which has no basis
18:21:13 in the code other than an interpretation, and what
18:21:17 Cathy is saying, whether or not we want to just get
18:21:22 rid of the whole concept so that we can clarify the
18:21:25 case or prohibit it, or if we are going to move
18:21:27 forward with something, we create the criteria.
18:21:29 Otherwise, we are really in a problem in terms of what
18:21:34 we have, what we have done in the past.
18:21:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess my question to staff, what
18:21:41 research have you D got in terms of other
18:21:45 municipalities on this issue?
18:21:47 How has it been addressed in other municipalities?

18:21:51 What is St. Pete doing?
18:21:53 What is Clearwater doing?
18:21:54 >>> I have not personally -- haven't done any research
18:21:57 on how far everyone else does it.
18:21:59 We base this code on how we have been doing it through
18:22:01 our code interpretation.
18:22:04 I can certainly research if you like.
18:22:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, it sounds as though every
18:22:09 concern, I think the big issue that I hear from
18:22:12 council is the enforcement component of that.
18:22:14 I think we probably want to GTE see something passed,
18:22:17 but the issue is enforcement.
18:22:20 That's the issue that I'm hearing here tonight.
18:22:22 And then given the budget constraint that we have,
18:22:25 that's a whole other issue.
18:22:28 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Why don't we try it?
18:22:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Does code enforcement work in the
18:22:33 evening?
18:22:34 >>> There's a 24-hour -- I do not work that
18:22:40 department.
18:22:40 >> There is a telephone line for code enforcement.
18:22:43 But is somebody actually physically out inspecting

18:22:46 some of these so-called violations?
18:22:49 >>> I can't answer you.
18:22:51 I don't know.
18:22:52 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Because if they are not, there's
18:22:54 no need of having any code enforcement out there to
18:22:57 inspect these people.
18:22:58 They are not going to be out there.
18:23:03 Another thing, how long have these carts been in
18:23:05 existence in Tampa?
18:23:06 I don't have anywhere I live.
18:23:09 I have been hereto years.
18:23:10 How long ha these carts been in existence?
18:23:17 And maybe Charlie needs a part-time job when he
18:23:22 retires from here.
18:23:24 And he can work on code enforcement at night.
18:23:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder.
18:23:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: One or two more questions.
18:23:34 Mr. Miranda asked earlier, Julia, you were thinking
18:23:38 about a different legal issue but this legal issue
18:23:41 didn't get answered.
18:23:42 Last week when we passed the new code enforcement
18:23:45 ticketing process, Mr. Miranda asked if this

18:23:48 particular new code, whichever way we go with it, is
18:23:51 one of those ones that would be subject to the new
18:23:58 ticketing citation ordinance.
18:24:01 >>JULIA COLE: I don't know the answer to that.
18:24:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My sense is that this --
18:24:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: They had a list.
18:24:12 >>> I just don't know off the top of my head.
18:24:14 This didn't exist at the time.
18:24:18 To say it is not included, certainly -- if you wanted
18:24:22 to include it, then we can go back, amend chapter
18:24:26 23.5, provide for this particular section to be
18:24:29 included as well.
18:24:31 That's not part of the twice a year cycle.
18:24:35 >> When it comes to enforcement, I think this one
18:24:37 would be a really important one to have that type of
18:24:39 enforcement, so that way, they could just, you know,
18:24:43 give them a warning, and if they are regular scofflaws
18:24:48 then they are going to get that $150 ticket and they
18:24:51 might pay attention.
18:24:52 And I think that might satisfy some of council's
18:24:54 enforcement concerns.
18:24:56 But, anyway.

18:24:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to just get this
18:25:00 thing.
18:25:01 We have other things.
18:25:01 I'm not opposed to the vendor with annual providing
18:25:05 that number 6, the vendors -- it says here, seven to
18:25:08 seven, I'm willing to compromise further to say, what
18:25:11 is it, spring forward, fall backwards?
18:25:13 That the hours be set according to the time of day,
18:25:18 darkness.
18:25:19 Sometimes it's 6:00 or 7:00.
18:25:20 But no later than seven during that fall backwards and
18:25:25 no later than 9:00 when you spring forward.
18:25:32 >> It should be eight.
18:25:34 Only change it an hour.
18:25:35 >> Dawn to dusk.
18:25:36 >> That would be both for the vendor and to the
18:25:40 citizens who deserve the quality of life everybody
18:25:42 else has.
18:25:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I agree with that.
18:25:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll second that and I would like
18:25:50 to offer a friendly amendment.
18:25:53 >> Second.

18:25:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right, I third it.
18:25:58 The friendly amendment is that on the Columbus Avenue,
18:26:02 instead of 34th street east, that it would be
18:26:05 Howard Avenue east to the city limits.
18:26:09 >> Yeah, all the way through.
18:26:11 >> Columbus?
18:26:12 All of Columbus?
18:26:13 >> Dale Mabry is not Columbus.
18:26:19 So we'll just say that subparagraph XII will just be
18:26:25 Columbus Avenue, period.
18:26:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
18:26:31 Cathy, it seems like we are going to go with this.
18:26:35 If we in a year and a half continue to have complaints
18:26:37 from citizens that they are not satisfied, we will be
18:26:38 able to go back and revisit this, wouldn't we?
18:26:41 >>> Every six months you will be able to.
18:26:44 >> I hope this will be an improvement.
18:26:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Action on that amendment, I believe.
18:26:49 I didn't hear.
18:26:50 Does the maker of the motion adopt that amendment?
18:26:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Yes.
18:26:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I'll second.

18:26:58 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:27:00 >>> We would be reading the title.
18:27:05 >> Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
18:27:07 making comprehensive revision to the City of Tampa
18:27:10 code of ordinance chapter 27, zoning, amending section
18:27:13 27-149, vendors amending section 27-242 regulations
18:27:18 governing individuals special uses, repealing all
18:27:21 ordinances or parts of ordinance in conflict
18:27:24 therewith, providing for severability, providing an
18:27:26 effective date.
18:27:28 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
18:27:29 (Motion carried)
18:27:32 >>> motion carried unanimously.
18:27:34 Second reading ands adoption will be on March 20th
18:27:37 at 9:30 a.m
18:27:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Done with item 5?
18:27:50 >>CHAIRMAN: Motion to close item 5.
18:27:52 >> So moved.
18:27:53 >> Second.
18:27:54 (Motion carried).
18:27:54 >>GWEN MILLER: What number are we on now, Ms. Cole?
18:27:59 >> 4.

18:28:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are working backwards.
18:28:19 >>> We are moving on to item number 7.
18:28:21 This is the alcohol beverage changes.
18:28:28 We are skipping to number 7.
18:28:30 Then we'll go back to 6 once we decide on this one,
18:28:33 we'll go back to number 6.
18:28:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I understand she's handing out
18:28:46 number 4.
18:28:47 >>> 84 which is tab 13, page 6 of the tabbed document.
18:28:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Continued public hearing on item 7.
18:29:07 >> So the gist of this was moving the alcohol beverage
18:29:11 regulations from chapter 3 to chapter 27, changing the
18:29:14 wet zoning to a special use.
18:29:17 Some are special use 1.
18:29:18 Some are special use 2.
18:29:19 I went through it and I summarized those points.
18:29:23 I had meetings with a few of the people that did talk
18:29:27 at the last hearing, and I had various e-mails and
18:29:31 correspondence.
18:29:31 I am going to go through the changes that I cited that
18:29:38 we will be recommending, and then you can hear from
18:29:41 the public and then we'll respond, because there will

18:29:43 be some legal documents for myself.
18:29:49 The first, Margaret Vizzi's comments, the gist of her
18:29:52 comments were that if council is going to move that
18:29:56 they are all to be special use 1, she would like to
18:29:59 limit that to an R designation, administratively, and
18:30:04 the designation process as a special use 2 compromise
18:30:07 between the two.
18:30:10 John Grandoff comments, he really talked about the
18:30:14 occupancy load, but he referenced 150 feet versus 250
18:30:18 feet.
18:30:22 Comments to the number of seats in a restaurant.
18:30:23 As I noted at the last hearing the occupancy is based
18:30:26 on the safety code.
18:30:27 That accounts for people in hallways, kitchens,
18:30:30 bathrooms, et cetera, not the seats in a restaurant.
18:30:33 But what I did give you for your reference.
18:30:45 There's two tables.
18:30:46 We have pulled the number of restaurants and bars and
18:30:51 clubs, places that actually have wet zoning in the
18:30:53 city, and we showed a 300-plus threshold and those
18:30:59 between 200 and 299, to show you those establishments.
18:31:03 You can see them by name, see which ones you would be

18:31:06 affecting.
18:31:08 We initially came in with a 300-person threshold.
18:31:11 Council made a motion to reduce that to 100 and 299,
18:31:16 between the small and the large venue.
18:31:18 After going back and looking at this list again, it
18:31:20 reminded me as to why we were recommending 300.
18:31:23 We were recommending 300 to correlate to the safety
18:31:27 code and the assembly permits they required but also
18:31:30 referencing -- looking at the establishments that are
18:31:34 on the 300-plus.
18:31:36 As you can see there's actually very few restaurants.
18:31:38 A lot of them are bars and clubs.
18:31:43 So if you capture those thresholds you actually
18:31:46 capture a lot of the restaurants in the city which I
18:31:48 don't think was your intent behind the large and small
18:31:52 venue.
18:31:52 But that is your policy decision to make.
18:31:55 I want to throw that out there for you to think about.
18:31:58 Eddie Diaz, I spoke with Eddie yesterday.
18:32:01 He came in and met with me.
18:32:03 And his comment, unfortunately they were based on the
18:32:05 sheet that he had.

18:32:06 I couldn't figure it out when he was talking to you.
18:32:08 Sheet that he had were Rebecca Kert notes to herself,
18:32:15 so you didn't see all of the code changes.
18:32:18 His concern was whether he could set a temporary wet
18:32:20 zoning for his legion, which he can.
18:32:23 He still meets the criteria under the chapter 27 code
18:32:26 so that alleviated his concerns for that.
18:32:34 We were both sitting there, what is he reading?
18:32:38 A kind of summary, 27-267, B-1, B-2, allowance for the
18:32:44 zoning administrator to consider application that is
18:32:45 come in before four and seven days.
18:32:48 That is related to the temporary special use permit.
18:32:53 Right now, if they follow less than that 15 days they
18:32:55 have to send notice and they have to waive the
18:32:58 criteria. We are changing to a special use 1.
18:33:01 And we changed it to ten working days for filing.
18:33:04 I went back and looked at how we process them and the
18:33:07 numbers, and I can physically -- five working days
18:33:13 with possibly no issues and be able to issue the
18:33:15 permit no less than one day prior to the event.
18:33:18 That's a bare minimum, five working days.
18:33:20 If they wanted to come in, if they didn't meet that

18:33:23 deadline, I spoke with Rebecca about this, and kind of
18:33:30 liked the suggestion of the triple fee as kind of a
18:33:32 penalty or expedited review fee because we would be
18:33:36 dropping everything we have, to do it for them so we
18:33:39 actually put that language in.
18:33:40 She believes that legally that was okay.
18:33:42 Paying for an expedited review of less than five days.
18:33:45 So that language was put in.
18:33:48 27-272, large venues.
18:33:52 A few comments about distinguishing between large and
18:33:54 small venues.
18:33:55 He believed they should all be treated the same, no
18:33:58 break between large and small.
18:34:00 Didn't want them to create quote-unquote another Ybor
18:34:04 but didn't want to give unfair competitive advantage
18:34:06 to one type of owner over another.
18:34:12 As I said those thresholds were directed by council so
18:34:15 it's really your decision, if you want them all one
18:34:17 type of venue, that's fine, you can go back and do
18:34:20 that as well.
18:34:22 Mark Bentley's comment summary, he sent an e-mail
18:34:25 before the last hearing, and it related issues with

18:34:30 the 30-day notice to dry, and then the expiration and
18:34:33 special uses which is typically 100 days.
18:34:38 And I wanted to make clear, the 30-day posting, we
18:34:42 viewed that today.
18:34:45 We -- if we see you are not selling we post you and
18:34:48 say in 30 days you are dry unless you show you have
18:34:52 sales.
18:34:52 That posting provision has been around for decades.
18:34:54 I believe since the 60s.
18:34:58 That is a decision from council as well.
18:35:00 We carried it forward.
18:35:01 It seems from every conversation that we have had,
18:35:04 with the administration and with council, that is
18:35:06 something that you wanted to keep going.
18:35:07 But you certainly have the ability to staff that, if
18:35:10 you don't wanted to do the posting requirements
18:35:12 anymore.
18:35:13 I believe he will raise issues about the posting
18:35:15 requirements as well.
18:35:17 What we did put in this amendment is we kept the
18:35:21 30-day posting.
18:35:22 If you don't resume sails, you expire.

18:35:25 But you can file for an extension, an administrative
18:35:30 exemption, and all you need to do, if you go to
18:35:34 page -- let me find it really quick.
18:35:38 It starts on page 13 of your ordinance.
18:35:42 The posting of notice is 30 consecutive days.
18:35:45 We post a sign telling you the date of the expiration.
18:35:50 We have gotten the letter to you, not just posting but
18:35:54 we send a letter to the business owner and to the
18:35:56 property owner.
18:35:57 Within that 30-day period, posting period, you can
18:36:01 either show evidence, resumption of sales, which we
18:36:05 have in our code today, you have inventory, your
18:36:08 lights are on, but we have had in the past boarded up
18:36:11 buildings with chain link fences around them and
18:36:14 somehow they are miraculously making a sale, and the
18:36:16 way that our code has historically been, they can have
18:36:19 no water, sewer, or electricity and yet they were
18:36:22 making a sale.
18:36:25 So by word of mouth essentially we have changed the
18:36:28 code last year to require certain criteria.
18:36:30 They have to show the building is actually open and
18:36:33 operating and they have to show their distributor of

18:36:35 purchases, inventory that they are selling and then
18:36:38 you can show reduction of sales and the posting period
18:36:41 goes away. Let's say you can't have resumption of
18:36:45 sales because you are going through bankruptcy or
18:36:46 litigation or something else, or remodeling, your
18:36:49 building burnt down, whatever, you can apply for an
18:36:51 administrative exemption on the bottom of page 15.
18:36:55 All you have to do is fill out the form with your
18:36:57 name, address and -- name and address of property
18:37:01 owner and a copy of your original ordinance that gave
18:37:03 you your wet zoning.
18:37:04 That's all you need to provide and we'll give you 150
18:37:07 days.
18:37:07 150 plus the 30 makes the first 180-day time frame for
18:37:11 the special use.
18:37:13 After that, you can come in, and at the bottom it says
18:37:22 one 150-day administrative extension may be granted
18:37:25 for the initial posting period.
18:37:27 Failure to timely apply within that 30 days means you
18:37:30 expire.
18:37:31 But the building administrator may consider additional
18:37:34 administrative exemptions.

18:37:36 180 days per instance.
18:37:38 If the applicant demonstrates a clear intent not to
18:37:41 abandon that use.
18:37:43 That is language from the case law, which Ms. Kert is
18:37:46 going to explain to you.
18:37:47 And that's with any special use, not just with
18:37:50 alcohol.
18:37:50 But if you show that there is -- if you show that you
18:37:52 have not clearly had to abandon that use, I can't take
18:37:56 it away from you, if you have got litigation on the
18:37:58 property like I said, if you as the property owner
18:38:02 want to keep that and you are clearly stating that you
18:38:05 want to keep that use, we have to let you keep it.
18:38:08 If you are going through the ARC process and taking
18:38:10 awe year and a half and you are actively in some type
18:38:12 of process, I can't make your permit expire because
18:38:15 you are trying to keep it going.
18:38:18 So you can apply for additional extensions, because by
18:38:24 law we really have to give them to you.
18:38:26 The exemptions for the posting periods are public
18:38:29 cultural facilities and public golf courses which is
18:38:32 the same as the last code.

18:38:34 The other thing I want to do is clear up also was the
18:38:38 criteria.
18:38:39 Mr. Caetano actually asked about it and so did a
18:38:42 couple of others.
18:38:46 It's on page
18:38:52 Page 5.
18:38:57 Large venues.
18:38:58 Originally there were seven criteria.
18:39:00 An and one of them was a parking plan, traffic plan,
18:39:04 there were concerns about a traffic analysis and how
18:39:06 much that cost.
18:39:08 I really paired that down and tailored to the our
18:39:12 process so there's three items now and it's really in
18:39:15 a narrative form providing your application based on
18:39:18 the site plan.
18:39:19 You show your business hours of operation, which is
18:39:22 common.
18:39:24 The second one is if you are in one of the
18:39:26 entertainment district, Channel District, central
18:39:29 business, Ybor district, that you provide a security
18:39:32 plan for that establishment, which is also required
18:39:36 under 27-522 for those large venues, clubs and things.

18:39:40 They have to have off-duty security officers.
18:39:42 You have to state in the districts how you are going
18:39:44 to deal with security.
18:39:45 And the last one is how to deal with noise attenuation
18:39:48 in one of those three districts, not the rest city.
18:39:50 You are dealing with security and noise, in those
18:39:52 three districts, and your business hours of operation,
18:39:55 anytime you are a large venue in the city.
18:39:58 It's only those three things.
18:40:00 No longer the other seven criteria.
18:40:08 Also a recommendation for the large scale commercial
18:40:10 developments.
18:40:10 And we talked about those really large developments of
18:40:13 500,000 square feet or larger to process an S-1.
18:40:17 If they want to process for an S-1 for the entire
18:40:21 development, if Westshore mall came in and wanted to
18:40:23 wet zone the whole thing, then -- but if they were
18:40:27 within a thousand feet of residential property,
18:40:29 residential uses, processed an as S-2 as opposed to
18:40:35 S-1.
18:40:35 I actually felt comfortable with because I felt
18:40:38 approving one administratively when it was such a

18:40:40 large development.
18:40:43 However, if the individual unit were to come in and
18:40:45 apply administratively, then they could.
18:40:47 Because I think that was really your intent when you
18:40:49 made that motion.
18:40:52 However, that would be a zero-foot separation.
18:40:55 And then that couple as I said was Ms. Vizzi's
18:40:59 comments, she would like to see that taken down to an
18:41:02 R designation only, to process administratively.
18:41:04 I think there's a compromise in there, that kind of
18:41:08 like the first step with the vendors is maybe you
18:41:10 don't do certain things, or few other things you were
18:41:13 considering, maybe a first step and if there's no
18:41:16 issues you move on to the next and opening up the
18:41:19 mall.
18:41:19 That's your discretion at this point.
18:41:21 And then Anne Pollack, Grace Yang and Dave Mechanik,
18:41:26 three land use attorneys had the same comment related
18:41:28 to the 250-foot separation.
18:41:30 They would like to see that reduced to zero as noted
18:41:33 in the last hearing.
18:41:34 The mall, even as large as they are, they would never

18:41:41 process administratively.
18:41:42 They would always come to you on appeal which really
18:41:44 is the purpose of the motion I made.
18:41:49 I think I have covered pretty much everything.
18:41:53 If I missed something that someone else brings about,
18:41:56 I will certainly address that on rebuttal, if you want
18:42:00 to call it that.
18:42:01 Do you have any questions?
18:42:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena?
18:42:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have to compliment you.
18:42:07 You have digested so many diverse comments and made a
18:42:10 clear process and it will be easier for us because you
18:42:14 have really focused in on the questions that we are
18:42:18 concerned about.
18:42:18 And I just think you have done great work here.
18:42:21 >>> Thank you.
18:42:22 It's hard.
18:42:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
18:42:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess my question is, first I want
18:42:30 to come in and meet the distance requirement for
18:42:35 zoning.
18:42:37 How long would that process take?

18:42:38 >>> We don't have a hearing master.
18:42:45 We have you.
18:42:49 They process administratively through me and certain
18:42:51 circumstances if you are part of the mall right now,
18:42:53 and you startle switching out one of the restaurants.
18:42:56 And let's say they expired and they wanted to come in.
18:43:01 Under the current way that we proposed it to you last
18:43:04 time, they would have had 250-foot radius.
18:43:09 I can't approve it if it trips that.
18:43:11 So it will come to you on appeal.
18:43:12 And then you can waive that criteria.
18:43:14 You have the ability on appeal to waive --
18:43:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But from the time they get to you to
18:43:20 the time it gets to us, how long does it take?
18:43:22 >>> My review is 30 days by code.
18:43:25 Typically if I am going to deny something and I know I
18:43:27 am going to deny it, we typically deny it faster than
18:43:30 but the process is 30 days.
18:43:32 And then there's a 30-day notice for this hearing as
18:43:35 well.
18:43:35 So it's probably 75 days or so, on appeal.
18:43:40 And keep in mind, that comes during the day.

18:43:43 And now you have limited yourself to two day meetings
18:43:46 a month.
18:43:46 So it may trip out two extra weeks or so depending on
18:43:50 your schedule.
18:43:51 That's the hardest part of the day meeting because
18:43:55 they separated.
18:43:57 >>GWEN MILLER: Other questions by council members?
18:43:58 Is there anyone in the public that wants to speak on
18:44:00 item number 7?
18:44:08 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
18:44:15 I would like to just say that T.H.A.N. really thanks
18:44:17 you for everything except the malls becoming S-2.
18:44:22 But we thank you for it.
18:44:25 The neighborhoods particularly around Westshore plaza
18:44:28 have concerns.
18:44:31 Cathy did mention to you that we had agreed that it
18:44:38 remains 250.
18:44:40 So one of the neighborhoods near there would get
18:44:42 notice.
18:44:43 And then we would be able to at least know about it.
18:44:50 But now you are reducing it, or it's being recommended
18:44:54 to you, or you said that you already agreed that there

18:44:58 would be no distance separation.
18:45:01 And if that is the case, absolutely, don't allow any
18:45:07 more intense use than the R classification.
18:45:13 The other issue now that comes up which just came to
18:45:16 me to my attention today is that the conditions for
18:45:19 that would be that they could stay open till three in
18:45:24 the morning.
18:45:25 Which I understand is no talking about the security,
18:45:31 which I don't know whether that -- what kind of
18:45:35 security they have, and about the outdoor use, would
18:45:40 there be outdoor as well as indoor?
18:45:43 Because remember, we are still very close to Westshore
18:45:46 plaza.
18:45:46 That's why we have a concern when we came to you and
18:45:51 opposed the wet zoning, everyone though we said at the
18:45:53 time that the condition, they wouldn't take that.
18:45:59 But we still have concern.
18:46:01 And please, council, on the table please put no more
18:46:06 intense in an R, and then look at what conditions
18:46:09 being placed on all of these anywhere, separation, and
18:46:17 close to residential, it's a concern to us.
18:46:19 And that's why I said basically two neighborhoods that

18:46:22 really abut Westshore plaza, Westshore Palms and Beach
18:46:27 Park.
18:46:27 Other than that, as I said, T.H.A.N. is very happy
18:46:30 that you are making everything out an S-2.
18:46:36 Thank you.
18:46:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
18:46:43 >>> We all know what happens when a small restaurant
18:46:50 or someone comes asking for a wet zoning.
18:46:54 They go through the whole process, and it takes a long
18:46:58 amount of time and it's very expensive, and they are
18:47:00 paying lawyers and everybody else -- and they go
18:47:04 through a real hassle.
18:47:06 And basically what you are saying is if you go to a
18:47:09 mall you don't have to worry about that.
18:47:11 Don't worry about going to City Council.
18:47:12 You get this huge competitive advantage.
18:47:15 And I want you to start thinking of it in terms of
18:47:15 Dale Mabry and all those places.
18:47:19 If I'm a restaurant why would I want to open up there
18:47:22 and go through the hassle of going through City
18:47:24 Council when I can do it quick and easy through the
18:47:26 malls?

18:47:26 You are going to end up with neighborhoods that are
18:47:28 already having some issues, where small businesses are
18:47:31 already having trouble, all that business is going
18:47:32 right into the mall.
18:47:34 And if that's what we want, then that's fine, this is
18:47:38 how you should proceed. If what we are looking to do
18:47:40 though is have a level playing field for everybody,
18:47:43 then I think what we need to do is put everybody under
18:47:48 the exact same regulations, which is no small venue
18:47:48 and large venue.
18:47:50 You just have a regular process that everybody goes
18:47:52 through.
18:47:53 If the process takes too long, takes too long to get
18:47:59 before City Council, takes too long for staff review
18:48:01 then we have to look at that.
18:48:02 But just throwing the baby out with the bath water to
18:48:05 me doesn't make a lot of sense.
18:48:06 But we are trying to compromise.
18:48:08 But I think it even hurts the restaurant.
18:48:12 If what T.H.A.N. wants, then everything comes before
18:48:15 council.
18:48:18 I hope you take that into account.

18:48:21 Thank you.
18:48:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just for the record, I can only
18:48:24 speak for myself.
18:48:25 I don't look at any alcohol zoning any different than
18:48:28 I do the one before me.
18:48:30 They all stand on themselves whether they are in malls
18:48:33 or on top of tree tops, when they are in a subway,
18:48:37 wherever they are at.
18:48:39 So two out of the three we don't have.
18:48:41 So I try to look at them all individually, the good,
18:48:45 the bad and the ugly, all come out together.
18:48:52 >>> Randy Barron, 217 west Comanche.
18:48:55 What we are trying to ensure is that you are able to
18:48:58 review all these wet zonings.
18:49:00 We want to make sure that every wet zoning comes
18:49:03 before council.
18:49:05 Council is the last resort of the neighborhood.
18:49:07 You are our protectors.
18:49:10 If we have an issue whether it's in a mall or small
18:49:14 restaurant in the middle of the neighborhood we want
18:49:15 to be able to come to you and have you hear all the
18:49:18 issues, and then rule on them accordingly.

18:49:22 We want exactly what you want, which is get them
18:49:25 before you.
18:49:26 Thank you.
18:49:26 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
18:49:35 >>> Ann Pollack, 305 -- Mechanik Nuccio.
18:49:41 I represent Tampa Westshore which is the owner of
18:49:45 Westshore plaza. And we for the most part support the
18:49:48 ordinance as it's currently written.
18:49:52 We do think overall that uses that are in the mall
18:49:56 will not have the same impact on the surrounding
18:49:59 neighborhood and community that other uses will have,
18:50:02 because they are set back, because in a lot of cases
18:50:05 they are surrounded by the mall itself.
18:50:08 And the negative impacts are sort of inherently
18:50:13 reduced, or eliminated.
18:50:15 We feel that allowing this administrative approval
18:50:18 will assist the mall in having greater flexibility to
18:50:24 work out the development within it.
18:50:26 We do not believe that it really gets the mall a
18:50:30 competitive advantage.
18:50:32 However, there's only so much space within the mall.
18:50:37 A lot of businesses would not want to be in the mall.

18:50:41 And a lot of malls would not want every business
18:50:43 within them.
18:50:44 So it's not an issue of businesses that might be in
18:50:48 South Howard or Seminole Heights, coming back down and
18:50:54 saying, oh, I'll just go to the mall.
18:50:58 In general, malls are -- they promote, but they are
18:51:06 also a retail center, and retail uses are very
18:51:11 important, and we have some upscale malls in Tampa,
18:51:16 and the -- the malls choose businesses that are going
18:51:23 to uphold that upscale nature of the mall, and work to
18:51:26 ensure that the noise or other issues that the
18:51:32 neighbors might have would not go beyond the
18:51:34 restaurants or the other businesses selling alcohol on
18:51:38 the property, because they don't even want it to
18:51:43 really expand into their retail businesses.
18:51:47 Finally, I just wanted to mention about the R sales,
18:51:56 restaurants, having the -- generally, we just prefer
18:51:59 that all the uses be administratively approved.
18:52:05 A lot of these aren't just bars within the malls.
18:52:10 We are talking wine -- as they call them, wine bars
18:52:15 and cigar bars, but their focus is not necessarily on
18:52:17 the alcohol, it's on the other uses but the alcohol

18:52:20 sales are incidental.
18:52:22 So in some ways they are like a restaurant, instead of
18:52:26 food being their main purpose, business, it's cigars
18:52:32 or bottles of wine or something like that.
18:52:35 So, anyway, I'm here if you have any questions.
18:52:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda?
18:52:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Madam Chair.
18:52:42 I'm just trying to decipher through all these things.
18:52:46 If I remember how this came about, it was a lawsuit,
18:52:48 something to do with certain persons in the city, and
18:52:51 the lawsuit said something regarding special use
18:52:56 versus zoning.
18:52:57 But I'm not 100% sure that the information that was
18:53:02 received to me, anyway, I would digest it in the
18:53:05 correct way meaning -- it was a lawsuit?
18:53:08 Thank you very much.
18:53:09 I have spoken enough.
18:53:10 The lawsuit, I think, if I remember it, was a total on
18:53:15 the zoning, or was a waiver that became part of the
18:53:19 lawsuit that came to special use.
18:53:21 In other words, I want to find out how the two met and
18:53:24 became a one-way.

18:53:28 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
18:53:29 Yes, the case you are talking about, an entity had to
18:53:34 come before city council requesting a wet zoning.
18:53:36 The wet zoning required certain waivers.
18:53:40 City Council denied it and said that the applicant had
18:53:42 not met its burden at the City Council.
18:53:46 When it went before the court, the court said, you
18:53:51 look at it as a waiver process and City Council looks
18:53:53 at it as people coming to ask for waivers within a
18:53:56 thousand feet.
18:53:57 It's their burden to show it to us.
18:53:59 So what you have set up is actually a special use
18:54:03 process.
18:54:03 And that's very important, because that distinguishes
18:54:05 the burden.
18:54:06 If it's a special use, then the applicant's initial
18:54:10 burden is just to show that it meets the city's
18:54:12 criteria that we have already set up to be entitled to
18:54:16 those waivers.
18:54:19 The city burden to show you are the arbiters of facts.
18:54:24 What we have to do in this situation is to make this a
18:54:26 special use, which they have already told us we are

18:54:30 operating under and provide you the criteria. Your
18:54:32 current code does not have the current criteria you
18:54:35 need.
18:54:35 So that burden shifts back to the city very, very
18:54:38 quickly when you are reviewing the wet zoning.
18:54:40 The very small burden that applicants talk to me about
18:54:43 99% of the wet zonings that you do.
18:54:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may, Madam Chair, continue on
18:54:48 the same thing.
18:54:49 Current costs of zoning now -- excuse me, the petition
18:54:53 for special use is by $1115.
18:54:57 That changed to 1945 by the compilation that is I
18:55:01 received here.
18:55:01 I don't know how true that is, how factual.
18:55:03 Then you have all these kind of add-ons and
18:55:06 subtractions and more add-ons and you have to have
18:55:08 this plan and that plan and a parking thing and this
18:55:11 thing.
18:55:11 It looks to me it will cost tens of thousands of
18:55:14 dollars.
18:55:15 And let me go back to the malls.
18:55:20 Certainly mall versus established themselves through

18:55:23 historical process, been here 50 years, some malls
18:55:28 have been very well operated, some closed and came
18:55:31 back as the same mall it was before under a new name
18:55:34 and done very well. But not all malls receive
18:55:36 everything they wanted.
18:55:37 This council voted down a wet zoning for a certain
18:55:41 mall in a certain location.
18:55:43 Notice that I didn't mention the mall or the party.
18:55:47 That means top me that we are cognizant of the fact --
18:55:50 and I remember the argument from the petitioner was,
18:55:54 it is not our M.O. to stay and close at a certain
18:55:59 hour.
18:56:00 We want to extend it to this hour.
18:56:03 When that was struck it -- said it struck me, and I
18:56:06 said, there are other restaurants, three or four
18:56:09 restaurants that are very successful that also had
18:56:11 their M.O. and guess what, they don't stay open till
18:56:15 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning.
18:56:16 And I think what the neighborhoods are saying is, we
18:56:18 are not opposed to everything, but give us some
18:56:21 breathing room because what happens inside a mall is
18:56:23 not like Vegas, stays in Vegas.

18:56:27 It may happen inside the mall but you have got to
18:56:29 drive out of the mall, and if you have a little tipsy
18:56:34 topsy, somebody is going to get hurt.
18:56:36 And I think that's what we are looking at.
18:56:38 We aren't looking at 250 feet, a thousand feet, and I
18:56:42 don't totally agree with everything because it's the
18:56:44 outside part of the mall that you are saying not the
18:56:46 location within the mall.
18:56:47 Am I correct?
18:56:48 Maybe I'm wrong.
18:56:49 I don't know.
18:56:50 >>> No, the zero -- it is from the unit itself.
18:56:54 From the outside.
18:56:56 Originally, I had it written from the property.
18:56:58 And then I clarified with the legal department that
18:57:01 there's not two standards of measurement.
18:57:03 Only it's only from the unit.
18:57:05 >> From the unit itself.
18:57:06 So in other words if there's a five acre mall, ten
18:57:08 acre mall and it's in the 9th acre, I have to come
18:57:11 nine acres this way which is much greater an thousand
18:57:14 feet.

18:57:15 >>> Correct.
18:57:16 >> To do whatever.
18:57:18 So is my thought process -- cost up to $15,000 or more
18:57:25 depending on everything we need now that we are going
18:57:27 to ask for?
18:57:28 >>> Keep in mind as I said before, there are criteria
18:57:32 that required the large venues, a parking plan, and
18:57:36 traffic analysis, and all those things.
18:57:38 We took those out.
18:57:38 >> Took those out?
18:57:43 >>> The other issue is, for the last several years,
18:57:47 not just this case but with the wet zonings that come
18:57:51 before you since the criteria, very limiting in
18:57:53 chapter 3, there have often been questions about
18:57:56 parking, solid waste, tree compliance, how the wet
18:58:02 zonings work.
18:58:03 Under the wet zoning currently you can't look at this
18:58:07 stuff, the permitting fee.
18:58:08 And what has consistently been said to us as staff is
18:58:11 we want to be able to look at this, under the special
18:58:13 use process, we do look at those things.
18:58:16 Under the special use 2 process, the full development

18:58:19 review committee review, just like for a church or
18:58:22 daycare or any of those others, and that comes with a
18:58:25 cost.
18:58:25 So if you want to think about scaling that back, as
18:58:28 far as the fee, then we have to think about the
18:58:31 process.
18:58:31 Because if you go through a process, you have to pay
18:58:33 for that process.
18:58:34 >> If I may continue on the same line and I'm sorry
18:58:38 for taking up a little more time than I should but I
18:58:40 think these are important things.
18:58:41 Nowadays there's a new thing that's been in process
18:58:44 for a thousand years but it just came apparent dap,
18:58:47 that's the bankruptcies, litigations, repairs, if you
18:58:50 have a shop, and you have whatever, and you have to
18:58:55 take them and close more than 30 days or 100-some
18:59:01 days, the tenant leaves, and you're responsible.
18:59:05 But is there any way workable where those things can
18:59:09 be worked out?
18:59:11 Whoever the owner is certainly going to be the one
18:59:14 that's going to be holding "the bag."
18:59:21 See what I'm saying?

18:59:22 >>> First and foremost the only way you even get stuck
18:59:24 in this administrative process is if you get posted.
18:59:28 You first would have to be posted.
18:59:30 There are businesses all over this city that far we
18:59:31 don't even see because you can't be at every single
18:59:35 location at all times.
18:59:36 So orphan it may take a couple of months before we
18:59:39 actually get it posted, before we notice them.
18:59:42 So once it's posted, if you have got issues like that,
18:59:46 you are going through permitting or going through the
18:59:48 ARC or in litigation, you actually -- ask for
18:59:52 extension.
18:59:52 And if you have no clearance to abandon the use I
18:59:56 grant you the extension.
18:59:57 >> In this world, your own competitor would turn you
19:00:01 in.
19:00:05 In business.
19:00:05 >>> Oh.
19:00:06 I see what you're saying.
19:00:07 I thought you meant me.
19:00:10 [ Laughter ]
19:00:10 >> No, no, no, I would never say that.

19:00:12 68 Mr. Caetano.
19:00:17 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: In a mall, and you want a parking
19:00:20 plan, how does one establish a new parking plan if
19:00:26 your parking lot is completely striped and everything
19:00:29 else?
19:00:29 What are you looking for?
19:00:31 >>> We took that parking plan requirement out.
19:00:34 >> Okay.
19:00:38 >>> Because it's already part of the site plan itself.
19:00:40 >> And crowd control.
19:00:42 What are you looking for in crowd control?
19:00:44 >>> That was --
19:00:48 >> When did that come out?
19:00:50 >>> That's what I went over in the beginning snoop the
19:00:52 security plan also is out?
19:00:53 >>> The security plan is only required for the three
19:00:56 entertainment districts, downtown, Channel District,
19:00:59 and Ybor.
19:00:59 >> Traffic circulation plan.
19:01:01 That must be out, too, then.
19:01:02 >>> That's out, too.
19:01:09 Keep in mind as I said before if any of these things

19:01:11 become an issue you the code can change every six
19:01:13 months.
19:01:13 If you see you have crowd control issues that you are
19:01:16 hearing about, we can look at that criteria again.
19:01:18 But this was the first to get that based on the
19:01:21 comments that I heard.
19:01:23 You raised many of them.
19:01:25 So went back and retooled that.
19:01:27 >> Now this list that you handed out, all restaurants
19:01:30 in this list, what other restaurants in here?
19:01:32 >>> These lists are who has occupancy permits at these
19:01:37 rates.
19:01:38 200 to 299, and 300-plus.
19:01:42 If they are not on this list, then they are under 200,
19:01:45 which is a lot of people because there's not that many
19:01:47 on these list.
19:01:49 This is to really show the point that -- one of the
19:01:53 questions that came up last time is how many 150 feet
19:01:55 restaurants are there or how many people can you
19:01:57 really get into a place and that's why I am
19:02:02 recommending to go back to 300 for the large venues
19:02:04 because when you look at the 200, 299, you capture a

19:02:07 lot of restaurants, like the fly, like chilis, like
19:02:13 TGI Fridays.
19:02:15 We came forward with 300 originally which only
19:02:18 captures a few restaurants, and they are very large,
19:02:21 like the Factory, a very large restaurant, that would
19:02:25 be considered a large venue.
19:02:27 I don't think your intent was really to capture all
19:02:29 those restaurants.
19:02:33 >> What is the fee going to be for this application?
19:02:37 >>> The special use 2 that would come before you for
19:02:40 commercial uses is 1945.
19:02:42 The special use --
19:02:46 >> 145 did you say?
19:02:49 >>> 1945.
19:02:50 It was reviewed by the entire development review
19:02:52 committee.
19:02:54 It's $835 increase because the review --
19:03:01 >>> the review is a higher level and that was a
19:03:03 reaction also to council concerns overlooking at
19:03:05 parking and trees and solid waste.
19:03:08 There's been so many wet zonings that have come before
19:03:10 you.

19:03:13 >> What does that --
19:03:14 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I'm not done yet, excuse me.
19:03:17 This is not the county commission.
19:03:19 [ Laughter ]
19:03:20 Where they interrupt each other all the time.
19:03:27 In the wet zone survey, what is your estimated cost
19:03:29 for that?
19:03:30 >> I have no idea.
19:03:33 I don't do that.
19:03:35 >> Property survey, site plan review.
19:03:40 If there's already an established mall, why do we need
19:03:43 a site plan review?
19:03:45 That would be bypassed most likely?
19:03:50 >>> Well, the site plan in a mall, if you go with the
19:03:53 theoretical zero foot setback and it's processed
19:03:56 administratively, that's $835, a lot less because it's
19:04:01 a much simpler review.
19:04:02 >> What do you get for 835 is an existing mall, or --
19:04:07 I opened up a place and they wanted me to get a site
19:04:09 plan review, shopping center has been there for 20
19:04:12 years. What is there to review?
19:04:14 It's just a different type of item that's going to be

19:04:17 sold in that store.
19:04:19 And this wasn't a alcohol --
19:04:21 >>> it could have been an office use before.
19:04:23 >> This is all retail.
19:04:26 >>> Not all shopping centers are always retail.
19:04:29 >> Well, this particular one was retail.
19:04:31 >>> It is dependent on the specifics of the use so if
19:04:34 you had retail before and were adding alcohol it's
19:04:37 considered an intensification and you have to meet the
19:04:39 current parking code.
19:04:40 We have to review the site plan to make sure that you
19:04:42 have the adequate parking on-site.
19:04:44 If you don't, then you would seek some type of
19:04:46 variance for that.
19:04:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And the length of time, if one
19:04:55 would file say in March, how long would it be before
19:05:00 they would get their final approval?
19:05:01 How many months?
19:05:02 >>> If it's administrative, it's a 30-day review.
19:05:05 If it comes before City Council, that's really your
19:05:08 option.
19:05:10 Wet zoning travels through the daytime so you can

19:05:12 certainly keep them on a day, transfer them through
19:05:15 the day.
19:05:16 And that's really up to your schedule at that point.
19:05:18 We would place it on the next available day meeting.
19:05:22 That would meet probably 65 to 75 days, I would
19:05:25 imagine, and get to the VRB review.
19:05:32 If it were to go at night it would fall with the
19:05:34 rezoning hearing.
19:05:35 That's really up to the schedule that we have.
19:05:36 >> Because time is of an essence of these small
19:05:39 businesses.
19:05:41 And especially in the era that we are in now, it's
19:05:44 very difficult to stay in business.
19:05:45 >>>: If timing is what you are concerned about then I
19:05:49 recommend you keep it during the day.
19:05:50 Only because if that's really what your concern is,
19:05:52 then it doesn't get bogged down at night.
19:05:55 But you also might want to hear from the public.
19:05:57 I don't know if they want them to go at night.
19:05:59 That's up to your discretion.
19:06:00 >> Thank you.
19:06:01 Mr. Scott, you can go.

19:06:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I could make an
19:06:05 observation.
19:06:06 That your day meetings, when you do have a lot of wet
19:06:09 zonings on, and they are full public hearings they do
19:06:13 consume a lot of time during the daytime meeting.
19:06:15 I just wanted you to be aware of that when you decide
19:06:17 whether you want to have them remain in the day or
19:06:19 have them moved to the evening, during the evening
19:06:22 meeting.
19:06:23 It's council's decision.
19:06:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Reverend Scott.
19:06:28 >>> The rest of the special uses do go at night so you
19:06:31 can certainly move them all to the day or keep them
19:06:33 all at night.
19:06:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You are doing an excellent job.
19:06:42 Large venues, 199 person occupancy, the requirement,
19:06:48 so therefore they have to submit, have someone else
19:06:53 submit fee, surveys, tree plans, parking plan,
19:07:01 business plan --
19:07:03 >>> no.
19:07:03 Once again, most of that was stricken.
19:07:05 >> All that's out?

19:07:07 >>> Not all of it.
19:07:08 As part of the special use application you do have to
19:07:11 submitted your boundary, trees, topo, survey with, any
19:07:15 special use. But the parking plan and the traffic
19:07:17 plan and those items were removed.
19:07:19 >> And that fee is $1,945, and prior to, I heard you
19:07:26 say $845?
19:07:28 >> 750.
19:07:30 >>> Wet stoning is 1115.
19:07:32 >> I thought you said 800-some dollars.
19:07:35 >>> If you process administratively an S-1, 835.
19:07:38 If you come to council it's 1945.
19:07:42 It's a public hearing also like I said at the full VRC
19:07:47 review, you get two reviews on a wet zoning today, TPD
19:07:50 and a planner.
19:07:51 But for the full review, everyone else, you have to
19:07:54 pay for that.
19:07:54 We have to cover our costs for those.
19:07:57 >> And so just for clarification again, if you do
19:08:01 without any issues in 30 days, right?
19:08:03 It has to come to council, then you are looking at
19:08:06 eight weeks.

19:08:08 >>> Somewhere between eight and ten, I would think.
19:08:15 >> For daytime, yes.
19:08:16 For daytime.
19:08:17 If it runs at night it's going to be 90.
19:08:20 If it's going to follow the standard use rezoning,
19:08:22 it's up to you whether you want to run them in the day
19:08:24 or night.
19:08:25 >> And the recommendation to go to 1945 is because of
19:08:36 the extra process of what you said, I believe.
19:08:38 >>> The 1945 was to cover the cost of the additional
19:08:40 review.
19:08:42 There's a much higher level of review for special use
19:08:45 2.
19:08:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to share particularly
19:08:56 with the newer council members that the reason this
19:08:58 all came up was because the neighbors have been asking
19:09:01 for ages to be able to address parking and hours of
19:09:06 operation and security and some of these things.
19:09:11 We didn't cook this up.
19:09:12 The folks came to us and asked for this.
19:09:14 And so I think that you did a great job of drafting it
19:09:17 and I'm ready to move it if you all are.

19:09:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Public comment.
19:09:21 Anyone else want to speak?
19:09:24 >>> My name is Mark Bentley, 201 North Franklin
19:09:36 Street, Tampa 33602.
19:09:39 I represent the Florida retailers association, the
19:09:46 radiant group and for good measure the Italian club of
19:09:49 Tampa.
19:09:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before you get started, it appears
19:09:54 that some fellow council members have a letter from
19:09:56 you directed to them, and I don't see in the my
19:09:59 notebook.
19:10:01 >>> We hand delivered to your office, sir.
19:10:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll share.
19:10:07 Unless you have an extra copy.
19:10:11 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner, go ahead.
19:10:14 >>> I know it's getting kind of late and I don't want
19:10:16 to push the envelope.
19:10:17 I'm representing multiple interests.
19:10:21 Maybe between six and eight minutes.
19:10:23 Otherwise I can come up hear for each one three
19:10:25 minutes at a time.
19:10:26 So I will go as quickly as fix that's not a problem.

19:10:29 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council?
19:10:32 >> Start talking.
19:10:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt, council, but
19:10:36 City Council may establish time limits for members of
19:10:38 the public to address council unless time otherwise
19:10:41 established each member of the public shall limit to
19:10:44 three minutes.
19:10:45 Normally you have a speaker waiver form for public
19:10:48 hearing.
19:10:48 Mr. Bentley indicates that he represents multiple
19:10:50 institutional clients.
19:10:52 If council wishes to -- it's a legislative matter. If
19:10:56 council wishes to establish a time limit at this time,
19:11:00 in light of what he has represented to council, it
19:11:02 would be appropriate for council to let him know how
19:11:05 much time he has at the outset.
19:11:06 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I move seven minutes.
19:11:10 >> I need eight minutes.
19:11:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Get a motion?
19:11:13 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Eight minutes.
19:11:14 >> Second.
19:11:15 (Motion carried).

19:11:16 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much.
19:11:20 First of all, thank you for the opportunity to present
19:11:23 our perspective on the drafted change from what is
19:11:27 currently a wet zoning of a lot, tractor parcel of
19:11:31 land which is determined by the courts to be a
19:11:33 compensable property interest to special use permit,
19:11:36 revocable permit.
19:11:38 It's a drafted change, I know it's taken a lot of
19:11:40 work.
19:11:41 And we appreciate the opportunity to address that.
19:11:43 The first issue I want to talk about is the 30-day
19:11:46 dry-up policy.
19:11:47 As you heard Cathy in her presentation she indicated
19:11:50 that it's been there for decades.
19:11:52 I would like to talk about that as a major policy
19:11:55 perspective.
19:11:56 Code was enacted in 1945.
19:11:58 In 1945, there was no such thing as a regional mall,
19:12:01 convenience store, there was no proliferation of
19:12:05 restaurant, you couldn't even sell on Sunday in the
19:12:06 City of Tampa.
19:12:07 Things have changed.

19:12:08 There's a different mind-set and attitude toward the
19:12:10 sale of alcohol.
19:12:11 Okay.
19:12:11 We all understand that.
19:12:13 It's pretty prevalent to decide whether you like it or
19:12:15 not.
19:12:16 So meanwhile, you have this arcane provision, the 30
19:12:20 day dry-up provision which wreaks havoc with the
19:12:26 business community, the environment, things like that.
19:12:30 The city is allocating a lot of money towards checking
19:12:33 out these businesses on a regular basis, hundreds of
19:12:36 businesses to see whether or not they consume mate a
19:12:39 sale in 30 days.
19:12:41 The special use permitting process where you have the
19:12:43 ability to impose conditions to mitigate any adverse
19:12:46 impacts on the neighborhood, and also by virtue of the
19:12:49 fact it's now revocable permit, the 30-day issue
19:12:53 really is pretty irrelevant.
19:12:54 You really don't need that.
19:12:57 From our perspective.
19:12:59 Also, you have heard Cathy indicate to initiate the
19:13:01 process to get this time out so you don't miss the

19:13:05 30-day vote is that I as a business owner cannot
19:13:08 initiate that process.
19:13:10 My property has to be actually posted, okay.
19:13:12 So you are playing kind of cat and mouse, instead of
19:13:17 being straight up with the city and me as a property
19:13:18 owner not for the sale of alcohol approaching the city
19:13:22 and saying, my tenant is in bankruptcy, we are in
19:13:25 litigation, we need to do renovation, it's 2009, we
19:13:28 need to pull out underground storage tanks to comply
19:13:31 with Florida law, I need time now.
19:13:33 Instead of playing this game when an inspector comes
19:13:36 out, that's really not good business.
19:13:37 It's not good business practice and you guys are waste
19:13:39 ago lot of money.
19:13:40 Also you heard staff indicate, now that you have
19:13:42 shifted this process from a wet zoning which took
19:13:46 eight to nine weeks, if you shift to the a special
19:13:48 use, if you look at the cut-off for the filing right
19:13:51 now for a night meeting, it will be March 3rd if
19:13:53 you file, and final reading by City Council will be
19:13:56 July 17th.
19:13:57 Okay.

19:13:58 You are talking about 18 weeks.
19:14:00 You have doubled the process.
19:14:01 So if you do that in the night meeting.
19:14:08 So what we would suggest is, you know, now you have
19:14:13 got additional reviews, maybe shifting of resources,
19:14:17 the taxpayer funds from chase ago round all these wet
19:14:20 zonings and trying to monitor them over to staff time
19:14:22 that you need to dedicate to review these things, the
19:14:26 tree survey, parking plan and things like that.
19:14:28 That's our recommendation.
19:14:29 Your code indicates that if you are a special use in
19:14:32 the City of Tampa, you have 180 days to act on the
19:14:36 special use.
19:14:37 We recommend that you treat alcohol beverage special
19:14:42 use the same, 180 days. If you don't consummate a
19:14:45 sale within 180 days then you disappear.
19:14:48 We think that's reasonable and lonely Cal, will save
19:14:51 everybody a lot of time and convenience.
19:14:53 The second usual you I would like to talk about is the
19:14:58 timing of the fees.
19:14:59 Right now, the cost of the wet zoning as staff
19:15:04 indicated is about $1100.

19:15:07 If you look at the schedule, five City Council -- the
19:15:10 city's published schedule for wet zoning, it was eight
19:15:13 to nine weeks.
19:15:13 Process as indicated now will be the night meeting,
19:15:17 special use, which rezoning, it will take
19:15:20 approximately 16 to 18 weeks to process that, to get
19:15:24 the final reading.
19:15:26 And think about this.
19:15:26 Now the additional surveys and site plan preparation,
19:15:30 you just can't walk in the door and file.
19:15:32 There's some lead time.
19:15:34 You have to -- architects and engineers don't drop
19:15:38 everything because you want to file something.
19:15:40 Eights very lengthy process.
19:15:41 It's really untenable towards the business community
19:15:45 to actually try and get it whether you are a
19:15:49 convenience store or what have you, restaurant.
19:15:51 You are ready to go.
19:15:52 You have to wait six to seven months in the ability to
19:15:54 sell alcohol.
19:15:55 It doesn't make a lot of sense.
19:15:56 We recommend that you somehow streamline that process

19:15:59 for special uses for wet zoning as maybe Cathy
19:16:03 suggested, you treat those like do you now, takes six,
19:16:06 eight, nine weeks.
19:16:07 That's our recommendation.
19:16:10 The next issue, the proposal states that all special
19:16:16 use permits for the sale of alcohol have to meet the
19:16:19 general standards for special uses in your code.
19:16:21 If you look at page six, paragraph four and page
19:16:24 seven, paragraph four, it says you have to meet the
19:16:26 general standards.
19:16:28 If you look at the general standards, the first one
19:16:30 says that the petitioner shall demonstrate to City
19:16:34 Council that the use, the sale of alcohol at that
19:16:37 location will promote the public health, safety and
19:16:40 welfare.
19:16:40 That's an unsurmountable burden for someone to come up
19:16:43 here to demonstrate sale of alcohol at Westshore and
19:16:46 Kennedy is going to promote the public health, safety
19:16:48 and welfare. If city Council wants to arbitrarily
19:16:50 impose that, nobody would get approved.
19:16:53 Okay?
19:16:53 We recommend striking that.

19:16:57 The staff also indicated that the code says -- and I
19:17:00 can give you the reference, I'm running out of time --
19:17:02 the two sections that a wet zoning is considered an
19:17:05 intensification. Use of property.
19:17:08 That's internally inconsistent with promoting the
19:17:09 public health, safety and welfare. If on one hand the
19:17:13 code says if you wet zone intensification how are you
19:17:15 going to demonstrate you are promoting the public
19:17:18 health, safety and welfare?
19:17:19 We recommend you strike that burden, and if you have
19:17:22 to demonstrate you promote the public health, safety
19:17:24 and welfare.
19:17:25 It doesn't make a lot of sense.
19:17:27 Also, with respect to Hillsborough County, I would
19:17:31 like to mention that right down the street here, the
19:17:33 way they process wet zonings is everything is
19:17:35 administrative, across the board unless you need a
19:17:38 waiver.
19:17:38 If you need a waiver, you go to a land use hearing
19:17:40 officer, it takes eight to nine weeks and the filing
19:17:43 fees of a thousand dollars and it works pretty
19:17:45 effectively in Hillsborough County.

19:17:48 The next issue, and this is very important, I touched
19:17:52 on this, is that we think that a property owner should
19:17:55 have the ability to initiate the tolling process, not
19:17:58 wait for some inspector to show up and post the
19:18:02 property.
19:18:02 Then if you don't scurry down to the city within 30
19:18:05 days, that valuable interest in your property, here
19:18:07 again you are just a passive landlord, you lose that,
19:18:10 okay?
19:18:11 There should be a process, and I have language to the
19:18:16 City Council and staff, as a property owner once you
19:18:19 receive notice you have the right to go to the city,
19:18:21 file an affidavit, et cetera, et cetera.
19:18:25 You mentioned Westshore mall.
19:18:27 There's not a bunch of tenants out there to take down
19:18:30 30,000 square feet.
19:18:32 It takes time to market these people, get brokers, do
19:18:36 the renovation.
19:18:37 Right now the first extension is 150 days.
19:18:39 Second is kind of a discretionary with the zoning
19:18:42 department.
19:18:42 So we feel that you should be able to come in,

19:18:45 initiate the -- the property owner be straight up, get
19:18:50 your 180 days, and if you are still working, ask for
19:18:54 another extension.
19:18:56 Shall be granted if you are proceeding in good faith,
19:19:01 whether you are in litigation, bankruptcy, what have
19:19:02 you.
19:19:03 That's the circumstance.
19:19:06 The next issue is with respect to kind of shift gears
19:19:14 the club.
19:19:16 It's nonprofit if they have a festival permit, they
19:19:19 can come in for a temporary three times a year, and
19:19:22 they can get a permit from you all to sell alcohol,
19:19:25 whether public property or private property.
19:19:31 Italiano.
19:19:33 Okay, the city owns the park, obviously.
19:19:35 The code right now as proposed says you can only
19:19:38 consummate a sale on private property that's
19:19:40 commercially zoned.
19:19:42 Okay.
19:19:42 That's going to destroy some of these nonprofit
19:19:44 festivals.
19:19:45 It doesn't make a lot of special, if you look in your

19:19:49 draft code here, the insurance limit, the city has to
19:19:51 be a named insured with respect to any road festival
19:19:54 permit.
19:19:54 And the limits are very high.
19:19:56 I think a million, two million bucks.
19:19:59 Okay.
19:19:59 So we are suggesting keep the code the way it is.
19:20:02 As long as there's insurance in place, and you guys
19:20:04 issue the permits, they can consummate a sale on
19:20:08 public property, whether Centennial Park or seventh
19:20:13 Avenue or Guavaween.
19:20:15 So those are our recommendations.
19:20:15 I sincerely appreciate your indulgence and additional
19:20:18 time.
19:20:18 If you have any questions, I will gladly attempt to
19:20:20 answer those.
19:20:21 Thanks a lot.
19:20:22 >> Would anyone else like to speak?
19:20:29 >>> Susan long, 920 broad street.
19:20:33 A concern, our one concern is when you are talking
19:20:38 about malls, not needing any administrative, City
19:20:43 Council, neighborhoods are not necessarily given

19:20:45 notice and certainly no opportunity to respond.
19:20:47 I agree with councilman Miranda when he says
19:20:50 activities that take place at the mall.
19:20:52 You know what?
19:20:53 They leave the mall, where do they go?
19:20:55 In a into the neighborhoods.
19:20:56 We as neighborhood associations would like an
19:20:58 opportunity to provide input, positive or negative,
19:21:00 into these additional wet zonings just like we do the
19:21:03 ones that are on the other side of town, small
19:21:06 businesses, and when they leave there, they come into
19:21:09 our neighborhoods, too. We would like that
19:21:11 opportunity.
19:21:11 Thank you.
19:21:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:21:18 >>> Joseph Capitano, Sr., I reside at 3400 Lykes.
19:21:22 I'm here to represent the Italian club today.
19:21:27 I want to talk about what Mark was saying.
19:21:30 Most of you probably know the Italian club festive
19:21:33 Italiano which basically has been in existence, this
19:21:36 will be the eleventh year.
19:21:37 Without that event, the Italian club could not

19:21:40 survive.
19:21:42 For you that don't know it it's a historic building
19:21:45 built in 1916.
19:21:47 The money that's been generated through the -- not
19:21:51 necessarily from the sales of the liquor, and the wine
19:21:54 and the beer, but because of the sponsorships of the
19:21:57 people that do sell the beer and the wine, it would be
19:22:01 a major blow, number one, to lose a sponsorship of
19:22:05 these people.
19:22:05 I don't want to mention their names.
19:22:07 But we have two major beer sponsors.
19:22:10 We have one major wine sponsor.
19:22:13 Along with some major food sponsors and so forth.
19:22:17 In my estimation, if we couldn't serve their wine at
19:22:21 the event, why would they want to sponsor it?
19:22:24 And again, you would be driving this event, in my
19:22:28 opinion, would have to go to the fairgrounds, or
19:22:31 someplace like that for us to survive.
19:22:35 I ask that you consider leaving the ordinance that's
19:22:40 recommended for street festivals especially in Ybor
19:22:42 City as they currently read so we can keep operating.
19:22:48 Thank you.

19:22:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Capitano or Mr. Bentley, one or
19:22:55 the other.
19:22:56 I was looking at your comments, mark, and I didn't see
19:23:00 the reference to have been this public property in the
19:23:03 code change.
19:23:07 >>> On page 6.
19:23:09 I think it's A, B and C.
19:23:27 --
19:23:28 >> The beginning of page 5.
19:23:29 Section 7.
19:23:30 The proposal prohibits nonprofits from using public
19:23:33 space to make a sale.
19:23:35 A, B and C.
19:23:42 >>CHAIRMAN: Cathy Coyle, what page is that on?
19:23:51 >>> On the language they hand out which we received, a
19:23:58 round page 7, it says alcoholic beverage sales,
19:24:02 temporary, parcel must maintain a nonresidential
19:24:05 zoning district and to obtain the special use permits
19:24:11 to sell alcohol.
19:24:15 >> Legal conforming or legal nonconforming,
19:24:19 nonresidential within a residential district.
19:24:23 >>MARK BENTLEY: It says the parcel, the first section.

19:24:25 Excuse me.
19:24:30 Parcel must contain a nonresidential --
19:24:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't you guys go to the side
19:24:35 and sort it out and let us hear from other people?
19:24:38 >>> I'll walk away but 419 cities and 67 counties,
19:24:44 none of them have the automatic dry-up provision.
19:24:49 It's unheard of in the State of Florida.
19:24:51 Thank you very much.
19:24:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
19:24:55 >>> Good evening.
19:25:01 My name is Jay BOSH, general manager at Westshore
19:25:05 plaza.
19:25:05 I have a number of things but I won't belabor the
19:25:08 point here.
19:25:08 I think I was very encouraged actually by the earlier
19:25:11 presentation, representing national plaza, which
19:25:17 substantial business is located in the city.
19:25:20 It's not really enjoyed but it does very, very well
19:25:24 and it's encouraging that they are here as well with
19:25:27 us.
19:25:28 I would kind of dovetail onto her statement that we
19:25:31 are in agreement with as presented.

19:25:34 I find myself maybe like you are this evening, enough
19:25:39 information to absorb quickly here.
19:25:41 I am trying to get my hands around it for a few days,
19:25:44 actually over a week.
19:25:45 I guess I would touch on just a couple of small
19:25:47 things.
19:25:48 It is my understanding coming into the center of this
19:25:51 conversation that there was an intent to have some
19:25:57 cost and time efficiencies, certainly looking at this
19:26:00 opportunity, we had the same thing in mind, as well as
19:26:01 creating some better opportunities to create serious
19:26:06 time efficiencies.
19:26:07 We are looking at a potential client to come into our
19:26:12 shop this summer.
19:26:13 We are not cold cruel business owners.
19:26:15 Eights great place to be.
19:26:17 Both properties are wonderful.
19:26:18 We have no intent to create any kind of strange
19:26:20 happenings and predicaments in the neighborhood.
19:26:22 And certainly nothing to do with our properties what I
19:26:27 think is happening to the streets and buildings around
19:26:28 this neighborhood that the city continues to evolve

19:26:32 and expand at a rapid rate.
19:26:34 The one comment I heard here tonight which I thought
19:26:38 was very interesting because it is a perspective I
19:26:39 have not thought through as much as I would like to
19:26:42 but I had a chance to think about it was the level
19:26:44 playing field, the competitiveness with us, and I
19:26:47 think it's important just to share with you real quick
19:26:49 that not all uses would be compatible with our
19:26:53 shopping centers.
19:26:54 We are terribly limited by space anyway.
19:26:57 Speaking for myself, I've got about nine and a half
19:26:58 pounds of potatoes in a ten-pound bag. I can't go out
19:27:03 there and create an entirely new piece of square
19:27:06 footage to put something on.
19:27:07 But there's a number of restaurants out there that
19:27:09 have nothing to do with shopping centers.
19:27:11 That's not what their business plan would actually
19:27:14 dictate.
19:27:14 I don't know -- I think from a time efficiency
19:27:21 standpoint, there are other people that we talk to on
19:27:24 a regular basis that own properties across the country
19:27:27 that might be more receptive as looking at Tampa as a

19:27:31 viable market to come in.
19:27:34 Lastly, if I could comment on the 30-day dry-up
19:27:38 provision.
19:27:39 It does impact shopping sent towers a degree.
19:27:42 Certainly, some might actually vacate a property.
19:27:47 Of the just takes our time to find out what the -- to
19:27:52 get the best use out of an actual space, depending on
19:27:56 what kind what we have to head into.
19:27:59 I don't think it would be unusual to say it would take
19:28:01 a good six to eight months before we would have a
19:28:03 viable candidate to even try to walk in and talk with
19:28:06 you as well.
19:28:08 That kind of shows vulnerabilities of the 30-day, how
19:28:12 it works.
19:28:13 And I thank you for your time.
19:28:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:28:15 Would anyone else like to speak?
19:28:16 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I shouldn't make this statement but
19:28:21 I am.
19:28:22 Whatever comes to my mind I have got to say.
19:28:24 What we are trying to do to do the best we can and fix
19:28:31 chapter 3 and do all the right things for the citizens

19:28:34 for all the right causes.
19:28:36 We close our eyes at a certain park in a city where on
19:28:41 every Sunday where there's a certain season everybody
19:28:43 goes in there and says no alcohol, everybody is
19:28:45 drinking, and guess what?
19:28:47 There's only one -- there's not one arrest.
19:28:51 And it happens every Sunday.
19:28:53 So I feel a little bit more hypocritical listening to
19:28:57 all this trying to help the neighborhood when I know
19:28:59 in my mind what's going on out there for reality.
19:29:03 So I'm just saying, why do we let this happen?
19:29:07 That's all.
19:29:12 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is that in West Tampa?
19:29:13 >> It's in New Tampa.
19:29:16 >>> Frank Capitano, 1320 East Ninth Avenue.
19:29:22 I want to speak on the 30-day dry-up provision as
19:29:25 well, being a landlord or a developer.
19:29:28 It's very a difficult issue to deal with.
19:29:33 As has already been said, all the counties we deal
19:29:35 with, this is the only area that we deal with the
19:29:38 30-day dry-up.
19:29:39 It's very difficult to deal with when you are looking

19:29:41 for tenants or when the tenant leaves having to deal
19:29:45 with that issue.
19:29:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Capitano, I have been listening
19:29:52 with great intent on this 30-day dry-up, and I think
19:29:57 there are some situations where it is advantageous for
19:30:00 the city to have that, especially if a particular use
19:30:07 has been a problem use, okay, which we are all
19:30:11 familiar with some of the problem uses around the
19:30:13 city.
19:30:14 There aren't a lot but there's probably a dozen or so
19:30:17 across neighborhoods, and the police, and others
19:30:20 issues.
19:30:21 So when you have that 30-day opportunity to dry
19:30:23 something up, if by some outside wonderful chance you
19:30:28 can get rid of that use and close it down, then the
19:30:33 next time that building wants to come in, then council
19:30:35 can be a lot more careful in terms of what we do
19:30:38 approve in that bad area.
19:30:42 I'm saying any area obviously.
19:30:44 So there's sort of a Yin and Yang there.
19:30:47 Because I think what I am hearing from you and your
19:30:49 industry is that you are suffering a little bit,

19:30:52 because of some of these bad apples.
19:30:58 So what I'm thinking is maybe there's an
19:31:00 opportunity -- I like the idea what somebody said
19:31:04 about an affirmative, now, if you guys know you are
19:31:07 losing a tenant, maybe could you come in affirmatively
19:31:11 to the city and just say, we have lost this tenant, we
19:31:14 know we are going dry, and here is our little letter,
19:31:19 or fill out the form or whatever, and then you get an
19:31:24 automatic six months to do that with another six
19:31:26 months, you know, re-up as a possibility under certain
19:31:30 circumstances.
19:31:31 I would also like to say even F after you went after a
19:31:35 year, if you are in bankruptcy court or some other
19:31:37 significant legal proceeding, that's dragging on,
19:31:41 because sometimes I know those landlord tenant things
19:31:44 or bankruptcy things can drag on beyond a year, that
19:31:47 maybe you can come to council under those extenuating
19:31:50 circumstances and even go beyond a year.
19:31:53 But at the same time I don't necessarily want to throw
19:31:55 out this 30-day -- this 30-day thing.
19:31:58 So if you are a good landlord and you know you are
19:32:01 losing your tenant and I think the gentleman from

19:32:03 Westshore indicated the same thing, I would like staff
19:32:05 to consider that we create a procedure where you would
19:32:11 affirmatively come in and say, I know we are going
19:32:14 dry, I don't want to mess with the sticker on the
19:32:16 window, the tenants, here it is, and we would like --
19:32:21 do you have any comment on that as an idea?
19:32:25 >>> When you speak about bad apples, I don't think
19:32:28 it's fair to penalize the majority of the market, gad
19:32:34 citizens out there. Again it's difficult because when
19:32:36 you are the landlord, you are relying on your tenants
19:32:38 to operate in good fashion and make these sales.
19:32:42 So when we take the property back, that's when it
19:32:46 becomes an usual you.
19:32:48 Again, this is the only municipality that we deal with
19:32:51 where we have to deal with the 30 days.
19:32:53 >> What I am saying is, I sort of like the city to
19:32:55 have it both ways, where we can continue with the
19:32:58 30-day thing, but the 30-day thing wouldn't be
19:33:02 applicable if we say this other procedure where you
19:33:05 can affirmatively come in and just say, you know,
19:33:07 boom, we are drying up and we need the 180 days.
19:33:14 >>MARY MULHERN: I like Tampa to be unique, but I don't

19:33:19 want one of the unique things about us to continue to
19:33:21 be how difficult it is for people to open a business
19:33:25 and maintain it.
19:33:27 And if nobody else is doing this, there must be some
19:33:31 other solutions to dealing with problem establishments
19:33:37 other than having the burdensome requirement.
19:33:39 I mean, a building that tends to be a restaurant or a
19:33:44 bar is probably going to be a restaurant or a bar with
19:33:48 the next building that comes in.
19:33:51 I think we should look at models that work.
19:33:56 And make this city a place where we need businesses to
19:34:04 be able to stay open.
19:34:06 We need to have that kind of quality of life if we are
19:34:09 going to be competitive.
19:34:12 I don't feel like we need to have that at all.
19:34:15 The 30 days.
19:34:20 >> Is it possible for you to create something that
19:34:25 would freeze somebody like the mall, say, for 90 days,
19:34:30 60 days, whatever, and that they have to come before
19:34:33 the City Council to ask that their license be frozen
19:34:36 until they establish a settlement on their issues,
19:34:39 whatever it is, if it's bankruptcy or whatever?

19:34:42 >>> This will be more of a legal question.
19:34:46 Although the way I explained it before, as long as you
19:34:48 are showing the intent not to abandon the use, we can
19:34:51 keep extending it.
19:34:52 Administratively I can keep extending it.
19:34:54 If you are in litigation, document that, I can keep --
19:34:58 >> If they have proof and come to you, can they do
19:35:00 that administratively without coming to the City
19:35:02 Council?
19:35:02 >>> Correct.
19:35:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Begun twice in a one-year total.
19:35:10 >>> No.
19:35:11 You can actually keep doing.
19:35:13 There's no limit.
19:35:14 I mean, if you are actively, in some kind of process,
19:35:17 if your goal is to reestablish that use and you can
19:35:20 document that with me, I can keep extending it.
19:35:23 There is no limit in the code for that.
19:35:26 There is no limit for any special use.
19:35:28 Be it a drive-in window or any other thing that you
19:35:30 happen to approve.
19:35:31 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You mean so long as it's in the

19:35:33 process that --
19:35:35 >>> As long as the intent is to keep -- to reopen that
19:35:38 and reestablish it, yes.
19:35:40 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
19:35:41 I think what Cathy is saying is try to create a
19:35:45 process -- that we told her she needs to do.
19:35:50 When you are looking to revoke permit force non-use,
19:35:52 you can't just say they are not using it.
19:35:55 If they are clearing showing an intent to continue to
19:35:57 use it, for example, if they are in bankruptcy but
19:36:00 continue to meet that process, or if somebody is
19:36:03 remodeling, active permit, if somebody is remodeling,
19:36:10 and whatever the rule of government was, like, aha,
19:36:12 you haven't done whatever it is you want to do for 50
19:36:15 days even though they are still in the process.
19:36:17 So what Cathy has tried to do is come up with a
19:36:20 process that acknowledges that.
19:36:21 So we also at the same time feel somewhat constrained
19:36:27 because the 30-day policy has been placed in the City
19:36:31 of Tampa, has been something that has been a policy,
19:36:34 that other things have been expressed by City Council.
19:36:37 We haven't heard anything whatsoever from any party

19:36:41 prior to this point outside of some of the businesses
19:36:43 who have expressed displeasure.
19:36:46 But for City Council to change that so we didn't feel
19:36:51 we had the right to do that.
19:36:52 That 30 days is within your discretion.
19:36:54 That's one of the ways to get to where you are.
19:36:56 But as far as people concerned that they are going
19:36:58 through bankruptcy, et cetera, et cetera, and are out
19:37:01 there trying to shut them down, that's not true.
19:37:05 If in fact as Mr. Bentley said or some of the City
19:37:07 Council people have suggested a process where someone
19:37:11 comes in so actively before we go out to the 30 days,
19:37:14 that's something we can accomplish as well.
19:37:16 There's a process to get you where you want to be but
19:37:18 I wanted to get clear from a legal perspective if you
19:37:22 are out there trying to actively reopen your use, then
19:37:26 the city is not in a position to revoke it.
19:37:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Bentley, I want to ask you a
19:37:30 question.
19:37:30 Mr. Bentley.
19:37:33 >>> Yes, ma'am.
19:37:34 >>GWEN MILLER: That's the process that you were

19:37:36 saying?
19:37:37 >>> I agree with proactive professional process that
19:37:42 provides both needs to city and government and
19:37:45 business community where someone can come in and
19:37:47 initiate the pro process instead of this cat and mouse
19:37:50 thing.
19:37:50 I think it's a step in the right direction.
19:37:52 Maybe on the dry-up, councilman Dingfelder, I know
19:37:55 what you are saying on that.
19:37:56 But now that the permit is easier to revoke, that's
19:38:02 part of my comment why you don't need the 30 days.
19:38:05 Maybe you can extend the 30 days to 60 or something
19:38:07 like that.
19:38:08 Do you know what I am saying?
19:38:09 I think the proactive part is very important, a major
19:38:11 step in the right direction.
19:38:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And let me respond real quick.
19:38:15 I would be comfortable with going 30 to 60 days but I
19:38:19 wouldn't be comfortable completely and let me tell you
19:38:23 why.
19:38:24 Mrs. Mulhern, you bring up some good points, we want
19:38:26 to be positive to business and that sort of thing but

19:38:29 what happens is a lot of these establishments, think
19:38:31 about Howard Avenue, near your neighborhood and your
19:38:34 home.
19:38:34 A lot of these establishments were established wet
19:38:38 zoned long ago without any constraints whatsoever.
19:38:41 Okay.
19:38:42 They just have a wet zoning.
19:38:43 They can operate till three in the morning, and many
19:38:46 of them do, without any constraints at all.
19:38:49 And the opportunity that you could possibly get when
19:38:53 you can dry out one of these is not the next owner
19:38:57 couldn't go in there and reestablish that
19:38:59 establishment.
19:39:00 But they might have to come back to council.
19:39:02 And when we do reestablish them as a bar or restaurant
19:39:05 with liquor, we could put some constraints on them.
19:39:08 We could put some hours of operation on them.
19:39:10 You know, whatever types are appropriate constraints
19:39:13 to protect the surrounding neighborhood.
19:39:15 That's the benefit of sometimes drying out these
19:39:18 establishments.
19:39:19 It doesn't happen often.

19:39:20 I can't think of only two or three of them that
19:39:24 happened in the five years I have been here.
19:39:25 But I think theoretically --
19:39:31 >>MARY MULHERN: I didn't understand what the 30 days
19:39:33 was.
19:39:35 Sorry.
19:39:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Club Fuel is closed.
19:39:39 What's the status of that license?
19:39:42 >>REBECCA KERT: Actually I can answer that question.
19:39:44 They came in and they applied for an additional 120
19:39:47 day administrative extension.
19:39:49 That I believe expires May 9th.
19:39:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Saul-Sena.
19:39:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:39:55 I just want to suggest another way that we had an
19:39:58 issue at times, and that is with noise attenuation, we
19:40:02 have had problems sometimes with certain places that
19:40:04 just made the neighborhood crazy by too much noise,
19:40:08 and when they closed down the neighborhood was so
19:40:11 relieved.
19:40:11 They were happy for another use to go in there, just
19:40:14 somebody who was quieter the next time around.

19:40:18 But I had a staff question.
19:40:19 >>> I'm sorry.
19:40:21 I misspoke.
19:40:26 >> My question is staff.
19:40:27 And that is, were you able to communicate with
19:40:32 Mr. Bentley and clarify using public space for the
19:40:35 three times a year permit?
19:40:40 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
19:40:41 Yes, 2 language you have in place continues to allow
19:40:44 for the use of public safety.
19:40:46 >> I thought so.
19:40:46 >>> And Mr. Bentley said as long as we clarify that on
19:40:49 the record that he didn't have any further objection.
19:40:51 >> Thank you to the clarification.
19:40:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's go to nonprofits D.we take that
19:40:57 out?
19:40:57 >>> We feel it covers the situation.
19:41:03 >>GWEN MILLER: That covers the Italian club?
19:41:05 >>> Yes.
19:41:06 It would continue to allow them, if the city continues
19:41:09 to allow them to have Centennial Park, the code
19:41:11 continues top allow that to happen.

19:41:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:41:14 All right.
19:41:15 >>> I would like to say one thing a second.
19:41:18 You know, I just heard something a minute ago when
19:41:21 this young lady said that if a bar didn't want to be
19:41:25 closed down, they didn't have to.
19:41:26 But I can think of one bar in Ybor City that was never
19:41:29 really a problem, yet she posted on the window.
19:41:36 The inspector posted on the window within 30 days.
19:41:40 It's being managed by a real estate company.
19:41:42 They come back in a sweat.
19:41:44 They thought they lost their license.
19:41:47 You just mentioned another one that you have got
19:41:49 enough ammunition for the police department between
19:41:54 fights and shootings and killings and this and that,
19:41:56 and yet you all are worried about 30-day notice, and
19:42:00 he's already found a way around it.
19:42:02 Why in the name of God we have not had the police
19:42:05 department had the guts to go in there and close the
19:42:07 place down, I don't understand.
19:42:09 People in Ybor City don't want it either.
19:42:11 If these places have hurt us worse than anybody.

19:42:14 Yet they continue to be open.
19:42:16 Yet we can post -- the guy doesn't realize that you
19:42:22 posted my window and then 30 days later they dry us
19:42:25 up, and this poor guy, rate on the corner of 16th
19:42:29 street next to the bank, I guess 16th or 17th
19:42:32 street.
19:42:33 I need some help.
19:42:36 It's been closed.
19:42:38 Closed for the last and a half or three years because
19:42:41 now they don't think they can get the wet zoning back.
19:42:44 Now, you guys don't know how hard it is out there.
19:42:47 And it's not fair to the small guy when we are getting
19:42:50 blamed for all the problems that nobody is addressing.
19:42:52 And it's not the small little average bar in Ybor
19:42:54 City.
19:43:01 You go and get these reports, somebody was saying
19:43:04 about having someone drive around, or is anybody
19:43:08 checking this thing?
19:43:09 They are checking me.
19:43:10 They can tell you about they brought in five signs and
19:43:13 they brought in three of these and four of those.
19:43:15 So why don't you take those that we have running

19:43:17 around posted week after week after week and let them
19:43:22 do something where it needs it and get them out of
19:43:24 Ybor City.
19:43:24 Thank you.
19:43:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
19:43:27 Mr. Bentley, one more question, zero setback.
19:43:29 Did you say something about that?
19:43:30 >>> Well, that was part of my white paper, I guess, I
19:43:34 submitted to council.
19:43:34 >> Did we address that?
19:43:39 >>> Yes.
19:43:40 Well, I don't know if council discussed it yet.
19:43:42 >> Have we discussed zero setback?
19:43:45 >>> One final comment.
19:43:46 We would like to see you all be regulators and not
19:43:49 terminators.
19:43:49 Okay.
19:43:50 So I appreciate your time.
19:43:51 >> It works for Arnold.
19:43:52 Why not for us?
19:43:53 >>> Right.
19:43:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If it wasn't for Mr. Capitano,

19:43:59 there would be no Italian club and his son was a great
19:44:04 ball player but a terrible manager.
19:44:07 That's why I used to beat them every day.
19:44:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Ms. Coyle, the zero setback.
19:44:13 >>> Where we are now is really a decision for council
19:44:16 on which way they want to go on these issues and I can
19:44:18 run back through them.
19:44:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.
19:44:20 >>> You have kind of several people talked about
19:44:24 treating everyone the same, not distinguishing between
19:44:27 small and large.
19:44:29 Then you have the regulations that are before you that
19:44:31 cut off at certain occupancies.
19:44:34 Staff is recommending you go back to 300 instead of
19:44:37 200, as shown here.
19:44:42 Then you have several other people asking for the zero
19:44:44 setback, distance separation for the malls.
19:44:50 Really the kind ever main things you decide on how
19:44:52 account exactly how you are going to go on that.
19:44:55 If you don't mind, I would like to talk briefly a
19:44:59 couple of points that were made.
19:45:01 Unusually when we first started this process, we did

19:45:05 research on several communities around the state going
19:45:08 all the way down to Miami, Sarasota, Bradenton.
19:45:10 We did many of them.
19:45:12 St. Pete.
19:45:12 We lad at them, their alcohol process.
19:45:16 Most everyone does these things administratively
19:45:19 unless you need waivers.
19:45:21 Hillsborough County was mentioned.
19:45:22 They do it that way.
19:45:23 We unusually proposed it that way and this did not
19:45:25 fly.
19:45:28 The neighborhood and other people, we trade to put
19:45:31 different criteria and trying to do the process.
19:45:34 Just as a comparison because it was given to you.
19:45:37 But nobody sees this when it comes to administrative
19:45:42 review.
19:45:42 You want to compare apples to apples.
19:45:45 Hillsborough County a nine weak review for an
19:45:47 administrative process and it was $1,040.
19:45:51 Our administrative S-1 is 30 days and is $835.
19:45:55 That's what you would get if you have everything
19:45:56 processing in S-1.

19:45:58 I just want to clarify that.
19:46:00 I do believe that Mr. Dingfelder mentioned changing
19:46:04 the 30-day posting to a 60 day.
19:46:07 If you want to consider that option.
19:46:12 >>GWEN MILLER: 60 days, yes.
19:46:22 >>> That's the other item is whether or not you want
19:46:24 to change it to a 60 day posting, then you get
19:46:26 extensions if we post you, or the parallel course we
19:46:30 are talking about, people coming in and voluntarily --
19:46:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What I was saying is doing parallel
19:46:36 we would leave both in there.
19:46:38 From 30 to 60 days.
19:46:40 >>> If we post you, you get extended or if you want to
19:46:43 come in you can get extended.
19:46:45 I mean you are admitting --
19:46:47 >> You get 180 right away if you come in.
19:46:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Procedurally, do we need to do that
19:46:57 as motion and then vote?
19:46:58 >> Each decision you make needs to be a motion
19:47:01 directing me to make that change.
19:47:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What we were confused about, Cathy,
19:47:06 was the zero distance.

19:47:07 I don't understand which way that's going.
19:47:10 >>> That's up to you.
19:47:12 >> I don't mean which way it's going.
19:47:14 What is the effect?
19:47:19 You're saying that the property is zero feet.
19:47:25 Other uses, residential uses, institutional uses,
19:47:29 other wet zonings.
19:47:30 >> So the mall owners are suggesting that in addition
19:47:33 to -- in addition to changing the way we have done
19:47:38 business, we also make --
19:47:42 >>> right now it's 1,000 feet under chapter 3.
19:47:45 They would like to take it down to zero so they can
19:47:47 change in and out because as you heard sometimes it
19:47:49 takes them awhile to -- as opposed to drying and come
19:47:54 back for another wet zoning and restaurant space.
19:47:57 You had mentioned that yourself.
19:47:59 Going dry and then have to fill back in.
19:48:01 They are wanting zero.
19:48:03 So residents are saying that they would like --
19:48:06 they'll take the zero but only for R designation at
19:48:09 the mall.
19:48:12 There's like three really.

19:48:13 Either keep a thousand feet for malls.
19:48:15 Take it to zero for everybody.
19:48:16 Or take it to zero just for ours.
19:48:19 >> That's a nice compromise.
19:48:20 Because if it is the R -- I think that's a nice
19:48:24 compromise.
19:48:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Let's start with that.
19:48:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I just had a question, because I just
19:48:34 want to make sure that when we talk about making that
19:48:36 change for malls, it's by square footage.
19:48:42 How do you determine who gets this special --
19:48:45 >>> it's a large commercial development, 500,000
19:48:47 square feet or larger, which is larger than the R
19:48:53 threshold.
19:48:53 It's very large.
19:48:54 >> Larger than a DRI?
19:48:57 Couldn't we do like a strip mall?
19:48:59 >>> It would have to be a very large strip mall.
19:49:02 I mean a super Wal-Mart is only like 150,000 square
19:49:05 feet.
19:49:06 So 500 is big.
19:49:09 Really big.

19:49:10 >>GWEN MILLER: So zero setback?
19:49:16 Mr. Caetano wanted to speak.
19:49:17 I'm sorry.
19:49:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone).
19:49:34 >>> The code provides the opportunity to get an
19:49:37 automatic -- the code as it's presently written allows
19:49:41 to come in and receive 120-day automatic extension.
19:49:50 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: No talking to the police
19:49:51 department, based on all of the complaints, and the
19:49:53 investigations that have gone on there?
19:49:56 >>> They are allowed an automatic 120-day.
19:49:59 >> Automatic.
19:50:00 Okay.
19:50:04 >>GWEN MILLER: Zero setbacks.
19:50:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:50:07 I think everybody seems to agree so I will make a
19:50:09 motion that we do a zero setback for the mall with an
19:50:13 "R" request.
19:50:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second with same hours.
19:50:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:50:22 (Motion carried).
19:50:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Forging ahead.

19:50:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Clarification.
19:50:35 That entity now is open to 9:00, 11:00.
19:50:41 The incomes one that comes in, if they want 3:00 they
19:50:43 have to come here.
19:50:46 >>> So you want only R --
19:50:49 >> Whatever the existing one is what you are entitled
19:50:52 to come back with.
19:50:58 >>> That's hard for me to figure out.
19:51:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I don't know.
19:51:11 >>> I think it would be difficult to put the burden on
19:51:14 your staff to go out and figure out what the hours of
19:51:17 operation were.
19:51:17 If you feel the establishment should close at a
19:51:19 certain time, you mate want to make that part of what
19:51:23 they have to do to have an administrative --
19:51:25 >> Have the police department go out and check with
19:51:27 neighbors on each side of the entity which says how
19:51:31 late are they open to?
19:51:33 When they do the police report?
19:51:34 >>> It would be better if you set a time.
19:51:41 >> Well, I can't set a time.
19:51:43 I want to be fair to both sides.

19:51:47 The mall.
19:51:49 >>> The mall has certain hours.
19:51:51 >> Yes, but that doesn't mean there's some malls in
19:51:54 the City of Tampa that stay open till 2:00 in the
19:51:56 morning for business.
19:52:00 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:52:03 I think I understand what your question is.
19:52:06 These are for new applications.
19:52:07 It wouldn't be a situation where you have an existing
19:52:09 wet zoning but just transferring over.
19:52:12 So if you want to impose an hour of operation, it
19:52:15 can't be what's existing, and whatever whole thing --
19:52:21 old thing was there.
19:52:22 It has been to be the new standard.
19:52:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby?
19:52:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I understand correctly,
19:52:29 administratively you could set the hours within the
19:52:31 code administratively, and if they want an exception
19:52:33 to that, then they would have to come to City Council.
19:52:35 >>> They would have to appeal because I would have to
19:52:39 deny it.
19:52:41 >> Midnight.

19:52:42 >>> Okay.
19:52:45 >> I make a motion with additional clarification that
19:52:52 it includes closing by midnight.
19:52:54 >>> Second.
19:52:55 (Motion carried).
19:52:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
19:53:00 The staff recommended and nobody had any problems with
19:53:03 the 300-feet occupancy as our cut-off point to
19:53:06 different categories.
19:53:07 >> Second.
19:53:13 (Motion carried)
19:53:16 >> Then the final one -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
19:53:20 The parallel process --
19:53:25 >> That's what my motion would be.
19:53:26 >> I'm not sure if -- we are changing the 30-day
19:53:32 posting to a 60-day posting.
19:53:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes.
19:53:36 >>> You have not done that by posting yet.
19:53:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move a 06 day posting.
19:53:43 >>> Second.
19:53:44 (Motion carried).
19:53:45 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The next one from that would be

19:53:50 allowing voluntarily requesting extension, outside of
19:53:54 that posting requirement.
19:53:54 >> Not an extension.
19:53:56 It's just voluntarily -- we would like 150 days, or
19:54:03 whatever that initial period is.
19:54:09 They affirmatively come in and say we are going dry,
19:54:11 we need 180 days.
19:54:13 It's just an affirmative.
19:54:14 >>> A voluntary extension request.
19:54:23 >> Second.
19:54:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second.
19:54:25 (Motion carried).
19:54:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Cathy, I also noted that we need to
19:54:35 put language back in about -- we are not going to have
19:54:42 first and second right now.
19:54:45 We just need to exclude language that any distance
19:54:59 measured is straight line or whatever.
19:55:03 >> Second.
19:55:05 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:55:08 Opposed, Nay.
19:55:10 >>> The last one I had was the timing, the process
19:55:13 itself.

19:55:14 We had talked about whether it's going to go in the
19:55:16 daytime or in the nighttime.
19:55:19 Do you want to keep them in the day?
19:55:21 >> I would say daytime.
19:55:26 >> Well, if you are treated like nighttime it's going
19:55:29 to be an 18-month --
19:55:35 >> Okay, daytime.
19:55:35 Motion and second.
19:55:38 >> All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:55:42 (Motion carried).
19:55:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again I think that's administratively
19:55:45 and I believe that's within council's rules.
19:55:49 I don't believe that's in ordinance.
19:55:50 >>> It is not.
19:55:51 I want to figure out where to top that.
19:55:55 >> Mr. Bentley.
19:55:57 Mr. Bentley?
19:56:02 Something about fee.
19:56:02 >>MARK BENTLEY: Well, I can't control that.
19:56:06 The fee has gone up 74%.
19:56:12 It is what it is.
19:56:13 But we would like to maintain status quo as well.

19:56:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Can you read it now?
19:56:22 We haven't closed it.
19:56:25 >> Did we get everything?
19:56:28 >>> Yes.
19:56:28 Daytime.
19:56:29 Distance at crow flies.
19:56:33 Across the board.
19:56:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Now let's close the public hearing.
19:56:37 >> Move to close.
19:56:38 >> Second.
19:56:38 (Motion carried).
19:56:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move an ordinance
19:56:43 of the city of Tampa, Florida making comprehensive
19:56:45 revisions to the City of Tampa code of ordinances
19:56:48 chapter 3, alcoholic beverages, amending section 3-1,
19:56:52 title amending section 3-7 -- 3-2, amending section
19:56:57 3-3, nonconforming uses as of June 19, 1945, amending
19:57:02 section 3-4, treatment of prior existing clubhouses,
19:57:06 amending section 3-21, definitions, amending section
19:57:10 3-29.1, conditions for approval in downtown Tampa,
19:57:14 Ybor City historic district and Channel District area,
19:57:17 amending section 3-50, fees, amending section 3-51,

19:57:22 applicability, amending section 3-52, petition for
19:57:26 zoning of lot, et cetera, for sale of alcoholic
19:57:28 beverages, information required, zoning
19:57:31 classifications, deposit, amending section 3-53,
19:57:35 temporary classification for permitted nonprofit
19:57:38 organizations, amending section 3-54, sidewalk cafes,
19:57:42 petition for sale of alcoholic beverages, information
19:57:45 required, notice required, amending section 3-60,
19:57:48 public notice requirements, amending section 3-70,
19:57:52 general guidelines, amending section 3-72, petitioner,
19:57:56 representative to appeal --
19:58:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry to interrupt but you are
19:58:03 reading half that offer the agenda.
19:58:05 The title --
19:58:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
19:58:09 Oh, no.
19:58:11 [ Laughter ]
19:58:11 >>> If I could give you this copy.
19:58:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Maybe somebody else would like to
19:58:18 do it.
19:58:24 Move an ordinance of the City of Tampa making
19:58:26 comprehensive revision to City of Tampa code chapter

19:58:29 27, zoning, amending article 22 reserved amending
19:58:34 section 27-143, accessory uses amending section
19:58:38 27-267, classes of special use permits, agent or body
19:58:43 responsible for each general procedure, amending
19:58:45 section 27-269, general standards, amending section
19:58:49 27-270, conditions and safeguards, amending section
19:58:53 27-271, lapse of special uses, amending section
19:58:58 27-272, regulations governing individual special uses
19:59:01 by adding provisions for alcoholic beverage sales,
19:59:04 amending section 27-294, special uses not to be
19:59:09 considered nonconforming, amending section 27-545,
19:59:13 definitions, amending article XXII reserved, amending
19:59:18 section 27-521 reserved, amending section 27-522,
19:59:23 reserved, amending section 27-523, reserved, amending
19:59:28 section 27-524, reserved, repealing all ordinances or
19:59:33 parts of ordinances in conflict therewith, providing
19:59:36 for severability, providing an effective date.
19:59:37 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.
19:59:39 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:59:40 Opposed, Nay.
19:59:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder being
19:59:45 absent at vote.

19:59:46 Second reading and adoption will be on March 20th
19:59:48 at 9:30 a.m.
19:59:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Two final things.
19:59:52 I handed out packet 6.
19:59:54 That is a use table that actually identifies the
19:59:56 annual, all the vendors and all the alcoholic beverage
20:00:00 changes you just made in the use table itself.
20:00:02 I just need that read and approved.
20:00:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance of the city of
20:00:09 Tampa, Florida making comprehensive revision to the
20:00:11 City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 27 zoning,
20:00:14 amending section 27-77, table 4-1 schedule of
20:00:18 permitted uses by district, amending section 27-78,
20:00:21 table 4-3 schedule of M-AP permitted uses amending
20:00:27 section 27-177, table 8-1 schedule of permitted uses
20:00:32 and permissible uses amending section 27-438, table
20:00:36 18-1, schedule of permitted principal, accessory and
20:00:40 special uses amending section 27-4752, table 18-1
20:00:44 schedule of permitted principal, accessory and special
20:00:47 uses, repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances
20:00:50 in conflict therewith, providing for severability,
20:00:53 providing an effective date.

20:00:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:00:55 wants to speak on item number 6?
20:00:57 We need to close it.
20:00:58 >> So moved.
20:00:58 >> Second.
20:00:59 (Motion carried).
20:00:59 >>GWEN MILLER: All in favor say Aye.
20:01:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you get a second to that one?
20:01:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
20:01:10 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 4 now.
20:01:15 >>THE CLERK: Madam Chair.
20:01:17 What was the vote on item 6?
20:01:19 Was there a vote on the first reading on item 6?
20:01:23 >>GWEN MILLER: 6, Dingfelder was out.
20:01:26 >>> The vote on the motion to close but there was
20:01:29 one -- okay.
20:01:30 Motion carried with Dingfelder being absent at vote.
20:01:32 Second reading and adoption will be on March 20th
20:01:34 at 9:30 a.m.
20:01:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 4.
20:01:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe item 4 is another public
20:01:41 hearing.

20:01:41 That's continued.
20:01:42 You can ask for comments on that.
20:01:43 Basically, it's striking the provisions of chapter 3
20:01:48 and the substitute ordinance that needs to be read,
20:01:50 the title of that one.
20:01:51 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:01:55 wants to speak on item 4?
20:01:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
20:01:59 >> Second.
20:01:59 (Motion carried).
20:02:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have a substitute?
20:02:05 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The one that's on the agenda?
20:02:11 >> Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
20:02:26 make comprehensive revisions to City of Tampa code of
20:02:29 ordinances chapter 3 alcoholic beverages, amending
20:02:32 section 3-1, title, amending section 3-2, alcoholic
20:02:35 beverage zoning required, amending section 3-3 shall,
20:02:39 nonconforming uses as of June 19, 1945, amending
20:02:43 section 3-4 treatment of prior existing clubhouses
20:02:47 amending section 3-21, definitions, amending section
20:02:51 3-29.1, conditions for approval in the downtown Tampa
20:02:55 Ybor Historic District and Channel District area,

20:02:58 amending section 3-50, fees, amending section 3-51,
20:03:02 applicability, amending section 3-52 petition of
20:03:04 zoning of lot, et cetera, for sale of alcoholic
20:03:07 beverages, information required, zoning classification
20:03:10 deposit, amending section 3-523 temporary
20:03:12 classification for permitted nonprofit organizations,
20:03:16 amending section 3-54 sidewalk cafes petition for sale
20:03:19 of alcoholic beverages information required, notice
20:03:21 required, amending section 3-06 public notice
20:03:24 requirements, amending section 3-70 general
20:03:27 guidelines, amending section 3-72, petitioner,
20:03:30 representative to appeal at hearing, amending section
20:03:34 3-73, council imposed conditions, failure to comply,
20:03:37 revocation of alcoholic zoning classification for
20:03:40 noncompliance notice and public hearing requirements
20:03:42 amending section 3-74 removal of conditions, 3-91,
20:03:47 revision to Devil Ray up status, revocation and
20:03:51 suspension for cause, 3-101 regarding notice of
20:03:55 intention to revert property to dry, 3-110, through
20:04:03 3-117, bottle club and 3-120 through 3-128, clubhouse,
20:04:11 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict
20:04:13 providing for severability, providing an effective

20:04:14 date.
20:04:16 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:04:18 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
20:04:23 >>CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and Caetano
20:04:25 absent at vote.
20:04:26 Second reading and adoption will be on March 20th
20:04:29 at 9:30 a.m.
20:04:30 >>> Your 6:00 hearing.
20:04:38 >>GWEN MILLER: At 8:00.
20:04:46 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:04:48 I would like to go over the agenda for this evening.
20:04:53 I provided you with one that has some modifications to
20:04:56 it.
20:04:57 On item number 9, there was a letter requesting
20:05:02 continuance to March 13th.
20:05:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
20:05:08 to speak on item number 9?
20:05:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to allow the continuance to
20:05:14 March 13th.
20:05:18 (Motion carried)
20:05:23 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 10 we would like to ask to
20:05:25 remove that item from the agenda.

20:05:27 We will reset it.
20:05:29 >> So moved.
20:05:30 >> Second.
20:05:30 (Motion carried).
20:05:32 >> The same for item number 11, please.
20:05:34 >> So moved.
20:05:35 >> Second.
20:05:36 (Motion carried).
20:05:36 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 12, we received written
20:05:41 notification that request for continuance to March
20:05:45 27th, 08, at 6 p.m. and there is an valuable spot
20:05:48 that evening.
20:05:50 68 anyone from the public that came to speak on item
20:05:52 12?
20:05:53 >>: So moved for that continuance.
20:05:55 >> Second.
20:05:56 (Motion carried).
20:05:56 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That's it.
20:06:01 So the items on the agenda then are items 8, 13, 14,
20:06:05 and 15.
20:06:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that came
20:06:09 to speak on items 8, 13, 14 and 15?

20:06:14 Would you please stand and raise your right hand?
20:06:16 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:06:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Clerk, are there items to receive
20:06:30 and file?
20:06:31 Council, these items have been available for public
20:06:32 inspection into the council chambers that have to be
20:06:35 received and filed into the record at this time.
20:06:36 By motion, please.
20:06:39 >> So moved.
20:06:39 >> Second.
20:06:39 (Motion carried)
20:06:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: A quick reminder to disclose any
20:06:45 ex parte communications prayer to the vote.
20:06:47 Ladies and gentlemen, when you state your name, please
20:06:50 reaffirm for the for the record that you have been
20:06:51 sworn.
20:06:52 Again there's a sign-up sheet if you intend to speak.
20:06:55 I thank you.
20:06:57 >>JILL FINNEY: Land Development Coordination.
20:07:03 I have been sworn.
20:07:04 We are here for petition Z-07-106 located at 606 and
20:07:08 608 south Tampania Avenue going from PD planned

20:07:12 development to CI commercial intensive to CG
20:07:15 commercial general.
20:07:16 The CG zoning requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet
20:07:20 and the site contains approximately 16,552 square
20:07:24 feet.
20:07:24 The development must adhere to City of Tampa
20:07:28 regulations without any waivers.
20:07:31 This petition was originally heard before City Council
20:07:33 on January 10th, 2008, and at that time council
20:07:36 had requested that petitioner continue -- the rezoning
20:07:41 from CI to CG in order to make it more compatible with
20:07:44 the existing uses.
20:07:54 Here we have a zoning map of the local area.
20:07:58 As you can see there's been a lot of activity.
20:08:01 PDs around the area.
20:08:09 Here is an aerial.
20:08:15 DeLeon to the north.
20:08:16 This is a portion of the site.
20:08:23 And this is the other portion.
20:08:26 This is part of the PD developed to the site.
20:08:38 This is directly abutting.
20:08:41 Directly across the street from the site is parking.

20:08:45 With this development just north of that.
20:08:49 City staff finds than this petition to be consistent
20:08:59 with city code and regulations.
20:09:02 Staff is available for questions.
20:09:14 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:09:15 I have been sworn.
20:09:21 I am not going to go into much more detail than I have
20:09:25 already given to you other than the fact predominant
20:09:28 land use categories is commercial 24 which was an
20:09:34 issue brought up by council, and council had made a
20:09:36 motion asking the Planning Commission to look at this
20:09:39 as part of the comp plan update.
20:09:41 One of the things that I think we would have
20:09:42 recommended to council would be that also Land
20:09:47 Development Coordination take a look at the existing
20:09:49 underlining zoning categories prayer to the land use
20:09:54 categories, because by changing, making a
20:09:56 recommendation the land use category to CMU 35 less
20:10:00 intensive create nonconformities in the area because
20:10:03 we already have existing CI zoning districts in the
20:10:06 area.
20:10:06 The underlying problem, uses in the area, existing

20:10:10 uses are allowed to build on CI zoning district but
20:10:14 most of the use is actually reflective of much less
20:10:17 intensive use so that's really the underlying problem.
20:10:20 So really would have to look at most of the zoning
20:10:22 districts and see if possibly they can be redesignated
20:10:26 from a zoning aspect down to something less than what
20:10:29 you have a less intensity as far as the land use
20:10:31 categories are concerned.
20:10:32 But as far as the requested use is concerned it was
20:10:34 originally requested to go to CI, request to CG, the
20:10:40 request has been so that it will be consistent with
20:10:41 the surrounding uses and more compatible with, I
20:10:45 guess, the requested use which would also be CMU 35.
20:10:48 But again I think there would have to be some
20:10:51 continuing further analysis for the area as far as
20:10:55 existing zonings pattern, in addition to the land use
20:10:59 categories, the underlying land use category.
20:11:02 Zoning commission staff found the proposed request
20:11:04 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:11:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner.
20:11:12 >>> Scott Siegle.
20:11:14 I have been sworn.

20:11:15 And my address is 601 Bayshore Boulevard suite 700
20:11:19 Tampa, Florida.
20:11:20 I am here on behalf of petitioner, Michael Daniels
20:11:25 properties, LLC.
20:11:27 Given the amount of work that council has had before
20:11:29 tonight, and even though I am an attorney and paid to
20:11:32 talk, I would go ahead and have very little to add at
20:11:35 this point in time so that council can move forward
20:11:38 with their work.
20:11:39 As noted, with respect to the changes to CG I have
20:11:44 clarified that, the changes we were seeking before,
20:11:47 which was an office, parking, medical office, and
20:11:51 potentially town homes with potential administrative
20:11:55 review.
20:12:01 We would again request CG be granted.
20:12:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:12:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in the public that
20:12:11 wants to speak on number 8?
20:12:13 >> Second Mrs. Saul-Sena's motion to close.
20:12:16 (Motion carried)
20:12:25 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
20:12:27 vicinity of 606 and 608 south Tampan yeah Avenue in

20:12:30 the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described
20:12:32 in section 1 from zoning district classification PD
20:12:35 planned development in a CI commercial intensive and
20:12:37 CG commercial general providing an effective date.
20:12:40 >> I have a motion and second.
20:12:41 (Motion carried)
20:12:43 >> Motion carried with Dingfelder and Scott being
20:12:47 absent at vote.
20:12:48 Second reading and adoption will be on March 20th
20:12:51 at 9:30 a.m.
20:12:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open item 13.
20:12:54 >> So moved.
20:12:55 >> Second.
20:12:55 (Motion carried)
20:13:03 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development coordination.
20:13:06 I have been sworn.
20:13:07 Item number 13.
20:13:08 Rezoning case Z 08-27 located at 4202 and 4204 north
20:13:13 15th street.
20:13:14 Petitioner Iglesia Central AMEN church and they are
20:13:21 requesting a rezoning from RS-50 to PD planned
20:13:24 development to allow for a place of religious

20:13:26 assembly.
20:13:27 You will see that there is a host of waivers
20:13:29 associated with this site.
20:13:30 And that's really based on the fact that this site has
20:13:33 five grand trees on it.
20:13:34 And in order to be able to develop around those five
20:13:39 grand trees, thus the existing development that's
20:13:43 on-site today, they are not asking for any additions
20:13:45 or modifications to the existing structures that are
20:13:47 on-site.
20:13:48 They are looking to establish the use of place of
20:13:52 religious assembly.
20:13:58 The application is a special use but given the amount
20:14:01 of trees and the need for chapter 13 waivers, we did
20:14:04 have to convert it into a PD, planned development
20:14:08 rezoning in order to allow for the waivers to chapter
20:14:11 13.
20:14:14 The site you see is a 2,021 square foot masonry place
20:14:20 of assembly and accessory building of approximately
20:14:22 266 square feet.
20:14:24 There are five grand trees on-site as I stated and the
20:14:27 petitioner is not requesting any additional square

20:14:29 footage or future expansion on the site through this
20:14:33 rezoning request.
20:14:34 The site is boarded on the north as single-family
20:14:37 house and the south by east north bay Street, to the
20:14:39 west by an alley, and single-family residential, and
20:14:42 to the east by north 15th street.
20:14:45 The PD setbacks are 102 feet on the north, 19.7 feet
20:14:50 on the south, 1.5 feet on the west, the accessory
20:14:54 building, and 14.4 feet on the east.
20:14:59 The proposed use in the 45 feet place of religious
20:15:03 assembly would require 14 parking spaces.
20:15:05 Given the five grand trees and the 20-foot protective
20:15:08 radius that is required around each of those trees,
20:15:11 they can only provide seven spaces.
20:15:13 They have worked with parks and recreation, which has
20:15:16 allowed for some reduction of that radius in certain
20:15:20 areas, and Dave Riley is here tonight to speak to
20:15:23 that.
20:15:24 But you will see that possible waiver.
20:15:35 It is located at the northwest corner of 15th and
20:15:42 north -- you will see that everything around there is
20:15:46 zoned RS-50 with the exception of a PD to the north,

20:15:50 and CI and CG property located along Martin Luther
20:15:53 King.
20:15:59 Here is an aerial of the site.
20:16:05 Under the circumstances kind of hard to see given the
20:16:07 street canopy.
20:16:20 Here's a picture of the existing building. This is a
20:16:22 picture of the north portion of the site with three of
20:16:24 the large trees in view there.
20:16:26 This is adjacent to the north.
20:16:33 This is looking down 15th toward MLK.
20:16:39 This is the southwest corner of -- you can see another
20:16:53 large grand tree in front of that.
20:16:55 Here is a view looking north on 15th street.
20:16:58 Staff has found the request, the current request
20:17:04 inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land
20:17:07 development regulations.
20:17:08 However, they are minor modifications which need to be
20:17:12 made between first and second reading.
20:17:14 There's a revision to a waiver that's stated
20:17:17 incorrectly.
20:17:18 There is also they need to require maximum building
20:17:20 height.

20:17:24 Mary Daniel landscape specialist has a couple of
20:17:27 corrections needed to the tree table as well as
20:17:30 providing bollards around the trees because there are
20:17:37 no bollards over the root system for those five grands
20:17:44 that are located there.
20:17:45 Transportation also had an inconsistency related to
20:17:48 the sidewalk along east north bay adjacent to the
20:17:51 property.
20:17:52 They require that the sidewalk either completely be
20:17:55 paved, or they pave -- pay the sidewalk fee in lieu.
20:17:59 You will see on the site plan there is a small section
20:18:01 of sidewalk that has been identified that the
20:18:03 petitioner is requesting to pay fee in lieu for given
20:18:06 the fire hydrant and the stormwater inlets that are
20:18:10 there.
20:18:10 And, lastly, there are some notes needed, a note and a
20:18:15 visual depiction from solid waste related to the cart
20:18:21 enclosure that is required.
20:18:22 Staff is available for any questions.
20:18:26 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:18:33 I have been sworn.
20:18:38 The predominant land use category for these areas is

20:18:42 residential 10 as you can see, the request is for the
20:18:46 church.
20:18:56 Ms. Feeley has done a good job of showing you the
20:18:58 context of the area and also showing to you the
20:19:01 circumstances of being a.
20:19:03 The ability to allow the use given that you have the
20:19:05 large number of grand trees for the parcel site
20:19:09 itself.
20:19:09 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
20:19:11 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
20:19:28 >> Dave Riley, parks and recreation.
20:19:30 I have been sworn.
20:19:35 The parking layout that they came out with is going to
20:19:38 be ground parking which is what they are using now so
20:19:42 it's actually going to make the situation better.
20:19:46 They are parking everywhere.
20:19:47 So this will constrain it to a limited area.
20:19:49 We did -- I think it's going to be a much better
20:19:56 improvement for the trees than what is currently
20:19:59 existing.
20:20:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:20:02 >> Javiar Mayo, I have been sworn.

20:20:21 And we have heard from Abbye.
20:20:27 Due to a current chain of events we are trying to
20:20:30 comply with the current code and with the current
20:20:33 requirements that we are being asked to do.
20:20:39 You already heard from Dave Riley.
20:20:49 The parking spaces for this location.
20:20:51 We have done the best we can.
20:20:52 And we are still trying to comply with everything that
20:20:54 we are being asked.
20:20:56 There are a couple of things that we still need to do
20:21:01 before the first and second hearing.
20:21:04 And we are just trying to do what we have to do to be
20:21:09 there like we are today.
20:21:11 I just want to mention for the record, we purchased
20:21:15 the church in 1999, and being used by the previous
20:21:20 owners since 1991 at the church.
20:21:23 And as stated in the booklet here, been used as
20:21:31 different things, commercial, dated, I believe, back
20:21:35 to 1954, if I remember.
20:21:42 We did look into it in 1954 it used to be a store.
20:21:48 We are not grandfathered in but we are trying to
20:21:50 comply with the current code.

20:21:53 We have hired an engineer with RTS that has been
20:21:57 looking over the whole process, and has been helping
20:22:00 us.
20:22:01 I would like to call him up here and he can tell you a
20:22:04 little more about the project we have been working on.
20:22:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Before he comes let me see is there
20:22:08 anyone in here that wants to speak on item 32?
20:22:12 Let me hear from the engineer first.
20:22:14 Engineer.
20:22:16 >>> Charlie Rodriguez.
20:22:22 I have been sworn.
20:22:23 3047 gray court, Tampa 33609.
20:22:30 The issue is pretty well described.
20:22:34 The issue of the trees as you heard several times, the
20:22:41 use is really less intensive than would be if it was a
20:22:44 residential, every day people coming and going.
20:22:48 The church meets three our four times a week.
20:22:53 And any parking in the area or any other required
20:22:59 trees or bushes, hedges that are required typically
20:23:03 for parking layout would not survive under the canopy
20:23:08 and they would all be into the root system.
20:23:12 And that's about it.

20:23:14 You all heard that.
20:23:17 I don't have too much more to add unless there's a
20:23:19 specific engineering question.
20:23:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do you agree to do everything that
20:23:22 the staff has required?
20:23:27 Putting in the bollards to stop people from parking
20:23:32 against the trees, putting in the handicapped space,
20:23:34 revising the tree table, doing all the things that the
20:23:36 staff asked?
20:23:37 >>> We have put in the handicapped space.
20:23:39 We have added sidewalks to the best of our ability.
20:23:44 And given the situation that we have on this
20:23:50 particular site plan, there's storm sewage in the way
20:23:54 of the sidewalk, and a hydrant right in the middle of
20:23:58 the way.
20:24:03 Yes, we agree to do everything they are saying.
20:24:09 And as far as the bollards, we were talking about the
20:24:15 bollards in particular.
20:24:18 I don't know if David Riley would even agree to put
20:24:22 bollards in the ground.
20:24:23 >> They are not in yet?
20:24:24 >> It would defeat the purpose of protecting the

20:24:26 trees, and the roots.
20:24:27 >> No, they require that.
20:24:30 >> They require that.
20:24:31 >> Do you understand so people won't park too close?
20:24:37 >> I understand that.
20:24:38 >>> What we are going to do is work and try to make
20:24:42 the bollards 4 by 4, as opposed to concrete, the
20:24:49 bollards.
20:24:50 Yes, we agree to all those conditions, yes.
20:24:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:24:53 Now we hear from you.
20:24:58 >>> My name is Tom Moy. I live at 4706 north 10th
20:25:01 street, member of the civic association.
20:25:04 And we are in support of having a church at this
20:25:11 location.
20:25:11 But I'm not aware of any opposition.
20:25:14 But we think you guys should be thinking about the
20:25:16 parking situation.
20:25:19 You are probably aware there are churches that move
20:25:22 into places, rent them and there's in a parking.
20:25:25 And so there's spill-over parking in the neighborhood.
20:25:27 This is a chance, you know, to formalize in the site

20:25:33 plan to provide adequate parking for a legitimate
20:25:37 church.
20:25:38 And I don't think it's correct that we should be
20:25:41 saying, well, you know, you should have 14 parking
20:25:44 spaces, but we'll let you have seven.
20:25:48 We don't think that's right.
20:25:50 I do understand there's some tree issues.
20:25:54 But I would think there would be some way to provide
20:25:58 even more of -- encouraging them in those 20-foot
20:26:03 radiuses to provide parking.
20:26:05 That needs to be, you know, pavers or different kind
20:26:09 of -- there's got to be some way, I think, to get more
20:26:15 than seven parking spaces.
20:26:16 I know right now the church doesn't use that many.
20:26:19 But you are rezoning this forever so another church
20:26:22 can come in, take over, and there will be a parking
20:26:26 problem.
20:26:27 And we really think you should consider, and I don't
20:26:29 know if it's been considered adequately.
20:26:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:26:33 Is there currently a parking problem?
20:26:35 >>> In a, there's not.

20:26:37 >> Because it's relatively small.
20:26:39 >>> Right.
20:26:40 And they told me that they don't use it as much
20:26:43 because they don't have the parking now.
20:26:47 They are reducing the parking everyone more.
20:26:50 >> Thank you.
20:26:51 I have a question for staff.
20:26:55 If this were a brand new use coming to us, there's no
20:26:58 doubt in my mind that we would say, no way can you put
20:27:02 a church with completely inadequate parking smack in
20:27:05 the middle of a residential area.
20:27:07 What we are considering this in a positive way because
20:27:10 they are already there, they are already in the
20:27:12 situation.
20:27:13 But can we restrict the number, the same way that we
20:27:19 restrict the number of seats in a restaurant based on
20:27:21 adequate parking?
20:27:22 Can we restrict the size of the number of seat in the
20:27:26 church?
20:27:30 >>> This site plan does only allow 40 feet maximum
20:27:32 which is what they have now.
20:27:33 It does not allow for any future expansion.

20:27:35 It would cap them at the 45 they have now.
20:27:41 They could not have more than the 45 that they are
20:27:44 saying they currently have based on this special use.
20:27:47 >> Then I would like to ask another question of
20:27:48 petitioner.
20:27:50 If I could.
20:27:51 Realistically, how many people are currently in your
20:27:57 congregation?
20:28:02 It's not an engineering question.
20:28:04 >>> I'm sorry.
20:28:05 We have currently 12 current members.
20:28:08 We made a list last night, as a matter of fact, just
20:28:11 in case this question came up.
20:28:12 We have about eight of those people travel are senior
20:28:20 citizens and travel in what we call the church van.
20:28:24 That's the reason why seven spaces today is
20:28:27 sufficient.
20:28:29 We also have some visitors.
20:28:32 Obviously that do come every other Sunday, the last of
20:28:37 the month, and even at that point, seven today.
20:28:44 >> I appreciate your candor.
20:28:46 I think that obviously you are able to accommodate

20:28:48 everybody now, given the seven spaces.
20:28:52 But you need to think, if you are ambitious and want
20:28:55 to grow your church that maybe you need to look for a
20:28:57 different location.
20:28:58 Or stay where you are and keep the same number of
20:29:02 participants.
20:29:04 >>> We are aware that this site plan that we are
20:29:09 submitting and the application that we have paid for
20:29:11 is going to put a cap on us.
20:29:13 We are aware of that.
20:29:14 We also are aware of the concerns of the neighbors,
20:29:19 concerns of the association.
20:29:22 We have talked to everybody that we can including our
20:29:24 engineer.
20:29:25 And we have taken under consideration one neighbor,
20:29:31 when we were first looking at what type of rezoning to
20:29:34 look into, we were first looking at commercial.
20:29:37 And because of the customers that leave tomorrow I
20:29:43 don't want a 7-Eleven or convenience store being built
20:29:46 there.
20:29:47 So with all this mind and all the stuff written in the
20:29:51 papers, I believe Abbye Feeley filled them out.

20:29:58 The department feels that this use is the best use for
20:30:01 this three lots.
20:30:03 We feel that we could be there for awhile.
20:30:05 And still keep our goal and reach our goal, which is
20:30:11 what we are today, and could be what we want to do in
20:30:14 that place.
20:30:16 Like I was telling here, where we want to gather with
20:30:21 a bigger congregation or want to do something with
20:30:24 other people, we always have to look elsewhere,
20:30:27 because we know that that's a problem.
20:30:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:30:33 >>> You're welcome.
20:30:35 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone else that would like to
20:30:36 speak?
20:30:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
20:30:39 >> Second.
20:30:39 (Motion carried)
20:30:53 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: (off microphone) an ordinance
20:30:55 rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4202 and
20:30:58 4204 north 15th street in the city of Tampa,
20:31:01 Florida more particularly described in section 1 from
20:31:04 zoning district classifications RS-50 residential

20:31:07 single-family to PD planned development place of
20:31:11 religious assembly, providing an effective date.
20:31:15 >>CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shelby?
20:31:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do we have to have the revision?
20:31:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: (Off microphone)
20:31:28 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Let me make it clear here.
20:31:37 Original waiver 2 from 20 to 19.7.
20:31:46 Right.
20:31:52 Right.
20:31:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
20:31:54 (Motion carried).
20:31:56 We need to open item 14.
20:31:58 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and
20:32:00 Miranda being absent at vote.
20:32:02 Second reading and adoption will be on March 20th
20:32:04 at 9:30 a.m.
20:32:05 >> We have a motion and second to open.
20:32:07 (Motion carried)
20:32:17 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
20:32:32 I have been sworn.
20:32:34 Item number 14 is 908 east 25th Avenue.
20:32:38 Request before you tonight is to rezone the property

20:32:43 from RS-50 to PD to reestablish an accessory unit
20:32:46 damaged by fire.
20:32:47 Site currently contains two structures.
20:32:50 A primary structure of 1379 square feet and a 1560
20:32:55 square foot accessory structure.
20:32:57 Both of these structures were built in 1940 and
20:33:00 maintain two addresses, 908 east 25th and 908.5
20:33:05 east 25th.
20:33:06 Two structures were established prior to the city
20:33:09 zoning code.
20:33:11 However, based on the 1956 zoning designation, the
20:33:15 site was only permitted one structure.
20:33:17 Therefore, the second structure was rendered
20:33:20 nonconforming.
20:33:24 When they reestablished it with a kitchen they were
20:33:26 told that the RS-50 is only permitted one dwelling
20:33:29 unit.
20:33:30 Therefore, in order to allow for both to be dwelling
20:33:32 units, they would have to rezone to PD.
20:33:41 I will quaint with you the site.
20:33:55 Here's the site located just north on 20th.
20:34:13 North on 25th.

20:34:15 You see predominantly everything around there is
20:34:18 RS-50.
20:34:23 PD along Nebraska.
20:34:25 There is a vacant lot immediately to the south of the
20:34:34 property.
20:34:34 A lot of these properties in this area do have
20:34:36 accessory dwelling units.
20:34:37 And you can see a lot of them on your aerial.
20:34:46 This is a picture of the primary structure on the
20:34:48 site.
20:34:51 This is a picture of the accessory dwelling on the
20:34:54 site.
20:34:55 A little closer up.
20:34:56 You can see that it was boarded up.
20:35:00 I think this is actually working.
20:35:04 This is the house immediately to the east.
20:35:19 This is the house to the west.
20:35:22 This is the vacant lot I was talking to you about.
20:35:27 And a house to the west and a vacant lot.
20:35:35 Here is a look down 25th toward Nebraska.
20:35:39 And a look on 25th looking east.
20:35:42 Staff did find this petition inconsistent with the

20:35:52 applicable City of Tampa Land Development Code.
20:35:55 The petitioner to date did not correct the tree table,
20:35:59 debits and credits.
20:36:00 There needs to be several notes added to the plan, one
20:36:03 related to power line species, one related to green
20:36:07 space requirements, and one related to minimum
20:36:10 planting requirements.
20:36:12 Transportation found it inconsistent.
20:36:14 They would like to see a three-foot separation of the
20:36:17 driveway with the adjacent property.
20:36:19 You can see from some of those pictures, probably from
20:36:25 the aerials submitted, that it's pretty much concrete
20:36:28 between the two properties.
20:36:30 Solid waste also found it inconsistent.
20:36:32 They need to provide a note on the plan and also
20:36:37 visual depiction of where these solid waste carts are
20:36:42 being stored.
20:36:43 And the last stormwater.
20:36:45 Stormwater needs calculations for the site and also a
20:36:48 note added to the plan, the first half inch of
20:36:51 rainfall on-site -- I'm sorry -- will be retained
20:36:55 on-site.

20:36:56 I think that is it.
20:37:06 The PD setbacks as you can see are 26 feet 4 inches on
20:37:10 the front, zero on the rear, and zero on the side to
20:37:14 accommodate accessory structure that they want to
20:37:18 reestablish as another dwelling and then 22 feet on
20:37:20 the west side of the property.
20:37:23 The parking is achieved through the shared driveway.
20:37:26 Staff is available for any questions.
20:37:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a couple of questions.
20:37:31 It seems to me that the petition before us says it's
20:37:36 single-family residential but actually it will be
20:37:38 two-family residential.
20:37:41 There is
20:37:45 >> There is
20:37:52 >> How much parking is available?
20:37:54 >> There is a drive right now that goes all the way
20:37:57 from the street back to that second dwelling, and it
20:38:05 would accommodate tandem parking wouldn't be able
20:38:08 to accommodate side by side parking.
20:38:11 So it would be able to accommodate tandem parking on
20:38:15 the site.
20:38:31 >> Does the staff recommend that trees get planted on

20:38:34 the front?
20:38:34 >> Transportation wanted them to remove some of that
20:38:37 concrete and reestablish the green space between the
20:38:40 two houses, not the two on this site but the one
20:38:42 immediately to the east, because it pretty much is
20:38:45 just a sea of concrete between the two.
20:38:48 And having said this was built in the 1940s, I
20:38:53 understand a lot of this has been in place for quite
20:38:55 awhile.
20:38:55 They are required a tree planting on the site per the
20:38:59 city's landscape code requirements, chapter 13, and
20:39:04 it's one tree they would need to plant.
20:39:06 >> Does the site plan show those things being done?
20:39:09 >>> No.
20:39:09 That is one of the discussions that is currently
20:39:13 outstanding that will need to be corrected by second
20:39:15 reading.
20:39:26 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
20:39:27 I have been sworn.
20:39:33 As you can see the site is located east of Nebraska,
20:39:36 located on the north face of east 25th Avenue.
20:39:39 Predominant land use category within the area is

20:39:41 residential 20.
20:39:42 Based on the size -- -- and the character of the area,
20:39:54 there are a variety of residences in the area that are
20:39:56 already supporting accessory uses.
20:39:59 This is historically what the character has been in
20:40:01 the Ybor area, supporting different types of family
20:40:06 sizes and types throughout the 30s, 40s and 50s,
20:40:12 in the area.
20:40:13 Also as has been related to you, basically what you
20:40:15 have here is the site that is functionally deficient
20:40:18 currently, but I think as you had heard from staff's
20:40:23 comments, they did not say these standards could not
20:40:28 be mixed so that's something the applicant can try to
20:40:30 work on between now and second reading.
20:40:32 But as far as where it's located at, the character of
20:40:34 the area, the request and the density requirements,
20:40:36 Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent
20:40:39 with the comprehensive plan.
20:40:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
20:40:49 >> Frank Otero, I have been sworn.
20:40:53 And to just repeat what Abbye said about the
20:40:59 conditions not being met to the site plan, we

20:41:01 definitely will comply with those conditions before
20:41:04 second reading.
20:41:06 The stormwater, the landscaping, and also there was
20:41:11 one commissioner mentioned the solid waste.
20:41:16 We will depict that on the site plan, also.
20:41:19 I also have a petition sheet from adjacent property
20:41:23 owners that I want to submit.
20:41:29 The property owners, basically when the structure
20:41:39 burned down, their intention was to refurbish it the
20:41:46 way it originally was, and they do intend to just
20:41:49 rebuild the way it was, and also after walking around
20:41:55 the neighborhood today, I got a lot of support.
20:41:58 It's been boarded up a long time and they do want to
20:42:00 see it refurbished.
20:42:02 And it was kind of vacant.
20:42:06 A lot of houses for sale.
20:42:08 But most of the people I talked to were for it at the
20:42:10 petition.
20:42:14 And also, I have a picture here, the back of the
20:42:18 property.
20:42:18 And I don't know if you can see it.
20:42:21 That's the back alley.

20:42:33 And that's the back of the accessory structure.
20:42:35 And all the trees back there. So we will tray to
20:42:38 comply with the green space, and also the landscape
20:42:42 code.
20:42:43 This is a lot of trees, a lot of bushes back there.
20:42:45 It's very difficult.
20:42:50 This is the back of the structure.
20:42:52 This is the alleyway.
20:42:53 And these are the back trees.
20:42:57 As I said, we definitely will comply with all that you
20:43:00 request.
20:43:01 Thank you.
20:43:01 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there none that wants to speak on
20:43:03 item 14?
20:43:09 >>> Pete Johnson, 301 Druid hills, Temple Terrace,
20:43:12 Florida.
20:43:13 Yes, I have been sworn in, and I am a member of the
20:43:17 Ybor neighborhood association among others.
20:43:19 I had some letters from neighbors, besides the
20:43:22 vice-president and the secretary of the association,
20:43:26 which is very new, getting them involved.
20:43:28 So, please, be patient with them because this is our

20:43:31 first time.
20:43:32 The association is not in favor of this because,
20:43:45 number one, it is nonconforming.
20:43:48 Number two, the structure that has been there, believe
20:43:50 it or not, has been under code enforcement for 20
20:43:53 years, and nothing has been done.
20:43:55 But that's another story.
20:43:59 There is no other rental property or living structures
20:44:04 in the neighborhood.
20:44:06 There are garages.
20:44:07 There are shops.
20:44:08 Workshops or something.
20:44:09 But there are no other living residents that have two
20:44:16 residences on a single lot.
20:44:18 Neighborhood wants to keep it the way the rest of the
20:44:21 neighbors are.
20:44:22 They don't want to put the rental in there, or the
20:44:25 additional structure as a rental, because if the
20:44:28 property is sold, then anybody can buy it and put in
20:44:33 whoever they want.
20:44:34 We have problems in that neighborhood with drugs,
20:44:37 prostitution.

20:44:40 The house on the other street of 26th, we are
20:44:42 going through the abatement board to get it closed
20:44:45 down because they rent to prostitutes.
20:44:47 Not saying that this owner is going to do that.
20:44:50 But I'm saying once you make this PD, it will always
20:44:52 be two separate units.
20:44:55 And everybody is not in favor of it as far as the
20:45:00 association.
20:45:00 I have tried to call the people on the phone numbers
20:45:03 here.
20:45:04 I have left several messages.
20:45:06 I might not have reached this gentleman, but I had
20:45:10 never gotten apply back.
20:45:13 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:45:14 Next.
20:45:20 >>> Steve Tighe, 919 East 26th Avenue.
20:45:23 I live around the block.
20:45:25 I have been sworn in.
20:45:26 First I'm here to represent the Ybor neighborhood
20:45:29 association.
20:45:29 I'm the vice-president now.
20:45:30 We have a letter I would like to read, if I can.

20:45:33 Regarding PD 0-7-90.
20:45:37 The Ybor neighborhood association crime watch objects
20:45:39 to the passing of 7-90, number one, nonconforming
20:45:46 fortunately answer.
20:45:46 All other homes are single-family and no other parcels
20:45:50 have a secondary living unit.
20:45:52 It is the wish of the Ybor neighborhood association
20:45:54 crime watch to preserve the existing zoning and fabric
20:45:57 of the neighborhood for the rezoning of a PD, planned
20:46:00 development, could negatively set a precedent for
20:46:03 future single-family homes, conversion to multifamily
20:46:06 residences.
20:46:09 Per city ordinance 27-326-C, density intensity, the
20:46:14 density intensity for PD project shall not exceed that
20:46:17 which is permitted by the land use category in which
20:46:20 the parcel is located, per the adopted future land
20:46:23 use, Tampa comprehensive plan.
20:46:26 This project will potentially increase density beyond
20:46:30 the single-family zoning which is predominant in a
20:46:33 manner detrimental to the existing neighborhood.
20:46:36 Second reason, second structure could become a rental
20:46:40 property in the future.

20:46:41 There's the question of whether or not it can
20:46:44 accommodate the off-street parking required by two
20:46:47 units.
20:46:48 Thank you.
20:46:51 Neighborhood association.
20:46:52 I would like to add that it's been brought up that
20:46:54 there are secondary structures on a lot of these
20:46:57 properties, and Pete already mentioned that most of --
20:47:02 to my knowledge none of these are live-in units.
20:47:05 There may be another room there, but once you are
20:47:08 going to add a kitchen to one of these things, it's
20:47:11 going to become a second property.
20:47:12 It going to have another address.
20:47:14 So while there are secondary structures on some of
20:47:16 these lots, none of them have a secondary address.
20:47:19 They are not a completely separate unit.
20:47:21 So we want to preserve the existing fabric of the
20:47:25 neighborhood.
20:47:25 I would also like to say, as myself, I live at 919
20:47:30 east 26th.
20:47:31 I live thon block.
20:47:32 It doesn't abut me but it's behind me and just a few

20:47:36 parcels down.
20:47:37 I don't agree with it.
20:47:38 I think we have enough houses.
20:47:42 There's plenty of homes for sale.
20:47:43 I don't think we need another home with a half address
20:47:46 here.
20:47:47 Thank you.
20:47:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:47:50 >>> I would like to submit this letter.
20:47:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Next speaker.
20:47:59 >>> Kim Hoglund, I live at 1001 east 24th Avenue
20:48:02 and I have been sworn in.
20:48:04 Not to repeat everything that's already been said, but
20:48:07 as a homeowner who lived in Ybor for the past five
20:48:09 years, I have extreme concerns regarding the parking
20:48:12 issue, I guess the parking two units, rental situation
20:48:19 that would be created.
20:48:21 It would be, from what I understand a 1940s
20:48:25 structure, it would be more beneficial if it was
20:48:27 maintained as a true accessory structure with a single
20:48:31 shared meet we are the main house, than as a two meter
20:48:37 set-up to prevent future rentals.

20:48:42 I guess that's it.
20:48:44 Thank you.
20:48:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Thank you.
20:48:45 Next speaker.
20:48:48 >> Kathleen pegins.
20:48:52 I have not been sworn in.
20:48:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Raids your right hand.
20:48:57 Does anyone else need to be sworn?
20:49:03 (Oath administered by Clerk).
20:49:05 >> I do.
20:49:06 I would like to say as a homeowner on this block I do
20:49:11 not agree with it for the same reasons everyone else
20:49:13 has stated.
20:49:14 I do know that other homeowners on the block have
20:49:16 submitted letters.
20:49:17 So while there may be some people who agree with it,
20:49:20 maybe they don't see the whole big picture and they
20:49:22 are not getting maybe the whole story.
20:49:24 But I would just like to say as a homeowner on that
20:49:27 block, I do not agree.
20:49:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Would anyone else like to speak?
20:49:30 Petitioner, you get rebuttal.

20:49:33 >>> I guess the last comment was -- personally, I
20:49:39 talked to everyone on the petition and I showed them
20:49:42 the plans and most of the people I talked to have been
20:49:45 there 30, 40 years.
20:49:48 Been there 30, 40 years and they support me.
20:49:50 And they did sign a petition.
20:49:53 And they are 100% behind me.
20:49:55 And you have your phone number.
20:49:57 You can double check that.
20:49:58 And our main concern is to rebuild the structure.
20:50:01 And I think to repeat, I respect their opinion.
20:50:06 That structure has been like that for a very long
20:50:09 time.
20:50:10 And my client basically, the main thing is to
20:50:15 refurbish that property the way it is.
20:50:18 There was never an issue, there was never a statement
20:50:21 from me, myself, my client there would be two meters.
20:50:24 It would always be one meter.
20:50:28 At this point now, basically, we are requesting you
20:50:33 approve this.
20:50:33 Based on my petition and based on the structure being
20:50:36 like that a long time, and it looked good in 1940

20:50:40 actually, and per record, there is two addresses on
20:50:43 there.
20:50:44 And they are not sure if -- it is not only -- we
20:50:52 didn't propose that.
20:50:53 That was basically the address.
20:50:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.
20:50:59 When your client, you are representing someone, do
20:51:02 they live here?
20:51:03 >>> No, they live in Miami.
20:51:05 >> When they purchased the house, had the fire already
20:51:10 occurred?
20:51:11 >>> Yes.
20:51:11 >> How many years have they owned it?
20:51:14 >>> I believe two years.
20:51:15 >> How could they allow it to exist in this state of
20:51:18 repair?
20:51:20 Or disrepair?
20:51:21 >>> Well, like I said, basically I do know they have
20:51:27 spent the money on the actual plans to be submitted,
20:51:29 to get it repaired, and then the City of Tampa, they
20:51:35 have had the expense to get it repaired.
20:51:37 >> If it were repaired it wouldn't look the way it did

20:51:40 in the picture.
20:51:41 >> They want it repaired.
20:51:42 They submitted plans to repair it.
20:51:44 But to answer your question basically that's a
20:51:46 question they have asked.
20:51:48 >> Thank you very much.
20:51:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I think my question was answered.
20:51:51 They bought 2002 years ago, your client?
20:51:53 >>> Yes.
20:51:54 >> How many square feet total in the two buildings?
20:51:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It says on it.
20:52:10 >> 2900.
20:52:30 >> what's the average size of a home in that area?
20:52:34 >>> Oh, I believe 1200.
20:52:37 >> 1200.
20:52:41 It going to be very expensive and it will never rent.
20:52:48 >> I do know the main structure is rented and the same
20:52:52 tenant, and they intend to use it to be rented.
20:52:56 I understand what you are saying, cot set a precedent
20:52:58 in the neighborhood but our main concern would be the
20:53:01 owner to rebuild the structure.
20:53:03 I do know, if you do approve it as a structure it will

20:53:09 set a precedent.
20:53:10 But I'm not sure if we can continue -- I could meet
20:53:12 with the homeowners association.
20:53:14 Because this is the first time I have known that they
20:53:17 had problems with this and maybe give my number, and I
20:53:22 definitely want to sit down with them and talk with
20:53:24 them about it and get a continuance.
20:53:29 >>GWEN MILLER: The vice-president of the association,
20:53:31 are you willing to meet with him?
20:53:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a suggestion that's even
20:53:36 better.
20:53:36 >>GWEN MILLER: Better than meeting with them?
20:53:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
20:53:39 My question would be for staff.
20:53:40 And that would be, if petitioner were to fix up the
20:53:46 rear building as just part of the main home, could the
20:53:51 money that they have spent on this rezoning be applied
20:53:54 toward their building permit?
20:53:58 >>ABBYE FEELEY: They already did apply for building
20:54:00 permit and when they told them they are establishing a
20:54:02 kitchen in the second unit, that is what triggered
20:54:04 them to come to the zoning department, because given

20:54:07 that the accessory structure or the second dwelling
20:54:10 unit had remained vacant, it lost its nonconforming
20:54:14 status.
20:54:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
20:54:17 Madam Chairman, I feel very strongly.
20:54:19 I'm real familiar with this pattern.
20:54:22 What was behind it really was traditionally like a
20:54:27 mother-in-law thing but it was family, it was like
20:54:29 part of the main -- used by the family that owned the
20:54:32 main house.
20:54:33 Given the testimony, I would not -- I don't see how
20:54:39 talking to the neighbors is going to accomplish
20:54:40 anything.
20:54:41 I would prefer to talk on -- vote thon tonight.
20:54:44 >>GWEN MILLER: Let's let him come up.
20:54:46 >>> From the feeling I got from the neighborhood when
20:54:48 we drafted the letter, we have no opposition to fixing
20:54:51 up the unit whatsoever.
20:54:53 The problem is when you add a kitchen and a bath ram,
20:54:56 and it can then be rented out as its own unit.
20:55:00 That's our problem.
20:55:00 If they want to fix it up and put rooms in there and

20:55:03 have family members live there and use the kitchen at
20:55:06 the main house, that's just fine with us.
20:55:08 But if they want to turn this into another property
20:55:11 that will eventually become a rental property, you
20:55:13 know, that's our issue.
20:55:17 I would also like to add that the only notice we
20:55:19 received from this gentleman was the letter that they
20:55:21 are required to send the neighborhood association.
20:55:23 We were not approached in a casual manner that, hey,
20:55:28 let's come to the meeting and talk about this.
20:55:29 >>GWEN MILLER: You heard what he's saying.
20:55:33 You agree with that?
20:55:34 >>> I agree with it.
20:55:35 Like I said -- I have had other property owners call
20:55:40 me basically.
20:55:41 And I met with them personally one on one and showed
20:55:43 plans to them.
20:55:51 >>> The additional house right now without this
20:55:53 rezoning to establish that second unit without a
20:55:56 kitchen, that's what the permits were in for.
20:56:00 So he wouldn't need a continuance.
20:56:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Question on the motion.

20:56:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: There are bathrooms in that
20:56:11 second unit?
20:56:11 >>> Yes.
20:56:13 >> Good.
20:56:14 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
20:56:15 (Motion carried).
20:56:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move to deny this
20:56:19 based on the competent substantial evidence of the
20:56:23 neighbors, specifically looking at the question of
20:56:31 compatibility which is addressed in 27-321, which says
20:56:39 that uses should be compatible with their surrounding
20:56:42 uses, and all around here we have single-family
20:56:47 houses, with only one house on a lot, and this would
20:56:50 be two dwelling units on a lot.
20:56:52 And they are asking for a number of waivers which are
20:56:55 addressed in section 27-324, and there's in a
20:56:59 particular reason to grant these waivers.
20:57:02 And the parking that's provided isn't adequate.
20:57:07 This would set a precedent for multifamily and
20:57:10 single-family area.
20:57:11 Those are my grounds for suggesting denial.
20:57:14 >>GWEN MILLER: I have a motion and second.

20:57:15 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda, Scott and
20:57:22 Dingfelder being absent at vote.
20:57:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Next item is a continued public
20:57:26 hearing.
20:58:01 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item 15, Z-08-02, 125 Adelia Avenue,
20:58:08 to rezone from RS-50 to PD to establish a buildable
20:58:12 lot on a single-family dwelling unit.
20:58:14 The petitioner at the site, I am going to kind of
20:58:21 explain this in laymen's terms.
20:58:23 We measured the required width of the lot at the back
20:58:26 of the required front yard.
20:58:27 When you get to the back of the setback you have to
20:58:30 have 50 feet of frontage. This site has 49.88 feet of
20:58:34 frontage.
20:58:34 That's one of the reasons why it is before you
20:58:36 tonight, to go PD and establish that second zoning
20:58:40 lot.
20:58:43 So they are going to put -- I'm sorry, it's been a
20:58:47 long day -- site currently has 100 feet of frontage
20:58:50 along Adelia Avenue, proposed frontages will be 50
20:58:53 feet for both lots, the existing 2600 square foot home
20:58:56 on lot 17 on the west will remain.

20:58:59 The PD setbacks are as follows: 23.8 feet front,
20:59:03 3-foot rear, 1 foot west side yard to the existing
20:59:08 accessory structure, 4.2 feet east side yard, building
20:59:12 setback for the proposed on lot 18 are 20 feet front,
20:59:17 20-foot rear, 7 west side, 7 east side which are the
20:59:21 minimum setbacks for an RS-50 zoning.
20:59:29 I want to a quantity with you this site.
20:59:31 I was the only one objecting to this rezoning, given
20:59:37 the side yard setback that was proposed on the site
20:59:40 plan that was in front of you and the mass of the
20:59:42 building that was being proposed.
20:59:44 I had issues with the compatibility of this, and what
20:59:49 has happened since was there was a previous
20:59:50 continuance on this case to address staff's concerns.
20:59:53 The petitioner came in.
20:59:55 We have met several times since that.
20:59:57 And I believe what you will see tonight, the
20:59:59 petitioner will be presenting a revised site plan that
21:00:02 addresses my concern about the building separation of
21:00:05 the 14 feet, they are going to establish the 14 feet.
21:00:08 They have also shrunk the proposed home by 1100 square
21:00:13 feet and addressed staff concerns related to mass and

21:00:15 scale of the project.
21:00:17 So given the process, they have not formally
21:00:21 submitted.
21:00:22 They will present them to you tonight and discuss them
21:00:23 with you.
21:00:25 And then should it be council's pleasure to approve
21:00:28 this, you would motion that to approve with the site
21:00:31 plan that they are showing being brought back before
21:00:34 second reading.
21:00:36 I did meet with them several times.
21:00:43 They are going to present to you -- does address my
21:00:46 concerns related to compatibility, and given that I
21:00:48 would remove my objections and find the plan
21:00:51 consistent.
21:00:57 The site is located on Davis Island, on Adelia Avenue.
21:01:06 Just off of Davis Boulevard.
21:01:07 What's interesting about this site is everything on
21:01:13 the west side and Adelia side is RS-50.
21:01:20 Everything on this side is 75.
21:01:22 But when you see larger houses on different sides of
21:01:24 the road it's hard to know exactly what the zoning
21:01:27 category was to allow those larger homes.

21:01:31 We also have an RM 35 multifamily that has -- in the
21:01:38 back.
21:01:39 This is the existing home that will remain.
21:01:53 And this is the vacant lot.
21:01:56 There is one large tree located at the back of the
21:01:59 vacant lot.
21:01:59 And it is being proposed for removal as part of the PD
21:02:04 to allow for the development of the site.
21:02:14 This is the home immediately to the north.
21:02:16 There are actually two single-family homes immediately
21:02:18 to the north.
21:02:19 And then the Boulevard.
21:02:23 So it is not that far from Davis Boulevard.
21:02:26 Here is the other single-family home to the north.
21:02:29 Here is a single-family dwelling directly across the
21:02:35 street from the proposed site.
21:02:39 This is on the RS-75 portion of Adelia.
21:02:42 Here is another home.
21:02:49 And this is the home on Adelia that does not have any
21:02:56 variances, waivers, et cetera, and meets the RS-50
21:02:59 standard.
21:03:17 >> Would you put the picture of the existing house?

21:03:27 The empty lot.
21:03:29 There's a building in the back, if that's a garage.
21:03:38 Is that an accessory structure?
21:03:40 >>> That is an accessory structure.
21:03:43 I believe that will be removed.
21:03:44 Because it is not shown on the PD.
21:03:45 >> Is it a garage?
21:03:50 >>> I believe it's an accessory structure to the house
21:03:53 to the north.
21:03:56 >> It's on the north property.
21:04:05 Not on this property.
21:04:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This is for Mary Daniel bray son.
21:04:12 Bits the tree.
21:04:13 My plan says that it's a 29-inch tree and I believe a
21:04:17 grand tree is 30 inches.
21:04:18 >>> The tree is not 29 inches.
21:04:20 That's -- Mary Daniels Bryson, Land Development
21:04:23 Coordination.
21:04:24 I have been sworn.
21:04:24 The tree does measure at 30.5 inches.
21:04:27 It does not contain enough height and canopy to be
21:04:33 considered a grand tree.

21:04:36 Measures about 159 points and it needs to be 170 to be
21:04:41 a grand tree.
21:04:41 The tree is -- it is a significant specimen tree.
21:04:51 I did read the arborist report.
21:04:53 And I have evaluated the tree.
21:04:56 The tree does show some signs of stress.
21:04:59 But it is not a hazard.
21:05:06 If it's the pleasure of council to allow the tree to
21:05:09 be removed, then I would require full inch per inch
21:05:13 replacement.
21:05:14 But in giving you all the information regarding this
21:05:16 tree, the tree is not a hazard.
21:05:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
21:05:27 >>> I just want to add on what T what Mary said on the
21:05:29 new site plan that the petitioner showed it -- I could
21:05:33 put them up on the Elmo but I believe they will be
21:05:37 providing them to you.
21:05:38 Added a note to connect inch for inch replacement for
21:05:42 the removal of that tree which was not previously on
21:05:44 the other plan.
21:06:00 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:06:02 I have been sworn.

21:06:04 This is located on Davis Island, located at Davis
21:06:09 Boulevard when you get to the intersection.
21:06:16 Land use patterns, we have land use categories.
21:06:21 We have the residential 10 across the street to
21:06:23 residential 6.
21:06:24 All the way to residential 50 and residential 20.
21:06:29 Quite a different variety of density potential in the
21:06:32 area.
21:06:33 And she's already shown you the character of what the
21:06:37 houses are like on the north face of -- to be
21:06:44 validated, you can see you have a variety of problems
21:06:47 of various scales and architecture along the
21:06:50 particular segment of Adelia.
21:06:53 Also, it unit faces with the parking lot of the town
21:06:59 home development right over here on the corner.
21:07:03 Davis Boulevard and Adelia.
21:07:04 The request does meet the standards under R-10.
21:07:08 Both lots, do you have an existing lot with a home on
21:07:10 it.
21:07:11 You have the vacant lot.
21:07:12 The lot splits, which is needed for the PD.
21:07:15 Since it is .12 fate short of making the 50-foot

21:07:21 frontage requirement.
21:07:22 It does meet the total lot square footage.
21:07:24 Both lots the nexus so they do meet the res 10
21:07:30 requirements for consideration of one single-family
21:07:32 dwelling unit.
21:07:33 Planning Commission staff based on those findings of
21:07:35 fact finds the proposed request consistent with the
21:07:37 comprehensive plan.
21:07:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
21:07:51 >> My name is Jim Stutzman, my address is 3314
21:07:55 Henderson Boulevard, suite 108, in Tampa and I have
21:07:58 been sworn.
21:07:59 Also here with me tonight is Pauline Fitzgerald, she's
21:08:03 the attorney for the project, and Joe Stanwick is our
21:08:07 arborist.
21:08:08 He's here to address some of your tree issues,
21:08:12 questions.
21:08:14 My colleague is going to pass out right now the
21:08:16 proposed site plan that we prepared.
21:08:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anyone in opposition to number
21:08:27 15?
21:08:28 Anyone in opposition?

21:08:30 Want to speak?
21:08:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did you all contact the Davis
21:08:35 Island civic association?
21:08:36 >>> We did send them a notice and they did not contact
21:08:39 us.
21:08:42 >> Pauline Fitzgerald, 201 North Franklin Street, I
21:08:46 represent the petitioner along with Jim Stutzman and
21:08:47 Joe Stanwick.
21:08:48 Just to answer your question, Mrs. Saul-Sena, we did
21:08:50 send out notice to two different civic associations.
21:08:52 We had one neighborhood expressed a concern.
21:08:55 I spoke with that neighbor, sent them revised plans
21:08:58 both by FedEx and by e-mail asking him to call me if
21:09:02 there were any further questions or concerns and there
21:09:04 were no further communications from that particular
21:09:06 neighbor and we have not heard any objections from
21:09:08 anyone else.
21:09:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Questions by council members?
21:09:11 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Move to close.
21:09:16 >>GWEN MILLER: Second?
21:09:18 >> I do have one question.
21:09:25 What is the elevation?

21:09:31 Snoop finish floor elevation?
21:09:33 I'm not sure what that was.
21:09:35 The architect that did do the elevation does take that
21:09:38 into consideration and the dimensions should be on
21:09:40 that.
21:09:44 >> I'll tell you what my concern is.
21:09:52 I know this neighborhood really well.
21:09:53 I used to drive the kid next door in car pool, and
21:09:57 there's a house next door between the apartment.
21:09:59 There are two houses actually.
21:10:01 The houses that are next door are very low.
21:10:05 This is 31 feet from a finished elevation, that I know
21:10:09 you are going to be putting a ton of fill on this lot.
21:10:13 So the reality is because you measure from the dirt
21:10:18 you put on the lot as opposed to what's on the street,
21:10:20 it's going to be like 35 or 36 feet up from the
21:10:25 street.
21:10:25 So you are going to have these two little houses next
21:10:28 door, and then this little house on the other side,
21:10:31 and then this 36-foot house.
21:10:34 And I just think it's too much for PD.
21:10:37 You are talking about a 5,000 square foot lot, and you

21:10:40 are talking about a 4200 square foot house.
21:10:42 >>> No, actually on the revised plan the house will
21:10:46 only be 3200 square feet.
21:10:47 >> Bet jeer it was reduced by 11 square feet.
21:10:50 And if I could, Mrs. Saul-Sena, if you would look at
21:10:53 the -- you can see, this is the existing house right
21:10:58 here.
21:10:59 This is Adelia.
21:11:05 You have another two story house behind here.
21:11:09 Right here.
21:11:09 So you have already got it.
21:11:12 Variety of height and uses and two story homes that
21:11:14 are in that neighborhood.
21:11:15 This is another shot of some of the houses that are
21:11:18 right there.
21:11:19 This is the -- this is the lot right behind 18, if you
21:11:25 can see.
21:11:27 Thank you.
21:11:31 This is the house right behind lot 18.
21:11:35 You see right next door you have this house here.
21:11:38 There's another house over here on Adriatic.
21:11:44 There's another -- changing the site plan and

21:11:48 elevations, as we trade to make this house more
21:11:52 compatible with the look and feel of the neighborhood
21:11:53 and I think we accomplished that.
21:11:55 I know Mrs. Feeley has some significant concerns about
21:11:58 the massing, the size of the house, and so we have
21:12:01 done everything we could to address those.
21:12:02 We have also increased the setbacks between the two
21:12:05 homes.
21:12:07 That runs two feet.
21:12:09 Wouldn't have to be here.
21:12:10 But unfortunately the lot has that 49.88-foot
21:12:15 measurement as the back of the lot that makes it such
21:12:18 that essentially what you have here is a double lot.
21:12:21 Unfortunately, it's held under one ownership under one
21:12:25 deed, that "American Idol" it somewhere in the train
21:12:28 of title.
21:12:28 >> There are two sided lots and because of the lien
21:12:32 yeah nature of the streets in the subdivision, most of
21:12:35 these lots have 50 feet of frontage.
21:12:39 So when you take a perpendicular measurement from the
21:12:41 side yard, that's why you get the less than 50 feet.
21:12:45 49 and change usually for most of the lots in this

21:12:47 area.
21:12:48 Now, some of the houses were built on double lots.
21:12:50 But there were lots built on single lot.
21:12:53 And any new construction on Davis Island is going to
21:12:56 have to have the same type of fill.
21:12:59 And I don't think most of the houses necessarily
21:13:05 filled up with dirt. What they did was put lots up to
21:13:07 the required floor elevation.
21:13:10 So you would have a three, four-foot block before the
21:13:14 actual first-floor slab was started.
21:13:16 It's not going to be mounded up.
21:13:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to say, my concern was
21:13:23 flooding because what you are doing is taking what had
21:13:25 been a completely pervious yard, and you are taking
21:13:30 over 50% of it and creating impervious surface.
21:13:34 I think it's going to have a negative impact on the
21:13:37 surrounding uses.
21:13:38 >> I think your stormwater folks would make sure that
21:13:40 wouldn't happen.
21:13:46 >>> I loved down the street from several of these and
21:13:48 I can tell you, it isn't the reality.
21:13:50 >>MARY MULHERN: Before you close the hearing, I would

21:13:54 like to ask to get a full council for a vote, after
21:13:57 you are done with questions.
21:13:58 >> I don't think we are going to be able to.
21:14:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't know if they are here.
21:14:03 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question.
21:14:08 Because the height is taller than a two-story.
21:14:11 And I am trying to understand what this is.
21:14:13 And why that is.
21:14:18 Why you built it up so high.
21:14:23 Here we have got -- can't quite tell.
21:14:33 From the right side elevation, you can see that you
21:14:38 have got the entry level that's on the ground.
21:14:41 And then you go up above that to another floor.
21:14:44 And then it looks like you go up three stories?
21:14:48 >>> No, it's two stories.
21:14:49 But again he's going to put block up to get to the
21:14:52 finished floor elevation and then you would have your
21:14:54 slab and that's going to be characteristics of any on
21:14:59 Davis Island.
21:15:00 >> It looks like there's three different levels.
21:15:04 >> Yes, it's ---
21:15:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: This would be like a so-called

21:15:11 split level when you go out to the garage, you go
21:15:14 maybe six stairs to the next level.
21:15:15 >> Only the living floors would have to be above that.
21:15:19 >> And RS-50 does allow 35-foot height limits and we
21:15:23 are below that.
21:15:24 We are at 31 feet.
21:15:27 >> So if it gets flooded, it would be the garage only.
21:15:32 >> Or the people next door.
21:15:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I am not going to support this.
21:15:36 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to continue it.
21:15:38 Let's get a motion to continue, please.
21:15:39 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Motion to continue.
21:15:41 >> Second.
21:15:41 >>> I just want to be clear for petitioner.
21:15:46 You asked for a full council.
21:15:48 Is that your request then?
21:15:50 Do you agree to have that continuance?
21:15:51 >>> Yes, sir.
21:15:52 I would like that.
21:15:53 And I think four weeks so we can submit the revised
21:15:58 plans.
21:15:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Okay.

21:15:59 Four weeks is what?
21:16:00 >> March 27, 6 p.m.
21:16:08 >> All in favor of the motion for continuance say Aye.
21:16:14 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried.
21:16:19 With Miranda, Dingfelder and Scott being absent at
21:16:25 vote.
21:16:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there anything else come before
21:16:27 council?
21:16:27 We stand adjourned.
21:16:29 (City Council meeting adjourned)

The preceding represents an unedited version of
realtime captioning which should neither be relied
upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim
The original of this file 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.