Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 2, 2008
9:00 a.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.
09:04:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
09:04:59 The chair will now yield to the honorable Mary
09:05:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you, chair.
09:05:05 I would like to thank and introduce Mr. Jason Mims, a
09:05:11 great community activist in Tampa, to give our
09:05:13 invocation this morning.
09:05:15 Jason served in the Army infantry and foreign area
09:05:18 office and was a foreign area officer for Africa and
09:05:24 the Middle East before retiring in 1995 and remaining
09:05:28 in the Tampa Bay area to serve children and senior
09:05:30 citizens in inner city neighborhoods.
09:05:32 Currently Jason serves as the director of the men's
09:05:36 institute, the division of "Not Just Ministries,
09:05:39 Inc.," and trusted with promoting urban excellence in
09:05:44 key urban zip codes.
09:05:46 Among the many community awards he received the 2008
09:05:49 Points of Light Award from the Black Heritage
09:05:52 Committee of the City of Tampa.
09:05:53 So welcome.
09:05:56 >>> Thank you, council member Mulhern, council
09:06:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Please stand and remain standing.
09:06:07 >>> Almighty God, we thank you for allowing us to
09:06:10 participate in the month of October with the Tampa Bay
09:06:16 Rays and their victories over the Chicago White Sox.
09:06:21 We ask that you bestow your blessings on all of those
09:06:24 who come to visit our city and communities.
09:06:27 Let them find here your servants willing to help
09:06:32 We pray that black visitors will find residents who
09:06:37 work together despite differences and political views,
09:06:40 socioeconomic status, and educational attainment.
09:06:45 Almighty God, we ask a special blessing on the
09:06:47 children in our city, that they may have parents,
09:06:51 mentors, and leaders who value these your most
09:06:58 precious gifts to us.
09:06:59 Give all of us the strength and wisdom to do your
09:07:04 We make these petitions boldly, knowing that you have
09:07:07 and will provide to those who ask in your almighty
09:07:16 (Pledge of Allegiance)
09:07:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you for being here for that
09:07:36 beautiful invocation this morning.
09:07:38 Thank you, sir.
09:07:41 We'll have roll call.
09:07:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
09:07:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Here.
09:07:45 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
09:07:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
09:07:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
09:07:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Here.
09:07:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
09:07:53 Now the chair would recognize the honorable Gwendolyn
09:07:59 Miller who will make the presentation this morning.
09:08:17 >>GWEN MILLER: It's my pleasure this morning to
09:08:19 introduce our firefighter of the quarter, which is
09:08:22 captain Larry Gray.
09:08:27 But he's going to tell but captain Gray.
09:08:33 >>> Thank you.
09:08:36 Chairman Scott, members of the council, Dennis Jones,
09:08:38 Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:08:41 It is our honor to come before you today to recognize
09:08:44 the firefighter of the quarter, captain Larry Gray,
09:08:48 Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:08:49 Captain Gray is currently assigned to engine 4 in Ybor
09:08:53 City, and he's been an outstanding member of this
09:08:55 department for almost 23 years.
09:08:58 Recently, he spent many on and off-duty hours
09:09:02 preparing and presenting a foam firefighting class,
09:09:06 and his efforts certainly helped the department to be
09:09:08 more prepared to carry out foam operations should the
09:09:11 situation call for it.
09:09:12 His enthusiasm for the topic is contagious, and it
09:09:18 really does touch each firefighter.
09:09:21 The information was well received by all the class.
09:09:24 In addition to teaching the firefighters, the career
09:09:26 firefighters for Tampa, he's also an instructor with
09:09:29 the fire academy teaching in the minimum standards.
09:09:32 So he presents new information to those individuals
09:09:35 wishing to become firefighters, those that are just
09:09:38 beginning their training.
09:09:41 Captain Gray over his career with Tampa Fire Rescue
09:09:44 has also served as with local helicopter transport
09:09:51 program, was also a member of our tactical response
09:09:53 team, a TAC medic and swat medic basically and part of
09:10:00 our water rescue team for over seven years and part of
09:10:03 our urban search and rescue team which responds after
09:10:05 hurricanes to help out those who have been affected.
09:10:09 His enthusiasm for his career certainly reflects
09:10:13 positively on himself, his profession, and Tampa Fire
09:10:17 And for these reasons and many other, we proudly
09:10:19 present captain Larry Gray, captain fire rescue's
09:10:25 firefighter of the quarter.
09:10:28 [ Applause ]
09:10:29 And we have a plaque that comes from the awards review
09:10:34 board presented to captain Larry Gray, firefighter of
09:10:40 the quarter, October 2nd, 2008.
09:10:44 >>GWEN MILLER: I would like to give you a commendation
09:10:49 that states all the good things just stated by the
09:10:53 I am not going to read it.
09:10:55 I will just give it to you.
09:10:58 [ Applause ]
09:11:00 At this time the private sector will have some gifts
09:11:02 to give you.
09:11:04 >>> Danny Lewis from Bill Currie Ford Lincoln-Mercury.
09:11:14 I'm happy to be here to recognize the firefighter of
09:11:16 the quarter.
09:11:17 Next week they'll be selecting a firefighter of the
09:11:19 year and soon we'll be fishing on Mr. Curry's boat.
09:11:26 Here's your watch.
09:11:29 >>> I would like to mention that Steve's from step's
09:11:33 towing service, he fell in his home, broke his ankle
09:11:36 real bad so he will be catching up to you soon.
09:11:38 He wanted me to send a congratulatory message.
09:11:42 >>> Thank you.
09:11:46 >> I'm Michelle Patty.
09:11:51 We would like to present with you this gift card.
09:11:53 We would like to say thank you for your job and we
09:11:56 appreciate everything, not only you but the whole fire
09:11:59 department does.
09:12:00 Thank you so much.
09:12:07 >> Lowry Park Zoo, we thank you and everybody for what
09:12:10 you do for our community and we would like to invite
09:12:12 you and your family to come spend a day at the zoo on
09:12:27 >>> Thank you.
09:12:28 I'm very honored and very touched to have received
09:12:30 this award.
09:12:34 Before I say anything else, there's probably a person
09:12:36 in this room that I don't give enough credit to and
09:12:38 that's my wonderful wife Charlotte.
09:12:40 So she's part of the drive that makes me who I am.
09:12:45 And I want to thank her for supporting us.
09:12:49 I love working for Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:12:51 This is the greatest organization around by far.
09:12:54 Again I'm humbled.
09:12:56 And a part of me accepts this award for every
09:12:59 firefighter out there today that's strapping it on.
09:13:02 So thank you.
09:13:04 And I continue to look forward to working for you
09:13:08 [ Applause ]
09:13:23 >> Do you have somebody following in your footsteps in
09:13:26 blue there?
09:13:26 >> I'm very proud to say I have two sons that work for
09:13:29 Tampa Fire Rescue.
09:13:34 They work down at station 1.
09:13:39 This is a great day.
09:13:44 I'm a very proud father.
09:13:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Congratulations, congratulations.
09:13:50 [ Applause ]
09:13:51 Thank you, chief, and all the firemen.
09:13:53 Thank you very much.
09:13:57 We will now, also with a very special presentation, we
09:14:02 would like to ask that those operating the camera and
09:14:05 video if they would now run that presentation.
09:14:08 >> I'm Charlie Crist, governor of Florida.
09:14:15 I wanted to congratulate Charlie Miranda on his
09:14:18 fantastic award as the Hispanic leader of the year.
09:14:22 Charlie, you're a great man, a great friend, and I'm
09:14:25 honored to be able to congratulate you on this well
09:14:27 deserved award.
09:14:30 [ Applause ]
09:14:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You're short of words?
09:14:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's hard to do.
09:14:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me also say congratulations,
09:14:55 You deserve it.
09:14:56 You are a great ambassador in this community, great
09:14:59 leader, and also with this we are going to present you
09:15:02 also this plaque with a letter from the governor, so
09:15:11 congratulations for being selected as the 2008
09:15:13 Hispanic man of the year, each year honor the Hispanic
09:15:18 man of the year and individual who demonstrates
09:15:20 excellence in volunteerism, and it is an honor to be
09:15:24 It is a testament to your hard work, dedication and
09:15:27 service in your local community.
09:15:28 Your success is an inspiration, and you serve as a
09:15:32 roll model for the next generation of Hispanic leaders
09:15:35 of the State of Florida.
09:15:36 Thank you for helping to build strong communities
09:15:40 while preserving your own tradition and culture.
09:15:43 Best wishes for your continued success.
09:15:45 Best wishes, Charlie Crist.
09:15:48 On behalf of him we would like to present this to you
09:15:50 as well.
09:15:51 And we are very, very proud.
09:15:52 I'm just glad to know you.
09:15:55 [ Applause ]
09:16:05 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
09:16:07 the governor for the wonderful tape and the
09:16:13 presentation that he so nicely, humbly -- I don't know
09:16:19 what to talk about.
09:16:20 I don't like to talk about myself.
09:16:22 I don't do that.
09:16:22 I'll tell you a little story.
09:16:25 [ Laughter ]
09:16:26 For 30 seconds.
09:16:27 How I met the governor.
09:16:29 Years ago, when he was running for another office, I
09:16:32 was running for an office.
09:16:35 How do I say that I didn't win?
09:16:37 Because I always say that when I lose, I just didn't
09:16:41 get enough votes, that's it.
09:16:42 And he was telling me about the polls that he was
09:16:47 losing by a percent.
09:16:49 So about two days later, I called and I said, my polls
09:16:52 said you are going to win, let's say by 2%.
09:16:55 So the election is held, the primaries, and he wins by
09:16:59 So he calls me.
09:17:00 He tells me, where do you get your information from?
09:17:03 I spent thousands of dollars on these polls.
09:17:05 And I said, well, let's wait till after the general
09:17:09 So I see him again.
09:17:10 And he tells me, the polls tell me that I'm leading by
09:17:14 And I told him, I'll tell you what.
09:17:17 He was running for attorney general.
09:17:18 And I said, Mr. Attorney general, you are going to
09:17:20 win, let's say, by 7%.
09:17:23 The election comes and he wins by 7%, whatever the
09:17:26 figure was.
09:17:27 And he calls me again.
09:17:28 He tells me, how did you know that?
09:17:30 I said, well, I do my polling at the flea market.
09:17:34 He said, where?
09:17:34 I said, the flea market.
09:17:36 You see, they are nonbiased.
09:17:38 A lot of them are there having a nice time.
09:17:40 Some of them aren't registered voters and they'll tell
09:17:44 you the truth.
09:17:45 When you call a house, they know who is calling, a
09:17:49 pollster, and they won't tell them the truth.
09:17:54 But those good working people will tell you the truth
09:17:58 because they have very little interest in politics,
09:18:00 and that's how I got to meet the governor.
09:18:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And now you're his pollster.
09:18:08 >>> I'm his pollster.
09:18:09 >> So if you want to know if you are going to win, go
09:18:12 to the flea market.
09:18:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's it.
09:18:15 Thank you very much.
09:18:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Congratulations again.
09:18:21 The addendum for the agenda.
09:18:22 We'll do that now.
09:18:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: (off microphone) and he's here to ask
09:18:37 council's pleasure for number 9 which you previously
09:18:40 received from his office.
09:18:45 This is a walk-on, this is a request of council.
09:18:48 It's for future action.
09:18:49 >>> Good morning.
09:18:52 I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you quickly
09:18:54 this morning.
09:18:54 A few weeks back, a transmitted proposed changes to
09:18:58 chapter 9 which deals with code enforcement, and code
09:19:01 enforcement special magistrate.
09:19:04 I'm looking at this time to get some direction from
09:19:07 the council as to how you wish to proceed, whether you
09:19:09 want to workshop this or whether you would rather just
09:19:12 schedule it for first reading.
09:19:14 And I want to move this thing forward.
09:19:16 So I would like to --
09:19:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to move it forward, too.
09:19:23 Council, we are not able to schedule workshops for I
09:19:29 think November and December because of conflicts of
09:19:31 holidays, which kind of handicaps us in terms of
09:19:34 So what I think we should do is schedule it for 1:30
09:19:40 for first reading, but allow the public to speak.
09:19:43 I think that would be the most expeditious thing.
09:19:46 So that would be my motion.
09:19:50 Not for today.
09:19:52 But we have the 16th at 1:30.
09:19:56 >> Second.
09:19:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What day would that be?
09:19:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thursday.
09:19:59 October 16th at 1:30.
09:20:01 Does that give you enough time to advertise it or do
09:20:03 we noticed to advertise?
09:20:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, if I can just refer you to
09:20:08 your calendar.
09:20:10 On October 16th at 1:30 you have six wet zonings,
09:20:13 a public hearing on an SU-2, and three appeal
09:20:19 hearings, all scheduled for 1:30.
09:20:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's the morning look like?
09:20:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: In the morning you have nine staff
09:20:30 You have actually a lighter schedule it appears in the
09:20:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What about 11:00 in the 16th?
09:20:39 >> We have staff reports.
09:20:40 Five minutes each one.
09:20:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: You have nine staff reports.
09:20:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Plus 20 questions from each of you.
09:20:47 [ Laughter ]
09:20:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman --
09:20:52 We also have CRA budget at 11:00 on the 16th.
09:20:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, on the 30th of
09:21:00 October, we have a CRA regular meeting but we don't
09:21:09 have an evening meeting that night.
09:21:12 We could do it at 1:30 -- or 11:00 on the 30th.
09:21:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I am probably more supportive of doing
09:21:19 it right after the CRA meeting.
09:21:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: At 11:00?
09:21:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That would require a special called
09:21:24 meeting of council being set.
09:21:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, it's an extraordinary
09:21:27 Thursday because we have five Thursdays in October,
09:21:29 and then we lose some to Thanksgiving and winter
09:21:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm supportive of the 30th at 11.
09:21:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move we have a
09:21:40 special called meeting of council at 11:00 on the
09:21:43 30th, looking at the first reading.
09:21:48 And that gives us time for the people who are
09:21:50 specifically interested in that to come to council
09:21:53 chambers and speak on it.
09:21:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, normally a first reading
09:21:58 would not be a public hearing but because of setting
09:22:01 it as a public hearing you have that opportunity.
09:22:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's the intent of my motion.
09:22:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
09:22:07 So on the 30th right after the CRA meeting, let me
09:22:10 ask the chairman, do you expect that to go two hours?
09:22:14 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
09:22:15 It shouldn't last that long.
09:22:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you think we should move it up?
09:22:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Say 11:00.
09:22:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:22:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
09:22:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Saul-Sena,
09:22:30 seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:22:32 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:22:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, the chair has received a
09:22:40 note from the chief of staff asking that item 2 be
09:22:42 removed from the item for today for additional work
09:22:45 with the University of South Florida.
09:22:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
09:22:49 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The other item that is asked to be
09:22:52 substituted is item number 30.
09:23:00 This is assistant city attorney Kabougeris is here.
09:23:05 A substitute of one that you previously asked
09:23:07 substituted, a change to a "whereas" clause.
09:23:11 I have been told there's nothing substantive but if
09:23:13 council wishes --
09:23:14 Let's go down the agenda and we can approve everything
09:23:16 in one motion.
09:23:18 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Then, council, there's been a request
09:23:20 to remove item 24 by assistant stip attorney Ron
09:23:30 That can be removed from the agenda.
09:23:32 He is present for any questions.
09:23:35 I believe council member Dingfelder has requested by
09:23:38 e-mail to remove items 11, 12, 13, and 21 from the
09:23:44 consent docket for council discussion.
09:23:48 Is that correct, councilman Dingfelder?
09:23:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 21 I'm okay with.
09:23:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 11, 12 and 13.
09:23:58 Did you wish that taken up under staff reports and
09:24:00 have staff present for that?
09:24:03 And, council, I believe with the changes with regard
09:24:09 to item 48, 50, 51, those are all public -- 60 and 61.
09:24:14 Those are all public hearings.
09:24:15 I request they be dealt with when they come up.
09:24:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 20 is being pulled.
09:24:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
09:24:23 Item 20 is also a request from the chief of staff to
09:24:26 pull item 20, remove it from the agenda.
09:24:30 I'm sorry I missed that.
09:24:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So move all the changes.
09:24:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:24:35 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I can answer all the questions on
09:24:37 items 11, 12 and 13.
09:24:39 And like I said two weeks ago, I'm certainly not
09:24:42 opposed to anyone put pulling items, pulling any
09:24:47 However, we have rules for everything on this council
09:24:52 from daylight to sunset, and I would like to see,
09:24:55 Mr. Chairman, in your wisdom, to bring up a criteria
09:25:00 about how we pull these items.
09:25:03 And I suggest something, have you spoken to anyone,
09:25:07 who have you spoken to?
09:25:08 And I'm not speaking to Mr. Dingfelder's request, I'm
09:25:10 speaking in general terms, so that the public can
09:25:13 understand if we talk to someone, who we talked to,
09:25:15 what information we have, and what are the sticking
09:25:20 I'm not opposed to pulling any items.
09:25:22 I have all the confidence in all the council members
09:25:28 and different authorities that they have and their own
09:25:31 And I honor and cherish their ability to do that.
09:25:35 So I would like to have something in your wisdom, sir,
09:25:39 to put out the range so the public understand was we
09:25:44 are doing.
09:25:45 That's all I'm asking.
09:25:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And I think based on that notation or
09:25:49 discussions we said we would bring that up in our
09:25:51 strategic planning to outline, to have discussion how
09:25:54 we are going to proceed with that.
09:25:55 That's my recollection.
09:25:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:25:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we will do that, Mr. Miranda.
09:26:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just so there's no confusion I
09:26:03 think our current rules says you request it prior to
09:26:05 the meeting, and I'm not sure how long prior to the
09:26:10 I sent that e-mail yesterday.
09:26:13 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, council.
09:26:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I sent it yesterday.
09:26:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, rule 7-B states, an
09:26:23 individual member of council wanting to remove an item
09:26:25 from the committee report consent docket should
09:26:28 attempt to do so a day or more in advance of the
09:26:30 meeting by notifying the members of council, the
09:26:32 clerk, and the chief of staff by memorandum or e-mail
09:26:35 stating whether the member of council wishes staff to
09:26:37 be present to discuss an item.
09:26:39 That's the present rule.
09:26:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We may need to amend that.
09:26:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with amending the rule.
09:26:45 When you send a time line of 24 hours somebody here in
09:26:48 this council could find something two minutes before
09:26:50 the hour and they should not be excluded of bringing
09:26:53 that up.
09:26:53 So those rules have to be amended.
09:27:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have a motion on the floor.
09:27:02 All in favor?
09:27:04 So moved and ordered.
09:27:06 Then we will take public comment at this time.
09:27:14 Public comment?
09:27:14 Anyone here wishing to address council may come
09:27:17 Anyone here that wishes to address council may come
09:27:20 forward at this time.
09:27:22 You have three minutes.
09:27:24 Preference is given first to those items on the
09:27:28 Whatever time remaining we can take up any item.
09:27:32 Mr. Knott.
09:27:34 >> Where is your gator hat?
09:27:36 You turned on us, gone to the Rays there.
09:27:40 >>MOSES KNOTT, JR.: I reside at 2902 East Ellicott
09:27:45 three nights a week and I just thank God for his grace
09:27:47 and his mercy.
09:27:50 I just can't make it without that.
09:27:55 I sit here this morning.
09:27:57 The people asked me when I come through that door,
09:28:03 keep searching me down and people ask me, what do you
09:28:06 want to talk about this morning?
09:28:07 I don't know.
09:28:07 I really don't know.
09:28:09 That's why I get here early.
09:28:11 But awhile ago, my friend Charlie Miranda today by
09:28:16 this award today, you know, and I thought about that.
09:28:22 Let me tell you all something.
09:28:24 I can tell you all more about this man than anybody
09:28:26 here, because, you know, I come here and thank God for
09:28:32 his grace and mercy coming through that door.
09:28:34 But years ago, it used to be a fight in here.
09:28:40 I used to come through that door.
09:28:41 I used to be so angry, I could feel the devil dragging
09:28:45 chains all through this place.
09:28:46 And Charlie Miranda his own self, you know, he come
09:28:50 back the first time, used to say so much stuff going
09:28:53 on up here, I mean, evil stuff, you know, taking
09:28:56 people's property, code enforcement, everything was
09:28:59 going on, and people like me stand at this podium, we
09:29:04 didn't have no rights.
09:29:05 I thank God for Mr. Smith and Mr. Shelby, when they
09:29:09 come they brought law and order here.
09:29:11 They represent everybody.
09:29:12 And when they stand here and represent everybody, I
09:29:17 said, they are talking about me.
09:29:22 But Mr. Charlie Miranda, you know, he believes he can
09:29:30 run for a seat up there, and not have to spend a whole
09:29:33 lot of money.
09:29:33 And the last time he run he didn't spend a whole lot
09:29:36 of money.
09:29:37 Let me tell but this man.
09:29:38 This man is straight and he is humble.
09:29:41 You know, me, my life changed a lot since I got
09:29:48 I used to come through that door fighting.
09:29:56 I'm a poor man today because I didn't have no rights
09:29:59 in this town.
09:30:00 But Charlie Miranda, I heard that man make a statement
09:30:04 one time.
09:30:05 He said everybody up there need to go to jail, because
09:30:09 there was crooks.
09:30:11 And that was the truth.
09:30:12 Fighting, doing things that weren't legal.
09:30:16 The man talk about that.
09:30:20 He is so right.
09:30:22 So I want to congratulate all of you all, this is the
09:30:26 most humble council that we ever had in our life.
09:30:32 You know, Linda Saul-Sena, we go way back, young lady
09:30:37 came up there, and talk on the elevator.
09:30:41 And we had the worst chairman ever in our life.
09:30:47 I come to this podium many times, and they told me,
09:30:50 Mr. Knott, if you don't like what we are doing.
09:30:58 And that thing used to bother me so bad.
09:31:01 But Charlie Miranda, he come in and he changed that
09:31:05 He was all for peoples out there, everybody.
09:31:07 And he was going for mayor one time.
09:31:11 And you know why that man lost?
09:31:15 He was too humble.
09:31:20 I was a businessman.
09:31:22 They said you got to get you a crooked man.
09:31:25 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Knott, may I ask you a
09:31:31 Those devils, were they down there or up here?
09:31:34 >>> Who that?
09:31:35 >> The devils you said.
09:31:37 >>> They ever where.
09:31:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Knott.
09:31:48 You know your Bible.
09:31:49 All right.
09:31:50 Anyone else wishing to address council?
09:31:53 Then anyone here want a reconsideration of any
09:31:56 legislative matter?
09:31:58 Then we'll move to committee reports.
09:32:01 The chair will recognize Councilwoman Miller, Public
09:32:04 Safety Committee.
09:32:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Item number 2 has been removed.
09:32:08 I move items 3 through 5.
09:32:10 >> Second.
09:32:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
09:32:13 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:32:16 Opposes? Okay.
09:32:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Parks and recreation, I move items 6
09:32:26 through 10.
09:32:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:32:29 (Motion carried).
09:32:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder, Public Works
09:32:37 Mr. Miranda is not here.
09:32:38 >> On behalf of Mr. Miranda, I'll pull 13 till later
09:32:46 and move 14 through 17.
09:32:47 >>GWEN MILLER: Is there a second?
09:32:52 >> Second.
09:32:53 (Motion carried).
09:32:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm so sorry.
09:33:00 I was out of the room for parks and rec but I want to
09:33:03 not pull anything but just make a comment.
09:33:05 Number 6 under parks, rec and culture shows a donation
09:33:09 of fitness equipment from Palma Ceia to our Parks
09:33:12 Department, which is great.
09:33:15 We have a wonderful facility called the Joe Abrahams
09:33:18 fitness center in Ballast Point.
09:33:20 It's very popular, very well used but is currently
09:33:23 closed on Saturday and Sunday because of budget
09:33:25 And particularly Saturday is the day when most of the
09:33:31 public has access.
09:33:33 I would like a report back from parks and recreation
09:33:35 on the potential reopening of Ballast Point on
09:33:39 Saturday or what the cost would be, because I heard
09:33:41 some people in the community say they would be willing
09:33:43 to literally raise money to allow that center to be
09:33:47 open to the public.
09:33:48 We all know the public health ends up costing all of
09:33:51 us a lot in terms of heart attacks and variety of
09:33:55 things, and certainly this would be a good investment
09:33:58 in the health of the community.
09:33:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me just speak to that.
09:34:01 I thought we were going to bring back a report,
09:34:02 because I brought this up about the 18th street
09:34:06 park, that's the same situation.
09:34:07 So they are supposed to bring back, I thought, some
09:34:10 plan, looking at that whole issue throughout the city,
09:34:12 because a number of parks are closed on Saturday and
09:34:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
09:34:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Would you like me to expand?
09:34:20 >> I thought this motion was already.
09:34:22 But I was talking about 18th street, though.
09:34:25 I thought we would go back and look at all of the
09:34:27 parks and come back with some recommendations on that.
09:34:29 But, I mean, to cover all bases we can do that.
09:34:35 Because I know I brought up 18th street.
09:34:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I don't remember them coming back
09:34:40 to us.
09:34:41 I don't remember what the time frame was.
09:34:42 But --
09:34:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we ask what parks have
09:34:48 been closed on various times due to budget cuts and
09:34:50 give us a report.
09:34:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That will be my motion.
09:34:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded, motion by
09:35:03 Councilwoman Saul-Sena, seconded by Councilwoman
09:35:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want an appearance by staff?
09:35:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
09:35:10 Thanks for the clarification.
09:35:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the time?
09:35:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I asked for 30 days.
09:35:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Fine.
09:35:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Specifically, what parks have been
09:35:18 closed due to budget constraints and what the plans
09:35:20 are and what the costs would be, and recreation
09:35:26 Thank you.
09:35:28 And number 9, I wanted to comment on the fact that we
09:35:32 have been receiving grants for Lights on Tampa
09:35:37 program, and it's going to be fantastic, and it's
09:35:41 going to happen in January.
09:35:42 But I just wanted to point out that it's a very
09:35:45 prestigious thing.
09:35:46 These days, and believe me, there aren't many cultural
09:35:49 grants out there. We received grants from the
09:35:51 national endowment for the arts as well as from the
09:35:53 State of Florida cultural affairs group.
09:35:56 So it's very much an honor that our public arts
09:36:00 program is recognized with these grants.
09:36:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:36:04 Finance Committee, Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:36:16 It's been pulled.
09:36:16 >> Moved.
09:36:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:36:21 (Motion carried).
09:36:22 Building and zoning committee, councilman Caetano.
09:36:26 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I want to move 32 to 33.
09:36:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And 30 has a substitute.
09:36:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: On number 24 which we removed, they
09:36:44 refer to blue heron park.
09:36:49 I actually never heard of blue heron park.
09:36:53 I wonder if any of my colleagues know where it is.
09:36:56 Perhaps we can just get a staff present.
09:36:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sounds like a neighborhood
09:37:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
09:37:03 All in favor?
09:37:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Number 34 requires a statement that
09:37:13 it be read.
09:37:14 The public hearing will be held regarding a proposed
09:37:18 brown field designation for property totaling
09:37:22 approximately 6.68 acres located in the general
09:37:25 vicinity of 4129 West Spruce Street, 1701 north Lois
09:37:30 Avenue, and 1601 north Lois Avenue, formerly 1903
09:37:35 north Lois Avenue, 1905 north Lois Avenue, and 1513
09:37:39 north Lois Avenue, respectively in the City of Tampa.
09:37:43 This public hearing will be held at the residence INN
09:37:47 by Marriott, Tampa Westshore, located at 4312 west Boy
09:37:52 Scout Boulevard in Tampa, Florida on Wednesday,
09:37:55 October 15th, 2008, until 6 p.m., until no later
09:38:00 than 8 o'clock p.m.
09:38:02 And that being said, I don't believe it requires any
09:38:07 council action other than the announcement.
09:38:17 If could you receive that memorandum by Kathy Ginster.
09:38:21 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to receive and file.
09:38:22 >> Second.
09:38:23 (Motion carried)
09:38:23 >> Transportation Committee, Mr. Dingfelder.
09:38:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move items 35 through 39.
09:38:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, can I get an
09:38:35 explanation on item 35?
09:38:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We need staff for that so why don't
09:38:45 we move that over to staff report and I'll move 36
09:38:48 through 39.
09:38:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:38:50 (Motion carried).
09:38:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So 35 --
09:38:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I will move that to staff report.
09:38:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do you want to move forward or do you
09:39:01 just have a question on it?
09:39:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: No, I would like to get an answer
09:39:04 from staff because it seems like a lot of controversy
09:39:06 in the district up there over this.
09:39:09 It in the Tampa Palms north homeowners association.
09:39:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
09:39:13 Item 40 being set for public hearing.
09:39:16 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
09:39:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved by Councilwoman Miller, seconded
09:39:19 by councilman Miranda.
09:39:20 (Motion carried).
09:39:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second readings.
09:39:30 Item 41.
09:39:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open 41.
09:39:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:39:35 (Motion carried).
09:39:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone wishing to address council on
09:39:37 item 41?
09:39:38 >> Move to close.
09:39:43 >> Second.
09:39:43 (Motion carried).
09:39:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for second
09:39:47 reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida
09:39:49 amending section 23.5-5, schedule of violations and
09:39:54 penalties to add code section 27-272, vendors all
09:40:02 types, to allow enforcement built civil citation
09:40:04 process, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
09:40:07 conflict, providing for severability, providing an
09:40:10 effective date.
09:40:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
09:40:13 Record your vote.
09:40:24 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:40:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Pete Johnson, I hope is watching.
09:40:34 He has been promoting this concept for at least six or
09:40:37 seven years and it's taken us a very long time to get
09:40:40 to the point of adoption.
09:40:42 I'm very pleased that we are going to be doing this.
09:40:44 And I wondered since Mr. Mueller is here, how quickly
09:40:52 we voted on this.
09:40:55 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Assistant city attorney.
09:40:58 I believe there's ten days until the mayor can sign
09:41:01 And whatever the amount of time for the mayor to sign
09:41:03 it and then I think the department of code enforcement
09:41:05 will be moving forward on enforcement.
09:41:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you. This is so exciting.
09:41:11 This means if somebody is doing something wrong we can
09:41:14 site them in a more timely fashion.
09:41:16 I would like a report back in 30 days from code
09:41:18 enforcement on their implementation of this citation
09:41:23 Hopefully they'll say we got it two weeks ago but
09:41:26 certainly if we put this on there, a report back live
09:41:30 to us, they will hopefully get it into action.
09:41:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with you but the only
09:41:40 thing, the 30 days starts today or in ten days?
09:41:43 Because we don't know we the mayor is going to sign
09:41:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We don't.
09:41:46 But I feel like council, because our constituents have
09:41:48 been waiting for this for so long, would love to know
09:41:51 when this is actually going to be implemented which
09:41:53 isn't a legal question, it's a code enforcement
09:41:56 And administrative process question.
09:41:57 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Saul-Sena, I believe at the last
09:42:01 meeting you had a list of things, I think he's going
09:42:06 to be appearing at the next regular meeting.
09:42:07 I'm not sure, it might be on that list.
09:42:09 He will be appearing to address code enforcement
09:42:11 issues on October 16th.
09:42:13 He may have that information for you at that time.
09:42:16 As part of his presentation.
09:42:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Excellent.
09:42:19 Why don't we say if it isn't on the list if he could
09:42:21 give us an update on the implementation of this now
09:42:24 adopted implementation process.
09:42:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion and second.
09:42:28 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:42:31 Thank you.
09:42:32 Anyone that's going to be addressing council, please
09:42:34 stand and be sworn, if you are going to be addressing
09:42:37 council today, please stand and be sworn.
09:42:42 (Oath administered by Clerk).
09:42:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open items 42 to 58.
09:42:51 >> Second.
09:42:51 (Motion carried).
09:42:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 42.
09:42:58 Anyone wishing to address council on item 42?
09:43:02 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
09:43:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:43:04 (Motion carried).
09:43:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
09:43:08 >>GWEN MILLER: I move an ordinance for second reading,
09:43:12 an ordinance vacating closing continuing and
09:43:14 abandoning a certain right-of-way a portion of
09:43:17 11th street lying south of Whiting Street, north
09:43:19 of Cumberland Avenue, west of Channelside Drive, and
09:43:22 east of Meridian Avenue, in interstate investment
09:43:25 company's platinum 4, a subdivision located in the
09:43:28 City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the same
09:43:30 being more fully described in section 2 hereof,
09:43:33 providing an effective date.
09:43:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded, seconded
09:43:38 by Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:43:40 Record your vote.
09:43:50 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:43:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone wishing to address council on
09:43:54 item 43?
09:43:55 Anyone wishing to address council on item 43?
09:43:58 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
09:43:59 >> Second.
09:43:59 (Motion carried).
09:44:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
09:44:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I move the following ordinance for
09:44:06 second reading, an ordinance vacating, closing,
09:44:07 discontinuing, abandoning a certain right-of-way, a
09:44:11 portion of jewel Avenue, 10th Avenue, 64th
09:44:19 street and alleyways south of 14th Avenue east of
09:44:23 62nd Street West of 65th street in north of
09:44:26 railroad right-of-way in Uceta gardens, a subdivision
09:44:30 located in the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County,
09:44:32 Florida, the same being more fully described in
09:44:34 section 2 hereof, providing an effective date.
09:44:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:44:38 Record your vote.
09:44:43 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:44:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 44.
09:44:46 Anyone wishing to address council on item 44?
09:44:52 >>LaCHONE DOCK: Land Development Coordination.
09:44:55 Item 44, 46, 47, 49 through 53 and 55 through 58 all
09:45:01 require certified site plans.
09:45:03 These plans have been certified by the zoning
09:45:04 administrator and have been provided to the clerk.
09:45:07 I have copies of these if you have any questions.
09:45:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
09:45:10 The motion to close.
09:45:11 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:45:14 Opposed same sign.
09:45:15 (Motion carried).
09:45:16 Item 45.
09:45:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Did we move 44?
09:45:22 >> All right.
09:45:23 Item 44, Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:45:25 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the following
09:45:27 ordinance for second reading and adoption, an
09:45:29 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
09:45:31 6503 and 6505 jewel Avenue and 2002, 2003, 2007, 2008
09:45:38 and 2010 north 65th street in the city of Tampa,
09:45:41 Florida, and more particularly described in section 1
09:45:44 from zoning district classifications RS-50 residential
09:45:47 single-family, and PD, planned development, office,
09:45:49 business, professional, to PD, planned development,
09:45:52 office, business professional, research facility,
09:45:54 laboratory, public use facility, transportation
09:45:58 service facility, truck scale, providing an effective
09:46:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
09:46:05 >> Second.
09:46:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote.
09:46:12 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:46:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 45.
09:46:16 Anyone wish to address council on item 45?
09:46:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
09:46:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:46:23 (Motion carried).
09:46:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance being presented for
09:46:28 second reading, an ordinance by the city of Tampa,
09:46:31 Florida renaming and designating that certain private
09:46:34 street currently known as USF walnut drive which is
09:46:38 located within the University of South Florida campus
09:46:40 USF, lying north of Fowler Avenue, south of Fletcher
09:46:43 Avenue, east of Bruce B. Downs Boulevard and west of
09:46:46 50th street within the City of Tampa, Hillsborough
09:46:49 County, Florida, to be here after known as USF beard
09:46:54 drive, providing an effective date.
09:46:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:46:58 Record your vote.
09:47:03 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously --
09:47:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I would assume that's after Malcolm
09:47:12 beard, and we congratulate USF and Mr. Beard's family.
09:47:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
09:47:20 Item 46.
09:47:23 Item 46.
09:47:23 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
09:47:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second.
09:47:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 46.
09:47:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented
09:47:36 for second reading.
09:47:38 >>ABBYE FEELEY: I'm sorry, land development.
09:47:42 Item 46 was not certified.
09:47:45 They did not turn northbound site plans in time so we
09:47:48 need to move the second reading on that to October --
09:47:52 Do we need to reopen?
09:47:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to reopen.
09:47:55 >> Second.
09:47:55 (Motion carried).
09:47:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Continue to October 16th.
09:48:01 So moved.
09:48:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: 9:30 a.m.
09:48:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you didn't get the site plans,
09:48:08 you're saying?
09:48:10 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That's correct.
09:48:11 We have seven days prior to hearing for second reading
09:48:15 they must submit and site plans were not submitted.
09:48:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Are there any others?
09:48:20 >>ABBYE FEELEY: That's the only one.
09:48:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's it.
09:48:23 Motion, continue to October 16th.
09:48:25 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
09:48:27 Opposed same sign.
09:48:29 Thank you.
09:48:29 Item 47.
09:48:30 Anyone wishing to address council, item 47?
09:48:33 Item 47?
09:48:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
09:48:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:48:37 (Motion carried).
09:48:38 >>MARY MULHERN: I'll read this one.
09:48:43 I move an ordinance being presented for second
09:48:45 reading, an ordinance approving a special use permit
09:48:48 S-1 on appeal from a decision of the zoning
09:48:50 administrator, approving an extended family residence
09:48:54 in an RS-50 residential single family zoning district
09:48:58 in the city of Tampa, Florida and as more particularly
09:49:01 described in section 1 hereof approving waivers as set
09:49:03 forth herein providing an effective date.
09:49:05 >> Seconded by councilman Miranda.
09:49:09 Record your vote.
09:49:20 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:49:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 48 cannot be heard.
09:49:25 Item 49.
09:49:26 Anyone wishing to address council on item 49?
09:49:28 Anyone wishing to address council on item 49?
09:49:31 >> Move to close.
09:49:33 >> Second.
09:49:34 (Motion carried).
09:49:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Mr. Dingfelder.
09:49:38 Councilman Caetano, item 49.
09:49:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance being presented for
09:49:43 second reading, an ordinance approving a special use
09:49:45 permit S-2 approving a place of religious assembly in
09:49:49 an RS-50 residential single-family zoning district in
09:49:53 the general vicinity of 7602 north Orleans Avenue in
09:49:57 the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
09:49:59 described in section 1 hereof, approving waivers as
09:50:02 set forth herein, providing an effective date.
09:50:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded by
09:50:07 Councilwoman Mulhern.
09:50:08 All in favor, record your vote.
09:50:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:50:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 50.
09:50:22 Anyone wishing to address council on item 50?
09:50:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
09:50:26 >> Second.
09:50:27 (Motion carried).
09:50:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 50.
09:50:28 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
09:50:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to move the following
09:50:31 ordinance upon second reading.
09:50:33 An ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 for
09:50:36 alcoholic beverage sales, small venue and making
09:50:39 lawful the sale of beverages containing alcohol of
09:50:41 more than 1% by weight and not more than 14% by weight
09:50:45 and wines regardless of alcoholic content, beer and
09:50:48 wine, 2(COP), for consumption on premises and in
09:50:51 sealed containers for consumption off premises at or
09:50:54 from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
09:50:58 at 2616 South MacDill Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more
09:51:03 particularly described in section 2 hereof, approving
09:51:05 waivers as set forth herein, waiving certain
09:51:08 restrictions as to distance based upon certain
09:51:11 findings, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
09:51:14 conflict, providing an effective date.
09:51:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
09:51:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
09:51:19 I have voted no on this at first hearing as well as
09:51:22 the companion rezoning, item 53, and I have given it
09:51:30 some consideration, and I think the reason I voted no
09:51:32 originally was because I was annoyed with the city
09:51:34 administration for selling off the little fire house
09:51:38 that is part of this project for a parking lot,
09:51:40 because originally I had been discussing with the
09:51:42 administration about the use of that fire house as a
09:51:45 community center. Anyway, I realize that I'll
09:51:50 continue to be annoyed with the administration about
09:51:52 However, I shouldn't hold that against this project.
09:51:54 And with that said, I think it's a nice little
09:51:57 This is Dat's Deli on MacDill Avenue.
09:52:02 I think if somebody is going to go there and plunk
09:52:05 down a million dollars to open up a new business, it
09:52:08 looks like it's going to be a good business and I'll
09:52:10 support it.
09:52:10 >>MARY MULHERN: I voted for the rezoning because I
09:52:16 also think it's going to be -- I mean for the
09:52:19 alcoholic beverage license because I think it is going
09:52:22 to be a great business.
09:52:25 But I did have problems when we get to 53 with the
09:52:29 fact that I don't think the petitioner showed us that
09:52:31 they were going --
09:52:32 Why don't we take that up when we get to that.
09:52:37 Okay, there's a motion and second.
09:52:39 Record your vote.
09:52:45 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:52:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 51.
09:52:50 Anyone wishing to address council on item 51?
09:52:53 >> Move to close.
09:52:54 >> Second.
09:52:54 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the following ordinance for second
09:53:02 reading, an ordinance approving a special use permit
09:53:04 S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, large venue and
09:53:07 making lawful the sale of beverages regardless of
09:53:09 alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-X) for
09:53:12 consumption on premises only at or from that certain
09:53:16 lot, plot or tract of land located at 2302 and 2306
09:53:20 North Howard Avenue, Tampa, Florida, as more
09:53:23 particularly described in section 2 hereof approving
09:53:25 waivers as set forth herein, imposing certain
09:53:29 conditions, providing for repeal of all ordinances in
09:53:31 conflict, providing an effective date.
09:53:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Just need to know location, where
09:53:42 it's at.
09:53:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Your Google map is not working
09:53:47 >>> Out of commission.
09:53:50 It's all on computer.
09:53:53 >>> This is Centro Espanol.
09:53:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: All right.
09:53:58 I got it.
09:53:59 >>CHAIRMAN: Second.
09:54:04 That's okay, Ms. Cole, he got it.
09:54:06 >>> I do need to certain a site plan and get with the
09:54:11 I'll be back with that.
09:54:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Who seconded it?
09:54:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
09:54:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
09:54:21 Record your vote.
09:54:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:54:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 52.
09:54:28 Anyone wishing to address council may come forward.
09:54:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
09:54:34 >> Second.
09:54:35 (Motion carried).
09:54:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll move the following ordinance
09:54:38 upon second reading, an ordinance approving a special
09:54:40 use permit S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, small
09:54:45 venue, and making lawful the sale of beverages
09:54:47 containing alcohol regardless of alcoholic content,
09:54:50 beer, wine and liquor 4(COP-R), for consumption on the
09:54:53 premises only in connection with a restaurant business
09:54:56 establishment at or from that certain plot, plot or
09:54:59 tract of land located at 3035 West Kennedy Boulevard,
09:55:02 Tampa, Florida as more particularly described in
09:55:04 section 2 hereof approving waivers as set forth herein
09:55:07 waiving certain restrictions as to distance based upon
09:55:10 certain finding, providing for repeal of all
09:55:12 ordinances in conflict, providing an effective date.
09:55:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
09:55:20 >> Second.
09:55:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote.
09:55:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
09:55:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 53.
09:55:32 Anyone wishing to address council on item 53?
09:55:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
09:55:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
09:55:38 (Motion carried).
09:55:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.
09:55:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented for
09:55:44 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
09:55:46 general vicinity of 2616 MacDill Avenue and 3008
09:55:50 west Barcelona street in the city of Tampa, Florida
09:55:52 and more particularly described in section 1 from
09:55:55 zoning district classifications CI commercial
09:55:58 intensive to PD planned development, restaurant,
09:56:01 retail, principal parking-commercial, providing an
09:56:04 effective date.
09:56:07 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to say that I am going
09:56:09 to vote no on the rezoning only because I didn't --
09:56:13 there were two immediate neighbors that are already
09:56:16 having trouble with the parking situation, and I don't
09:56:18 think it was really addressed.
09:56:20 I do think this is going to be a wonderful business.
09:56:24 I understand it's based on one of my favorite
09:56:26 restaurants in Ann Arbor.
09:56:29 And I wish them luck but I hope that they will work
09:56:32 with those two neighbors to make sure that there
09:56:35 aren't parking problems in the future.
09:56:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote.
09:56:38 It's been moved and seconded.
09:56:47 >>THE CLERK: The motion carried with Mulhern voting
09:56:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Item 54.
09:56:52 Anyone wish to address council on item 54?
09:57:09 >>> Susan long.
09:57:10 I'm president of the Old Seminole Heights neighborhood
09:57:12 I live at 921 east broad street and I was sworn.
09:57:15 First I would like to preface this by stating Old
09:57:19 Seminole Heights, southeast Seminole Heights and south
09:57:22 Seminole Heights have joined together and formed one
09:57:24 land use committee.
09:57:26 Unfortunately, in this particular case, the letters
09:57:29 that he would sent to City Council came out on Old
09:57:33 Seminole Heights neighborhood association but they are
09:57:35 from the three neighborhoods combined land use
09:57:38 All decisions are made by all three neighborhood
09:57:40 In this particular case we met, invited the applicant
09:57:44 to come to our meeting, present his position, and
09:57:46 nobody showed up.
09:57:49 We discussed it with the information available to us.
09:57:52 And we wrote a letter to City Council which should
09:57:54 have been in your file two weeks ago during the first
09:57:56 However, it's my understanding since I was out of town
09:57:59 at the time that it was never read into the record,
09:58:01 contrary to our request, and I don't know if it made
09:58:05 your folders or not, but never acknowledged.
09:58:08 So I would like to read it into the record.
09:58:10 Dear council members, Mr. Francisco's request for
09:58:15 2(APS) wet zoning and rezoning to PD were on the
09:58:17 agenda and discussed at our most recent land use
09:58:20 committee on June 30, 2008.
09:58:22 At this meeting several committee members expressed
09:58:25 opposition to a wet zoning permit being granted for
09:58:27 this location.
09:58:28 The main reasons cited were the pretty is
09:58:34 approximately 250 feet from a church and a wet zoning
09:58:36 won't be conducive in an area that is already
09:58:38 experiencing a three you're trend of increased crime
09:58:41 as illustrated in TPD's comments on this case.
09:58:43 After extensive discussion, the land use committee
09:58:46 unanimously voted to oppose this petition.
09:58:48 The committee is composed of representatives from all
09:58:51 three neighborhoods that make up Seminole Heights.
09:58:53 Signed, Chad Daughtry, chairman of the land use
09:58:57 I would like to submit this into the record.
09:58:58 We were very concerned, since at that particular point
09:59:02 in time we did not have people who could come in the
09:59:05 middle of the day to this meeting, and we sent in the
09:59:07 requesting it be placed in the file and read into the
09:59:09 record and it's our understanding since nobody was
09:59:11 here that it was never read into the record and never
09:59:13 considered and that kind of bothered us.
09:59:18 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to set the record
09:59:21 straight a little bit, that I did refer to this
09:59:23 letter, and I didn't know that you were -- it was
09:59:26 representing all three neighborhoods, but I also
09:59:29 invited people into my office to look at the
09:59:32 neighborhood map to see that this property -- I think
09:59:37 it is in the middle of Old Seminole Heights.
09:59:40 >>> I believe it's southeast.
09:59:41 Just south of Hillsborough.
09:59:45 >>MARY MULHERN: And which I stated in the meeting --
09:59:48 and I did vote against the beverage license -- was
09:59:52 that it looked like we did have a letter on file from
09:59:56 that neighborhood against it where the property was.
10:00:02 So I did point it out.
10:00:03 I did not read it out loud but it was pointed out to
10:00:06 >>> Thank you.
10:00:09 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land development.
10:00:12 I did present the wet zoning that night and I do
10:00:14 believe that I did provide a copy to each of you of
10:00:16 the letter at the time of the hearing.
10:00:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:00:21 Anyone else?
10:00:23 >>> Francisco.
10:00:25 I have been sworn.
10:00:26 To clarify some things, we did send the letters to her
10:00:32 association and for the record we submitted 50 letters
10:00:35 of support from adjacent neighbors, even the church's
10:00:38 And to clarify some things about the homeowners
10:00:41 association, I was given the list of three people to
10:00:43 call, one in East Tampa, and the president of that
10:00:47 association's name is mark Hamberg, East Tampa
10:00:54 And he basically had a meeting concerning this
10:00:58 And I said, should I be presented?
10:01:00 He said, no, I can handle this.
10:01:01 He had a special meeting.
10:01:02 And he said there was no opposition but there was no
10:01:05 If you had letters from neighbors supporting your
10:01:07 petition, good luck to you.
10:01:10 And he knows the situation.
10:01:12 He knows the ministers.
10:01:16 I'm not sure if you know Sherri Genbar from Seminole
10:01:22 Heights association.
10:01:23 I spoke to her yesterday, I called her, same thing,
10:01:27 she said I have no opposition, and I had the e-mail
10:01:31 from our last hearing from Beverly -- and she said
10:01:37 she's a past president.
10:01:40 I emailed her for the past two weeks, never specified
10:01:43 a response.
10:01:44 I definitely wanted to talk to her.
10:01:46 That's why I called back Sherri from Seminole Heights
10:01:48 and she said she will give me a call back if there was
10:01:52 any concern.
10:01:53 I called back an hour later and she said -- didn't
10:01:57 return my phone call so basically I have 50 letters of
10:02:00 support from neighbors next door.
10:02:02 We have been doing this for over a year, going door to
10:02:07 Every single resident by first name, and basically
10:02:10 most of them don't have access to come to the meeting
10:02:14 Most of them don't have transportation.
10:02:15 So that's why we have certified letters stating their
10:02:18 support for our project.
10:02:19 And we have one of the ministers here from the church,
10:02:24 he's in support of it.
10:02:25 So I feel that basically, we have done our job to get
10:02:29 this approved.
10:02:32 Thank you.
10:02:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
10:02:35 What are the current hours of operation of the store?
10:02:37 And are you going to continue those same hours?
10:02:46 >>> Robert SAGA.
10:02:49 It is from 8 p.m. until 8 p.m.
10:02:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Seven days a week?
10:02:53 >>> Yes, sir.
10:02:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I have a question for Ms. Long.
10:03:00 Thank you, sir.
10:03:05 Susan, I'm going to assume that the neighborhood is
10:03:09 fine with a little store being there, and it's been
10:03:11 there forever, is my understanding, but the concern is
10:03:15 now that it might be a bore and wine package store.
10:03:21 The gentleman mentioned hours of operation, 8 to 8.
10:03:25 Seven days a week.
10:03:26 Does that make any difference to the neighborhood, to
10:03:29 try to constrain them to those hours, in the
10:03:33 Or, I mean, short of disapproving it completely, which
10:03:39 I know is probably your druthers, is there any desire
10:03:42 as related to the hours?
10:03:44 Do you have concern about if they went to later hours
10:03:47 at a future date or anything?
10:03:48 >>> Our concern wasn't the convenience store.
10:03:52 It's been there as you stated forever and nobody was
10:03:54 unhappy with it.
10:03:55 Our concern was the wet zoning.
10:03:58 The rise in crime.
10:04:00 The hours 8 to 8 are perfectly acceptable to us.
10:04:03 When they start running midnight to one, then we have
10:04:06 As long as they have reasonable hours.
10:04:08 We have concerns to the wet zoning, not the
10:04:12 convenience store.
10:04:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
10:04:14 Mr. Chairman, I think I was a little confused on the
10:04:17 jurisdictions of the various neighborhood
10:04:19 associations, because they are all a little confusing
10:04:22 over in that neck of the woods.
10:04:25 But the neighborhood does seem to have some strong
10:04:28 concerns about a little package operation, but at the
10:04:30 same time, I think we all want to see the little store
10:04:36 I would probably feel more comfortable -- and I know
10:04:38 this is second reading, they have to modify this to be
10:04:41 first reading, but I feel more comfortable if we
10:04:44 amended the ordinance to include the limitation on the
10:04:46 hours to go -- to limit it from eight to eight search
10:04:51 days a week, so that way, in the future, when these
10:04:55 nice gentlemen are gone and somebody else says, let's
10:04:59 keep it open till midnight, they can't.
10:05:03 Because I don't think -- I think eight to eight is
10:05:05 appropriate for a neighborhood, but I think later
10:05:07 might not be.
10:05:08 So I realize it's an inconvenience.
10:05:13 You have been working on it for a year.
10:05:14 You can probably hold out another two weeks.
10:05:16 But I think if we could ask staff to modify that,
10:05:20 bring it back to us.
10:05:22 Do we have an afternoon meeting?
10:05:23 Bring it back to us this afternoon with an amendment
10:05:25 for first reading with a limit limitation on eight oh
10:05:28 eight seven days a week and then I would feel
10:05:31 I'm just one out of seven.
10:05:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me hear from the attorney on this.
10:05:38 So you have to go back to first reading if it eight to
10:05:41 >>> Yes, would you, because it would change the title.
10:05:43 We can have it back down by today.
10:05:45 It would have to go back to first reading.
10:05:47 But the applicant would need to agree to the
10:05:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Then second reading would be two
10:05:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Applicant, do you agree to adding the
10:05:55 eight to eight?
10:05:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll second that.
10:06:08 >>> So bring it back in the afternoon at 1:30.
10:06:11 Britt up first at 1:30.
10:06:14 With the amendment.
10:06:16 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
10:06:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you for your accommodation.
10:06:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That was item 354.
10:06:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I do
10:06:35 have a map in my office and it's quite clear what
10:06:38 neighborhood this is in, and if anyone would like to
10:06:42 look at that.
10:06:43 I think the adjoining and neighborhood that this is in
10:06:47 were represented by Ms. Long, and the three different
10:06:51 So I just want it to be on the record.
10:06:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 55.
10:06:56 Anyone who wishes to address council on item 55?
10:06:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
10:07:03 >> Second.
10:07:03 (Motion carried).
10:07:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance presented for
10:07:09 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
10:07:11 general vicinity of 4215 north 15th street in the
10:07:14 city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described
10:07:16 in section 1 from zoning district classifications
10:07:19 RS-50 residential single-family to PD planned
10:07:23 development, retail grocery, providing an effective
10:07:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
10:07:31 Record your vote.
10:07:40 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:07:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 56.
10:07:45 Anyone wishing to address council on item 56?
10:07:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
10:07:51 >> Second.
10:07:51 (Motion carried).
10:07:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance on
10:07:57 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
10:08:00 general vicinity of 3030 west Dr. Martin Luther King
10:08:04 Jr. Boulevard and 4220 north Gomez Avenue in the city
10:08:08 of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in
10:08:10 section 1 from zoning district classifications PD
10:08:13 planned development, hospital, and medical office, to
10:08:16 PD, planned development, hospital expansion, providing
10:08:18 an effective date.
10:08:20 I should have let Charlie read that one.
10:08:21 >> Second.
10:08:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Record your vote.
10:08:29 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:08:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 57.
10:08:31 Anyone wish to address council on item 57?
10:08:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
10:08:39 >> Second.
10:08:40 (Motion carried).
10:08:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller.
10:08:46 >>GWEN MILLER: I move an ordinance to be adopted for
10:08:50 second reading, an ordinance rezoning property in the
10:08:52 general vicinity of 201, 217 South Dale Mabry Highway,
10:08:56 in the city of Tampa, Florida and more particularly
10:08:58 described in section 1 from zoning district
10:09:00 classifications CG commercial general to PD planned
10:09:03 development, restaurant, row tail, providing an
10:09:06 effective date.
10:09:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
10:09:12 Record your vote.
10:09:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
10:09:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 58.
10:09:27 Anyone wish to address council on item 58?
10:09:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to close.
10:09:33 >> Second.
10:09:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
10:09:35 (Motion carried).
10:09:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'd like to move the following
10:09:41 ordinance for second reading and adoption, an
10:09:44 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
10:09:46 1403 North Howard Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida
10:09:49 and more particularly described in section 1 from
10:09:52 zoning district classifications PD, planned
10:09:55 development, business, professional office, walk-in
10:09:59 bank, medical office, pharmacy, special retail,
10:10:01 residential, to PD, planned development,
10:10:04 business/professional office, walk-in bank, medical
10:10:07 office, pharmacy, specialty retail, residential,
10:10:10 school, business, trade, vocational, college,
10:10:14 university, providing an effective date.
10:10:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Caetano.
10:10:18 Record your vote, please.
10:10:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no.
10:10:48 >> You switched over on number 58.
10:10:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
10:10:52 Item 59.
10:10:54 Been removed, right?
10:10:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Can I hear a motion, please?
10:10:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
10:10:58 >> Second.
10:10:58 (Motion carried).
10:10:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 60.
10:11:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That needs to be opened and
10:11:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
10:11:09 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
10:11:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second to open.
10:11:11 (Motion carried).
10:11:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to continue to October
10:11:15 16th at 9:30 in the morning.
10:11:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Mulhern.
10:11:21 (Motion carried).
10:11:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move item 61 to open.
10:11:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
10:11:34 (Motion carried).
10:11:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to continue the public hearing
10:11:39 to October 16th at 9:30 in the morning.
10:11:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded by
10:11:44 councilman Dingfelder.
10:11:44 (Motion carried).
10:11:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
10:11:53 We do have staff items at 10:30.
10:11:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, two things.
10:11:59 Number one is with regard to item 62, the closed
10:12:03 public hearing, I would recommend you take that after
10:12:06 With regards to the remaining items, even though they
10:12:07 are time certain, if council does want to advance them
10:12:11 we could ask staff, with Mr. Miranda here.
10:12:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 62 -- well, let's take up new
10:12:24 business real quick and then go to these items because
10:12:27 Councilwoman Mulhern be here this arch.
10:12:30 So I said we would try to work it in.
10:12:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I have several items of new business.
10:12:35 One, I'd like to schedule a special discussion meeting
10:12:40 on October 23rd at 1:30 p.m. to discuss community
10:12:49 supported agriculture known as urban agriculture,
10:12:53 urban gardening.
10:12:54 There's been a lot of discussion in the community, a
10:12:59 little bit on council, several, you know, some on
10:13:02 staff, some in the CRA districts about this.
10:13:07 It's kind of what's happening in response to the cost
10:13:13 of food, the safety of food, the cost of fuel for
10:13:19 shipping, and a lot of communities, a lot of cities,
10:13:25 including Sarasota and St. Pete and a lot of other
10:13:29 cities in Florida, are starting to promote community
10:13:33 So I just want to have a discussion about it.
10:13:35 I want to invite people from other communities that
10:13:39 are already doing this, invite our staff, including
10:13:46 Cindy Miller and Thom Snelling and Lauralee from the
10:13:51 growth management and development services, and our
10:13:53 Parks Department people who I know are looking into
10:13:55 this, too, Santiago Corrada, Karen Palus, and also our
10:14:02 CRA, Mark Huey, and any of his directors that he would
10:14:05 like to have, and especially Ed Johnson who is looking
10:14:08 into this in East Tampa.
10:14:10 And the East Tampa CRA advisory people, any of them
10:14:18 who can manage to be here on that day.
10:14:20 And it's a special discussion meeting.
10:14:21 So we can hold it here.
10:14:23 It's on a Thursday so we should be able to hold it
10:14:25 here in chambers.
10:14:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A second are?
10:14:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have a day?
10:14:35 >> We have a workshop that morning.
10:14:36 We have a evening zoning meeting.
10:14:39 >>MARY MULHERN: So it would be at 1:30 in between our
10:14:45 morning meeting and our night meeting.
10:14:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:14:54 And I would like to speak to it.
10:14:56 This issue of creating a truly sustainable community
10:14:59 is so timely.
10:15:00 There's a big discussion that's taking place in
10:15:02 November called the sustainable design assessment team
10:15:06 those come here as part of the urban charrette,
10:15:09 getting neighborhoods involved.
10:15:10 The idea is that it's so much more sensible for us to
10:15:13 grow food locally, if we can, and to empower people to
10:15:18 do it using perhaps vacant land, you know, land that
10:15:21 is currently -- making it a bread basket, and it's
10:15:28 something that despite the -- not mosquitoes but the
10:15:32 in60s in Florida is something that we can as
10:15:35 evidenced by the tremendous agricultural industries
10:15:38 outside the city.
10:15:39 But in the city we need to address this issue so I
10:15:43 really want to compliment you on your initiative, and
10:15:45 I will be here for that.
10:15:47 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
10:15:49 There's just a lot of synergy.
10:15:51 I hear everyone talking about this and --
10:15:54 Okay, there's a motion, moved and seconded.
10:15:56 (Motion carried).
10:15:59 So October 23rd at 1:30.
10:16:01 >>MARY MULHERN: Secondly -- and this is related -- I
10:16:04 would like to request -- and I brought this up before
10:16:07 but I want to specifically request the administration
10:16:11 provide council with those maps and lists that are
10:16:15 available showing undeveloped city-owned lots.
10:16:20 And I would like to have those by October 15th,
10:16:23 which would give us a week before the special
10:16:27 discussion meeting on community gardens.
10:16:29 So I'm not asking them to do any extra work.
10:16:33 I just want them to provide whatever maps they have
10:16:37 available at this time.
10:16:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:16:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
10:16:46 (Motion carried).
10:16:48 >>MARY MULHERN: I am going to keep going.
10:16:50 Thirdly, I would like to schedule a special discussion
10:16:52 meeting, another one, but this one on November
10:16:55 13th at 1:30, to discuss transfer of development
10:17:03 right in the context of demolition by neglect.
10:17:05 I know that Councilwoman Saul-Sena has been doing a
10:17:09 lot of work on the demolition by neglect ordinance.
10:17:13 I have been looking into TDRs, and our legal staff
10:17:18 has been looking into those for, you know, over a
10:17:21 year, so we have been talking about it.
10:17:23 So I would like to have a special discussion meeting
10:17:25 so that we can ask that Dennis Fernandez and Julia
10:17:29 Cole, Martin Shelby, and the AIA Heritage Committee,
10:17:37 including Laura Lockett and Gus Paris, because they
10:17:41 have been working on drafts, they have lots of
10:17:43 examples they can share with us in both these cases,
10:17:46 and I think that it would be good to have a discussion
10:17:49 to get all the information in front of us before we
10:17:53 finalize those ordinances that we are working on.
10:17:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:17:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would that be taking place in
10:18:02 chambers, council chambers?
10:18:03 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
10:18:04 And did I say November 13th at 1:30?
10:18:08 >> Yes.
10:18:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor?
10:18:11 (Motion carried).
10:18:12 >>MARY MULHERN: One more thing.
10:18:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is that the last one?
10:18:15 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, this is it.
10:18:17 It's all kind of related.
10:18:19 I want to ask for a staff report on October 16th,
10:18:23 which is in two weeks, on the steps that the city is
10:18:29 taking towards becoming a certified green city.
10:18:32 And this could be from Thom Snelling or from Cynthia
10:18:37 Miller, either one.
10:18:38 I know we have been discussing this for quite awhile.
10:18:41 And I just want an update.
10:18:43 I know they are working very hard on getting us
10:18:47 I just don't know where they are with it right now.
10:18:50 >>MARTIN SHELBY: To refresh council's recollection.
10:18:54 There is a workshop scheduled on October 23rd at
10:18:56 9:15, for a report on the status of the city's green
10:19:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
10:19:02 Never mind.
10:19:03 That's fine.
10:19:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, is that it?
10:19:05 >>MARY MULHERN: But I want to make sure that
10:19:07 included -- let me just add to that, that specifically
10:19:10 I want a report on where we are in the green cities,
10:19:12 which is Florida, I think, green building council
10:19:17 assessment specific.
10:19:20 It not just generically put on green initiative.
10:19:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Your motion is to add that to the
10:19:30 >>MARY MULHERN: On the 23rd.
10:19:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
10:19:33 (Motion carried).
10:19:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: On that date, showing the world I
10:19:37 want to lead by example, I will bring the last six
10:19:40 months in electric bills and water bills for electric.
10:19:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you for sharing, Mr. Miranda.
10:19:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Saul-Sena.
10:19:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
10:19:49 Council members, I'm passing out an e-mail that was
10:19:54 sent to all of us from T.H.A.N.'s president Walter
10:19:58 Johnson, and a request based on that.
10:20:01 Mr. Johnson sent us some e-mails to all the council
10:20:06 members, and the mayor, requesting that the Public
10:20:09 Service Commission not support the request from TECO
10:20:21 for a rate increase, and at the August 13th
10:20:25 meeting, T.H.A.N. by unanimous vote respectfully
10:20:27 requests that Tampa City Council and the mayor lobby
10:20:29 to prevent this proposed rate increase by TECO on
10:20:32 Tampa's citizens.
10:20:34 T.H.A.N. has also sent a letter to the PSC requesting
10:20:37 they deny TECO's rate increase.
10:20:39 According to our own web site TECO is requesting a
10:20:43 rate increase of $228 million for typical commercial
10:20:47 and industrial use customers.
10:20:50 The request for the increase will be from 7.5 to 11%
10:20:54 higher, residential customer rate increase -- current
10:20:58 bill, rather, of $114 per month will increase to $140
10:21:04 to 150 a month, more than a 30% increase.
10:21:07 While TECO has not pushed for a rate increase in years
10:21:10 the magnitude of this increase will be harmful.
10:21:13 The impact of these increases are cumulative on our
10:21:17 The increases will significantly impact the city's
10:21:19 operations and our local businesses and industries,
10:21:22 hospitals, schools will be forced to cut back or pass
10:21:26 on higher costs to residents and the like.
10:21:28 We must listen closely to the concerns of our
10:21:31 constituents and fully understand the impact on our
10:21:34 local economy.
10:21:35 We owe it to our citizens to take a comprehensive look
10:21:38 at ideas from other cities and utilities that are
10:21:40 addressing these issues and compare those instances to
10:21:44 TECO's proposed increase in program.
10:21:47 Additionally, TECO is reliant on Cole, fossil fuel,
10:21:53 which is faced with increased costs and regulations.
10:21:56 I propose the following resolution.
10:21:58 In this tumultuous economic time Tampa City Council
10:22:02 strongly requests the Public Service Commission deny
10:22:04 the rate increase until a detailed independent
10:22:08 analysis of Teco's current and proposed operational
10:22:09 plan be conducted with a specific look at Teco energy
10:22:11 efficiency and conservation program and adoption of
10:22:14 renewable energy sources.
10:22:17 We could vote on this proposed resolution at our Tampa
10:22:19 City Council meeting of October 16th under staff
10:22:26 Create it as a resolution and then discuss it.
10:22:28 The PST is everything a meeting in Tampa on the
10:22:33 City Council cannot tell the PSC what to do, but just
10:22:38 as we supported this protocol many years ago we can
10:22:42 symbolically ask the PSC to consider us as
10:22:45 representatives of our constituents.
10:22:47 And I think this would be appropriate for us to do.
10:22:50 I feel that T.H.A.N. represents over 60 neighborhoods,
10:22:56 really the grassroots organization that represents the
10:22:57 concerns of our constituents.
10:22:59 And while the PSC might not understand what
10:23:04 significant representation of our neighborhoods
10:23:06 T.H.A.N. is, I know they would recognize City Council
10:23:11 concerns being stated to them on behalf of our
10:23:15 So what I would like to do is make a motion that we
10:23:18 consider the proposed resolution in this memo at our
10:23:23 meeting of October 16th under staff reports.
10:23:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
10:23:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think, Ms. Saul-Sena, I'm glad
10:23:34 you brought this up.
10:23:35 This is something we have been hearing from many of
10:23:37 our constituents about the TECO rate increase.
10:23:43 Personally, I think we are all concerned, and more
10:23:46 concerned for our constituents as well as the
10:23:48 commercial customers.
10:23:53 What I would like to do, I don't know enough about it.
10:23:58 And I think that's wise and prudent.
10:24:01 And what I would like to do is invite our constituents
10:24:03 to come speak to us on the issue in terms of giving us
10:24:07 their feelings.
10:24:08 But I would also like to invite TECO to come and share
10:24:11 with us their justification.
10:24:15 I'm not going to go and be attending necessarily
10:24:18 Public Service Commission, you know, hearings in
10:24:22 Tallahassee or anything like that, but I think that
10:24:24 TECO could come here as they often do on many issues,
10:24:28 and voluntarily, and come and explain to us why they
10:24:31 believe that they deserve a rate increase.
10:24:34 We can hear them out.
10:24:35 We can hear from our constituents.
10:24:37 And then we can decide on whether or not we think
10:24:43 their arguments justify an increase or not.
10:24:49 I think it's worth a half hour discussion on council's
10:24:53 part, because I think it's a very important issue.
10:24:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, here again, I agree
10:25:01 with what's been said.
10:25:02 However, I'm not the Public Service Commission.
10:25:04 I don't know what guidelines.
10:25:05 I would assume that these good folks do analysis and
10:25:11 independent report of what the costs are.
10:25:13 You know, the airlines now charge you for the first
10:25:20 bag and second bag and we didn't get involved in that
10:25:23 The automobile industry, we didn't get involved in
10:25:25 that either.
10:25:26 What I'm saying is we as first citizens -- forget
10:25:29 about being elected officials.
10:25:31 It is up to each and every individual in the whole
10:25:34 That's why we are in trouble.
10:25:36 That's why we are in trouble.
10:25:37 We charge and get more, and want more, and continue to
10:25:41 do things, and you have greed on the other side that
10:25:44 accepts all this greed.
10:25:46 What I'm saying is it's up to us.
10:25:48 You know, we don't live in a log cabin anymore.
10:25:52 There's things called air conditioning.
10:25:53 There's things called automobiles.
10:25:55 Some fortunate, some unfortunate.
10:25:57 But what I'm saying is, I can't be everything for
10:26:01 And I agree with Mr. Johnson.
10:26:03 However, I am not the Public Service Commission.
10:26:06 We are only going to have a one-sided issue talk here,
10:26:09 the Public Service Commission is not going to have a
10:26:11 representative here to explain why.
10:26:13 You have an applicant.
10:26:14 And rightly so, somebody discussing it.
10:26:17 But the folks who are going to make this decision is
10:26:19 not TECO, it's not us, and it's not the public.
10:26:22 It's the Public Service Commission.
10:26:24 And they will not be present.
10:26:26 And I don't think we have the authority to ask them to
10:26:28 be present.
10:26:29 So what I'm saying is, I cannot get involved in
10:26:32 everything that everybody wants us to fix.
10:26:35 I can't fix everything.
10:26:36 And I'll be the first one to say, rates too high, yes.
10:26:41 But I don't know what it's costing TECO. Maybe
10:26:43 they'll explain and explain why the costs are.
10:26:45 I don't know what they have done.
10:26:48 Wholeheartedly to spend a lot of money to make it more
10:26:52 green, more acceptable, in today's society.
10:26:54 And I agree with all that that's been said.
10:26:56 However, I cannot get involved in changing the
10:27:01 structure of something I don't know anything about.
10:27:04 I certainly don't do that trot trains, I don't do that
10:27:09 to the planes, I don't do that to anyone else.
10:27:11 Let me warn you that in years to come, the water rates
10:27:16 will really get high.
10:27:18 I can tell you that right-of-way now.
10:27:20 And it's not far away.
10:27:21 It within three or four or five years.
10:27:23 So I'm just explaining.
10:27:25 And then there we can discuss it.
10:27:26 But I'm not opposed to having a meeting.
10:27:29 I'm not opposed to discussing this.
10:27:30 But the public has got to understand that I have no
10:27:33 power to tell TECO or the Public Service Commission
10:27:37 what happens.
10:27:39 That's all.
10:27:39 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I believe that the reasons that
10:27:43 there's a public hearing scheduled is because the
10:27:45 Public Service Commission wants to hear from the
10:27:50 Because this is of such great import to our city, I
10:27:53 would like to take into consideration the points that
10:27:55 Mr. Dingfelder raised and suggest that we schedule
10:27:58 this on the 16th from 11:00 to 11:30, we get Tampa
10:28:04 Electric Company to come and ten minutes to speak,
10:28:07 public ten minutes and then City Council for ten
10:28:10 minutes if we want to adopt a proposed resolution.
10:28:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, let me just ask the question.
10:28:15 You are going to send the resolution, that's number
10:28:17 I have no doubt about it.
10:28:19 You are going to send it.
10:28:21 So then why have the public come and TECO come when
10:28:24 you already know you are going to send the resolution?
10:28:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know that you can pre-judge
10:28:29 You say we are going to send it.
10:28:32 I would like to hear what TECO has to say before I am
10:28:34 going vote to send it or not to send it.
10:28:36 So if you know something about votes up here that I
10:28:40 don't know --
10:28:42 Well, what she's asking for now is the resolution to
10:28:47 be drafted.
10:28:48 Is that right?
10:28:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Actually, I kind of drafted it.
10:28:52 [ Laughter ]
10:28:53 I wanted to save time so we could think about it for
10:28:56 two weeks and hear back from constituents and then
10:28:58 discuss it on the 16th.
10:29:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But you just said in your earlier
10:29:03 presentation, T.H.A.N. represents over 60 communities
10:29:06 and neighborhoods and all that.
10:29:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, yes, yes.
10:29:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You just said that.
10:29:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I did.
10:29:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And by virtue of that we should move
10:29:13 and act on their behalf.
10:29:15 That was your argument.
10:29:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And it doesn't fly with me because
10:29:18 to me I need to hear the evidence.
10:29:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But the other side of that, then I'll
10:29:23 recognize you, the other side, at the end of the day,
10:29:26 after we hear all the evidence, you don't know V a
10:29:31 decision of the PSC.
10:29:32 You don't have a decision.
10:29:34 To me it's more logical to go ahead and vote and send
10:29:37 it over to the PSC that we support not raising the
10:29:41 That's more logical.
10:29:42 I don't have a problem with that.
10:29:44 What I have a problem is having a full-blown hearing
10:29:46 when you are not the decision maker.
10:29:48 >> Gotcha.
10:29:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's all I'm saying.
10:29:53 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Chairman, that's what I'm saying,
10:29:56 sitting here listening to TECO and listening to the
10:29:59 public because TECO has made up their mind already to
10:30:02 put an application to do this and it has been
10:30:05 I don't think TECO is going to change their mind.
10:30:07 We can't change the public service mind either.
10:30:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can.
10:30:12 >>GWEN MILLER: I don't think.
10:30:13 They have already made their decision.
10:30:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They haven't made a decision.
10:30:16 That's why they are having a public hearing.
10:30:19 >>GWEN MILLER: But we sit here listen to the public
10:30:21 speak and you are going to do the resolution for them
10:30:23 anyway, we know what they are going to say, and you
10:30:26 have already written something you know what they are
10:30:27 going to say, why are we going to sit here and listen
10:30:29 to what they say again?
10:30:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda --
10:30:35 >>MARY MULHERN: And actually ask Councilwoman
10:30:38 Saul-Sena, is this what T.H.A.N. wants to have us have
10:30:41 a discussion, a public discussion at a council
10:30:44 If they want to come here and speak, I think we should
10:30:47 listen to them.
10:30:48 And I think that there's a difference between sending
10:30:51 a memo and having a public hearing that's televised
10:30:54 and attended by the press, where you may get -- the
10:31:00 public may be -- their feelings may be amplified, and
10:31:04 also give TECO an opportunity to present their case.
10:31:07 So I'm all in favor of hearing from the public,
10:31:11 especially from the volunteers that represent their
10:31:16 Unless you think that they don't want that.
10:31:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: They would prefer to have the
10:31:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Than wasn't a part of your motion.
10:31:24 That was not part of your motion originally.
10:31:27 Okay, councilman Miranda.
10:31:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I agree with what you said.
10:31:30 I certainly got elected by the people, not by TECO.
10:31:32 Let me say that.
10:31:33 But I'm going to tell you, it's not only TECO, it's
10:31:36 Progress Energy, it's every supplier of electricity in
10:31:40 the country.
10:31:42 When the price of gas in 1940 was 11 cents, and now
10:31:45 it's right at $4, did we stop them from raising it at
10:31:50 Did we have a public hearing for $4?
10:31:53 We don't guide that.
10:31:54 What I'm saying is we are going way beyond our scope.
10:31:57 Those are federal things in a lot of ways, and they
10:32:00 can't even solve that problem.
10:32:01 So we are going, instead of from the bottom down, we
10:32:05 are going from the top up, we are going to change the
10:32:07 I can't solve the world's problems.
10:32:09 I admit to that.
10:32:10 But what I'm saying is, anyone can come at any time on
10:32:15 this chamber and speak no matter what the subject on
10:32:20 or off the agenda.
10:32:21 So we have never, ever precluded anyone from speaking
10:32:25 about any subject that they want.
10:32:27 They could come today, they can come next week, sir.
10:32:30 They can come the following week, without anything.
10:32:33 I'm willing to pass a resolution today.
10:32:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Me, too.
10:32:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: But to have a debate on something
10:32:40 we have nothing to -- our vote is not going to make a
10:32:44 difference, because however they see it, however they
10:32:46 read it, those are the people that are in the Public
10:32:48 Service Commission, not us.
10:32:50 I'm willing to vote on that item today, and those good
10:32:55 people can come here and speak anytime they want on
10:32:58 the same item.
10:32:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I agree.
10:33:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am agreeing with them, but I'm
10:33:02 disagreeing in the mythology in which we are getting
10:33:05 involved in things we have no jurisdiction on, and I'm
10:33:08 willing to support the resolution.
10:33:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:33:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: T.H.A.N. can -- T.H.A.N. can have
10:33:17 letter head.
10:33:18 They can write the let directly to the PSC without our
10:33:23 To me that's not the big issue.
10:33:25 And if it's a local hearing I'm sure they'll send a
10:33:28 lot of people, and those all fine and good.
10:33:30 The City of Tampa is probably TECO's largest or one of
10:33:34 the largest customers TECO has.
10:33:36 I think I saw a memo from Bonnie the other day, we
10:33:40 spent something like $18 million a year on power bills
10:33:44 to TECO, most of which I think is our streetlights,
10:33:48 and various other functions that we do.
10:33:50 >> Which are not green.
10:33:56 >> So I think T.H.A.N. and the neighborhood folks are
10:33:59 customers but we as the City of Tampa are even a
10:34:02 bigger customer.
10:34:03 And when I saw this rate hike come out proposed a
10:34:06 month or so ago, two months ago, whenever it was, I
10:34:09 thought to myself, I wonder what this city/the mayor's
10:34:12 position is going to be in front of the PSC on this
10:34:16 And I haven't seen that.
10:34:17 So that's why I think it's an extremely important
10:34:20 This is not just about T.H.A.N. writing letters, us
10:34:23 writing letters, whatever.
10:34:24 I think the public deserves to hear some of this from
10:34:28 TECO, not in a little closed door, you know, Public
10:34:31 Service Commission, workshop, that's knots going to be
10:34:34 televised, et cetera.
10:34:36 To see it and to watch it and to watch TECO right here
10:34:39 explain why they feel it's justified, to charge the
10:34:42 City of Tampa more, and all the customers more.
10:34:45 I'm sure they are going to get up here and give us
10:34:47 their rationale.
10:34:47 But at the same time we can ask questions.
10:34:50 You know, we can ask the green questions that Linda
10:34:53 suggested, you know, and any other questions that
10:34:55 council wants.
10:34:57 I think it's extremely important.
10:34:59 And I don't know how to bust this up into a separate
10:35:02 motion, but I don't know if Linda has a motion on the
10:35:06 floor or what.
10:35:07 But I would like for us to schedule this on the
10:35:12 16th, to invite TECO, to satisfy the 30 minutes as
10:35:20 Linda identified.
10:35:21 What's more important we are doing that morning than
10:35:25 on this issue?
10:35:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I would ask then -- you made the
10:35:28 original motion for the resolution.
10:35:33 He's adding to that --
10:35:36 >>MARY MULHERN: She made a motion.
10:35:37 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I made a motion to put it on the
10:35:38 agenda, on the 16th, at 11:00 to discuss the
10:35:42 And I suggested ten minutes, the public has ten
10:35:45 minutes, and we can have ten minutes for council.
10:35:47 >> Second.
10:35:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm going to tell you from my
10:35:51 standpoint I am going to vote no.
10:35:52 If you want to have a resolution I'll support that.
10:35:54 But I am not going to support here bringing TECO,
10:35:57 bringing the public here, when we don't have -- we are
10:36:01 not the decision makers on that issue.
10:36:07 But the mayor is going to be the one addressing it, is
10:36:10 that right? Under the charter --
10:36:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I called our city attorney on this
10:36:14 point, Mr. Chairman, to ask him if we could have a
10:36:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Pardon me?
10:36:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I called the city attorney
10:36:20 yesterday to tell him I'm interested in doing this.
10:36:22 And I asked him what council's role could be.
10:36:24 He said City Council, as a policy-setting board, can
10:36:29 encourage this as a policy.
10:36:33 So we have a role.
10:36:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:36:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We can't do it as lobbyists.
10:36:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let's get going.
10:36:44 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I think T.H.A.N. should send this
10:36:46 letter to the Public Service Commission.
10:36:47 But we are not going to have a vote on it.
10:36:49 They are not going to listen to us.
10:36:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:36:53 There's a motion on the floor.
10:36:54 Motion on the floor, the motion on the floor is that
10:36:56 we set a public hearing on the 16th, and that we
10:37:02 invite T.H.A.N., we invite the public, we invite TECO,
10:37:06 and who else did you want to invite?
10:37:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That was it.
10:37:12 At 11:00 for 30 minutes.
10:37:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:37:14 Question on the motion.
10:37:17 That's the motion.
10:37:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to be clear for the
10:37:20 purposes of the agenda that you have nine items for
10:37:24 staff report, unfinished business set for 10:30.
10:37:27 What is council's tension at 11:00?
10:37:29 Do you intend to stop staff reports wherever you are?
10:37:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That would be my intention.
10:37:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just wanted council to understand.
10:37:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
10:37:40 Mr. Caetano brought up a good point.
10:37:42 He said, why would they listen to us? Okay.
10:37:45 Because 15 years ago, on behalf of the county
10:37:47 commission, I went over there to the Public Service
10:37:50 Commission in Tallahassee, okay, and lobbied on behalf
10:37:54 of the citizens of Plant City because back then they
10:37:57 had local phone service.
10:37:59 They had long distance phone service to be able to
10:38:01 call Tampa.
10:38:03 The citizens of Plant City were annoyed by that.
10:38:06 They came to the county commission, and I was one of
10:38:08 the assistant county attorneys.
10:38:09 I went to Tallahassee, and we argued that I shall knew
10:38:12 front of the Public Service Commission on behalf of
10:38:13 the residents of Plant City.
10:38:15 They listened.
10:38:16 They changed GTE.
10:38:18 It was GTE back then.
10:38:20 They changed their mind.
10:38:21 I'm just giving you an anecdote.
10:38:23 They can listen.
10:38:24 They will listen if the government speaks to it
10:38:26 because the government is the voice of the people.
10:38:27 And the City of Tampa, we are the voice of the people.
10:38:30 So I think there's an opportunity here, Mr. Caetano.
10:38:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, we have a CRA meeting at 11:00
10:38:35 on the 16th.
10:38:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So I will amend my motion.
10:38:38 I am going to bifurcate this.
10:38:39 My first motion is that we right now adopt the
10:38:43 resolution that's before us.
10:38:50 My second motion would be that we set a time at 11:00
10:38:55 that we --
10:38:56 So then the motion has been changed that we go ahead
10:38:58 and approve the resolution.
10:38:59 Is that right then?
10:39:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, this resolution -- what you
10:39:03 have before you is not proper as to form.
10:39:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Then I would request you put it in
10:39:08 a proper form and bring it back for our afternoon
10:39:12 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes question, are we going to do the
10:39:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, no.
10:39:18 My point right now is just to adopt this resolution.
10:39:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Forget about the public hearing.
10:39:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm going to bring up something
10:39:25 else because the vote might be different.
10:39:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is moot until 1:30 until they
10:39:30 put this in proper form.
10:39:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But we can vote on the resolution
10:39:34 tentatively, couldn't we?
10:39:38 We can do.
10:39:38 That so that's the motion.
10:39:39 The motion is to direct and put it in proper form.
10:39:42 So moved and seconded.
10:39:47 All in favor.
10:39:49 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder voting no.
10:39:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My second resolution would be in
10:39:54 T.H.A.N.'s letter, the second sheet I gave you, in the
10:39:58 third paragraph, what T.H.A.N. requested by unanimous
10:40:02 vote is that Tampa City Council and the mayor lobby to
10:40:05 prevent this proposed rate increase by TECO, rate
10:40:09 increase by TECO on Tampa citizens.
10:40:12 Quote, there can be no better use of taxpayer money
10:40:15 than to direct the city lobbyist to lobby against this
10:40:18 proposed increase on our citizens."
10:40:20 So my second point would be under staff report on the
10:40:23 16th to hear back from the city attorney about
10:40:26 when council can direct the city lobbyist to lobby --
10:40:32 No, we can't do that.
10:40:38 We need to move, you all.
10:40:40 It past 10:30.
10:40:41 We have to take up staff issues.
10:40:43 Mr. Attorney, Mr. Fletcher, somebody.
10:40:47 Did you hear the question?
10:40:48 We want to know can we tell the mayor to lobby the
10:40:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No, not can we tell the mayor.
10:40:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:40:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can City Council direct as a policy
10:40:57 issue the city lobbyists to lobby on behalf of City
10:41:01 Council and the citizens of Tampa, the PSC?
10:41:07 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: No, ma'am.
10:41:08 Under the charter, actions are reserved for the
10:41:12 executive branch.
10:41:13 You could adopt a resolution expressing the sense of
10:41:19 council, so to speak, as we have done in other times,
10:41:23 when I was on council we did one on offshore oil
10:41:26 drilling and we took a position, a policy position on
10:41:29 I think that's appropriate.
10:41:33 And I apologize for not being down here sooner.
10:41:36 But I was dealing with some other litigation that I
10:41:39 will have to brief you about at some point.
10:41:41 But, no, I think the more appropriate action would be
10:41:44 to stake out a policy position that you believe is
10:41:46 appropriate, and that would be up to the discretion of
10:41:49 the mayor to direct the executive staff as to how to
10:41:53 approach that.
10:41:56 And just so you know, typically when you are talking
10:41:58 about a PSC proceeding, that is more akin to
10:42:01 administrative litigation, posture, so it's not as
10:42:04 director simple as just lobbying a policy position.
10:42:08 I think on the issues that you are interested in, we
10:42:10 need to actually have a lawyer file an appearance and
10:42:14 take a more structured approach.
10:42:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I just want you to know as a
10:42:21 nonpracticing attorney who has never been in law
10:42:23 school, I agree with your interpretation.
10:42:25 [ Laughter ]
10:42:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: And Mr. Dingfelder, move item 35
10:42:31 because I got the answers that I wanted on the impact
10:42:35 >> We'll come back.
10:42:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Okay.
10:42:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So with that being said, you withdraw
10:42:42 your motion.
10:42:43 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I withdraw my motion but I am going
10:42:45 to encourage the T.H.A.N. members who are interested
10:42:47 to attend our meeting on the 16th and just share
10:42:49 their concerns about the proposed rate increase with
10:42:53 And for supporting the resolution.
10:42:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other new business?
10:42:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I want to again speak on the water,
10:43:05 supply and demand.
10:43:08 We are using too much water.
10:43:13 The river is only giving us river flow of about 45
10:43:17 million gallons a day, and bypass canal is about 22
10:43:20 million, and we are using on total days of 90.8
10:43:28 million, and on non-watering days 89 million.
10:43:31 So that means that those non-watering days and
10:43:34 watering days, I really am asking the public to please
10:43:37 conserve the water.
10:43:39 We are going to have a problem if we don't get more
10:43:41 rain during the months between November and April.
10:43:44 I don't want to go into an extreme drought situation,
10:43:47 and I'm not trying to throw up a red flag or anything
10:43:50 like that, but it is going to be critical this year.
10:43:52 So I'm asking them to please conserve water to the
10:43:55 best of their ability.
10:43:56 There's been some discussion between my office and
10:43:59 major Honeywell, and major Honeywell and the police
10:44:02 department along with assistant chief Jane castor and
10:44:08 Bennett, and I did speak to the chief himself, they
10:44:10 have met, the people that I just named, without the
10:44:13 chief, I think, with south Seminole crime watch group
10:44:16 a week ago.
10:44:18 So they have continued to patrol the area like they
10:44:21 have, and like they always ask neighborhoods when they
10:44:23 are there speaking, for them to be vigilant, for them
10:44:26 to see what they see on the report to them.
10:44:30 Since July in this vicinity there have been 56
10:44:33 A couple of days ago they did a reverse sting and
10:44:36 arrested nine people involved in prostitution.
10:44:39 Tampa Police Department has done an excellent job.
10:44:43 Many years ago this situation was much worse.
10:44:46 I will address another area at another time when I
10:44:50 continue to get the full information that I need.
10:44:52 But I can tell you that the takes economic situation
10:44:57 gets a little tighter, crime has a tendency to rise.
10:45:01 And not only the police department, but I'm asking all
10:45:04 citizens to be vigilant to see what's going on.
10:45:07 You have to see and report what you think is
10:45:10 suspicious to the police department so that they can
10:45:12 take action.
10:45:14 Although there have been cuts in administration, there
10:45:17 have been no police officers that I know of that have
10:45:19 been removed from duty.
10:45:21 So I want to thank the administration, the police
10:45:23 department, for continuing to have a lower crime rate.
10:45:27 There has been another segment, and I'll address that
10:45:29 another date, more likely next week, sir.
10:45:32 Thank you, that's it.
10:45:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
10:45:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In the press recently there has
10:45:38 been discussion about the intersection next to Plant
10:45:41 High School on Dale Mabry, that's the intersection of
10:45:43 Dale Mabry and San Carlos street next to steak and
10:45:48 shake because we have had a couple of students hit by
10:45:51 cars, we lost a student last year, and this year there
10:45:55 was a bad accident. Anyway, I would like a report
10:45:58 back from our transportation department in 30 days on
10:46:00 what, if anything, the city and/or the school and/or
10:46:05 D.O.T. is doing about that problem.
10:46:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Seconded by Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
10:46:09 (Motion carried).
10:46:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could I add something to this
10:46:15 report request?
10:46:16 >> Real quickly because we need to move.
10:46:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Just as a person who drives, I
10:46:24 would guess the average speeds are above the speed
10:46:27 And I hope that that will be part of the report.
10:46:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And include TPD in the motion.
10:46:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
10:46:39 Item 62, we don't have a full board.
10:46:41 We need a full board for that.
10:46:43 So let's move to 63 so when they come in we'll go to
10:46:48 Item 63.
10:46:51 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
10:46:54 I will actually be dealing with item 63, 64, and 65.
10:46:59 We do have a memo that goes along with 65 that we are
10:47:02 going to didn't at this time.
10:47:16 The historic preservation division in conjunction with
10:47:26 various departments in the city, growth management
10:47:30 development services, economic and urban development,
10:47:32 code enforcement, and various stakeholders in the
10:47:35 community including the preservation round table, the
10:47:38 AIA heritage committee and Tampa Preservation, Inc.,
10:47:42 have been working diligently to address some of the
10:47:44 concerns posed to our historic structures.
10:47:48 One of the predominant tools in dealing with the
10:47:53 recent neglect issues that have come to light is the
10:47:56 demolition by neglect ordinance, which was before you
10:47:59 on September 25th that had been forwarded
10:48:03 subsequent to that to the Planning Commission for
10:48:05 That would be coming back to you in January 2009 for
10:48:09 your consideration, and that ordinance will require
10:48:12 property owners of historic buildings to maintain the
10:48:15 structure of the building in a way which does not
10:48:17 contribute to the continued deterioration of those
10:48:20 And that's a very important tool within the
10:48:23 preservation ordinance to allow for a more proactive
10:48:30 role by the preservation inspectors and going out and
10:48:32 identifying structures that have been experiencing
10:48:34 neglect, and then taking appropriate steps through
10:48:37 code enforcement and other measures to ensure that the
10:48:42 building's deficiencies are corrected.
10:48:45 One of the issues subsequent to that, the passage of
10:48:48 that ordinance would be that we'll be coming back to
10:48:51 you and asking for an amendment total citation
10:48:53 ordinance to allow for citations to be issued on two
10:48:58 property owners that are allowing the building to
10:49:00 fall, either intentionally or unintentionally, into a
10:49:04 state of neglect, which threatens the structure of the
10:49:07 The citation tool is one mechanism that we do not
10:49:10 currently have in place, and that will allow for the
10:49:13 code officers to initiate immediate action in the
10:49:19 sense of a citation and fine to the property owner as
10:49:25 needed in order to correct that deficiency.
10:49:28 Also, to begin that process, code enforcement has been
10:49:30 working through coordination with my division on
10:49:34 systematically affecting the condition of all the
10:49:36 designated landmarks in the district and also other
10:49:40 buildings within the local historic district that we
10:49:44 have identified as needing some attention.
10:49:46 In doing that, item number 65, which you have received
10:49:50 my memo, addresses several buildings which were
10:49:53 brought to our attention, some of which we were aware
10:49:55 of, some of those are designated buildings, some are
10:49:59 not designated buildings.
10:50:01 Regardless of that those buildings have been looked at
10:50:04 and assessed and we do have code enforcement
10:50:06 representative to address those if you have specific
10:50:08 questions on that.
10:50:09 In addition to that, I have initiated a process within
10:50:12 my division with our code enforcement officer that's
10:50:15 assigned to historic preservation, to do a monthly
10:50:18 assessment of all designated landmark buildings, and
10:50:21 those buildings which we identified as having code
10:50:25 They will be conducting an assessment of those
10:50:27 buildings on a monthly basis to determine the progress
10:50:30 of those that have been put in code violation, and
10:50:33 also to make a report directly to me for my attention
10:50:36 and contacting the property owners if we identify new
10:50:42 That is indicative of a knew cooperative effort
10:50:44 between code enforcement and the architectural review
10:50:47 historic preservation division, which has not really
10:50:51 existed prior to recent months.
10:50:54 Jake Slater, the director for code enforcement,
10:50:57 couldn't be here today.
10:50:57 However, I can attest that the lines of communication
10:51:00 between our two divisions are open.
10:51:02 We are coordinating on a much more regular basis than
10:51:05 we have throughout my eight years in the division.
10:51:08 We are conducting joint site visits to property and
10:51:14 consulting with property owners on how to remedy those
10:51:18 Additionally, code enforcement and AR and HP, have
10:51:24 developed a much more streamlined communication
10:51:28 process, so that these problem buildings can be
10:51:31 identified at an earlier stage, and expedited through
10:51:34 the code enforcement review process.
10:51:36 I know that legal has been dealing with the code board
10:51:40 issues, and we saw that through the Gary school and
10:51:42 how that may have not been an effective process, and
10:51:47 they are looking into other options such as hearing
10:51:49 masters and what not to deal with those specific type
10:51:52 of violations dealing with historic properties.
10:51:56 Part of this entire approach needs to be that you need
10:51:59 to have the enforcement mechanisms like citations and
10:52:04 ordinances in place that do identify and then seek to
10:52:08 remedy these types of situations at an earlier state.
10:52:12 Another part of that is that you have to have tools in
10:52:14 place by which the property own Kearse tap into those
10:52:18 programs to correct the deficiencies.
10:52:20 Often demolition by neglect isn't an intentional
10:52:24 action, it's something that happens because the
10:52:26 organization of the property owners that own these
10:52:28 properties don't have the abilities to maintain them
10:52:30 or to renovate them.
10:52:32 That being said, under item number 64, there is
10:52:36 discussion of an establishment of an emergency
10:52:38 stabilization fund, good management and development
10:52:42 services in conjunction with economic and urban
10:52:45 development, have met to discuss the possibility of
10:52:47 developing such a fund, in the central business
10:52:51 district, specifically, because we do have quite a few
10:52:55 problem properties in that area, and there was a
10:52:57 proposal by Councilwoman Saul-Sena to utilize $100,000
10:53:01 in CRA funds.
10:53:02 That proposal has been met -- has been well received
10:53:06 and we do feel that that is something that can be
10:53:09 developed, it is going to be the -- the proposal will
10:53:11 be presented to the advisory committee at the next
10:53:13 meeting, and then would be coming back to you, the CRA
10:53:17 board, for a vote.
10:53:19 The discussion has been to develop that much in the
10:53:23 way that the interstate historic preservation trust
10:53:26 fund loan program has been structured, and potentially
10:53:29 use the same board to low at those type of
10:53:32 But the funding source would not be the same funding
10:53:36 It the program would be very similar.
10:53:38 That being said the interstate historic preservation
10:53:41 trust fund is also a source that's in place for Tampa
10:53:43 Heights, West Tampa, and the Ybor City national
10:53:46 register district.
10:53:48 That's the phase one under which the block is
10:53:53 There's a second phase ongoing right now referred to
10:53:55 as phase two which is dealing with 29 additional
10:53:59 structures that are being relocated, and then would be
10:54:02 sold to private ownership.
10:54:04 There is a commitment of at least $50,000 at this time
10:54:09 that can be used for other stabilization in areas
10:54:11 outside the districts.
10:54:13 We don't have a -- because of the sale of these
10:54:16 properties, a deferred payment loan, there's not a
10:54:19 great amount of money in the fund right now, but
10:54:22 within the next two to three years we should see that
10:54:24 fund starting to increase as the deferred payment
10:54:26 loans come due.
10:54:27 So that's a source that we are working on.
10:54:29 Also, incentives need to be developed.
10:54:32 We talked briefly about the transfer of development
10:54:35 rights today.
10:54:36 That is a tool that can encourage property owners to
10:54:41 properly maintain and mothball their buildings, in
10:54:45 addition to give them a source that currently does not
10:54:48 exist to receive funds from the sale or transfer,
10:54:52 unutilized development rights to rehabilitate their
10:54:57 So we have been discussing that, and we have been in
10:54:59 conversations with various stakeholders in the
10:55:02 community on that.
10:55:03 We feel there is additional work that needs to be done
10:55:05 on that ordinance.
10:55:06 And I have been researching that personally to try to
10:55:09 come up with a couple of key issues.
10:55:12 In addition to that, we are looking at some other
10:55:15 incentives -- tax incentives.
10:55:17 I know Councilwoman Saul-Sena has been looking into
10:55:20 some possibilities with the Florida trust for historic
10:55:22 Incentives are very important in encouraging historic
10:55:26 preservation and making it -- make economic sense to
10:55:31 property owners, especially in areas where they do
10:55:33 have very lucrative development rights.
10:55:38 That provides an overview of where we are at to date.
10:55:41 I do want to say that we have had many conversations
10:55:43 with many individuals in the public, which is very
10:55:46 There's been some very good solutions coming from the
10:55:49 And it does show that there's a great deal of interest
10:55:55 extending from the public in this area, and evaluating
10:55:59 the culture and the path to the City of Tampa and
10:56:02 that's a refreshing approach.
10:56:05 If you have any questions I will be happy to answer
10:56:06 them and also Kevin is here to address the violations
10:56:10 under item number 65.
10:56:22 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question that you may need to
10:56:24 answer, too.
10:56:25 I read the memo from the mayor today and -- all these
10:56:29 memos that were in our mailbox this morning.
10:56:31 But when you asked us to ask for this fund, were you
10:56:37 talking about loans?
10:56:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I was speaking about loans, but I
10:56:46 had the -- first of all, let me start by saying,
10:56:49 great, I am very pleased at the work that's happening
10:56:52 and the momentum that we developed and this is really
10:56:57 That said, I was thinking about loans, but I was also
10:56:59 thinking, Ms. Mulhern, about people who are not
10:57:02 And on forcing them to have work done to keep the
10:57:07 building intact.
10:57:11 What we are presented today is all premised upon
10:57:14 Cooperation is great.
10:57:17 Our problems have been with the property owners who
10:57:19 are not cooperative, and thus far, we have not
10:57:23 succeeded in coming up with a way of -- just as an
10:57:30 example, if somebody had a property that's falling
10:57:32 down and they don't want to stabilize it, we don't
10:57:35 have -- the administration hasn't figured out a way to
10:57:39 stabilize it.
10:57:40 But the good news is Mr. Shelby through direction of
10:57:44 council is looking at how they do this ath at other
10:57:47 places and see field goal there are ways that we can
10:57:49 intervene even if the property owner isn't
10:57:54 That's the elephant in the room that we haven't
10:57:57 established a way to deal with.
10:58:01 We are premising all of this upon the person being so
10:58:04 excited that they have a low-interest loan, very low
10:58:08 interest, that that is the incentive for them to do
10:58:13 >>MARY MULHERN: And I think I hear you say, I'm not
10:58:17 sure that's enough.
10:58:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Well, it isn't.
10:58:19 It's better than what we have done but we need to do
10:58:22 We need to have some mechanism of intervention.
10:58:25 The other thing is, Mr. Amos, I very much
10:58:29 appreciate -- and Mr. Fernandez, you have been doing
10:58:31 just Yeoman's work and I am so pleased.
10:58:34 And at the end am I am going to ask in 30 days another
10:58:37 report on how well things are progressing.
10:58:40 But there are two reports that are good.
10:58:45 But there are two pieces missing.
10:58:47 One is the fact that there's water in the building of
10:58:50 the -- in the decrees basement.
10:58:52 >>> In the basement, that's correct.
10:58:54 >> And the other point is that you said at the
10:58:56 beginning the three cigar factories are fine. In fact
10:59:01 there's a cigar factory in Palmetto Beach that I
10:59:03 pointed out that is distinctly not fine.
10:59:05 It is in wretched condition.
10:59:07 So how come you said it was fine?
10:59:09 >>> Well, of course they are not fine.
10:59:11 They all have minor violations.
10:59:12 >> No, this has windows open and they are falling
10:59:15 >>> True, yes, ma'am.
10:59:17 It's not considered structural, though.
10:59:19 It is structurally sound as far as the structure of
10:59:22 the building.
10:59:22 >> But don't require windows?
10:59:24 >>> I'm sorry?
10:59:26 >> Don't we require -- as part of code enforcement,
10:59:30 don't we require that windows be closed so that the
10:59:32 rain --
10:59:33 >>> Yes, absolutely.
10:59:34 And that is on the first page there that we did go
10:59:38 ahead and add that to that memo.
10:59:39 >> I'm sorry, it wasn't on mine.
10:59:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second and 26th street.
10:59:46 >> Yes, it's 201 north 26th.
10:59:49 And that is an active case.
10:59:51 We have served notice.
10:59:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, I apologize.
10:59:54 I was reading an old memo.
10:59:56 >>> Yes, we did update it.
10:59:58 I'm sorry.
10:59:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Good.
10:59:59 >>> That is an active case.
11:00:01 >> Good.
11:00:02 Thank you.
11:00:02 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I went by the
11:00:04 building yesterday, I believe it's owned by coast
11:00:09 >>> Yes.
11:00:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I don't know if they were
11:00:14 replacing windows yesterday but I noticed some broken
11:00:16 windows, I think on the second floor.
11:00:18 Are they repairing those?
11:00:19 >>> I'm not in the loop on that.
11:00:21 I don't know about that.
11:00:26 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: We have been working with the
11:00:28 It's actually -- the property owner, we have spoken to
11:00:33 their contractor.
11:00:34 He has indicated they will be mothballing the building
11:00:42 for a short period of time.
11:00:43 I haven't seen the work you are referring to.
11:00:44 Currently they are in violation.
11:00:45 The historic preservation division placed them into
11:00:48 violation for demolition by neglect, and they are most
11:00:51 likely -- there's activity there.
11:00:53 They are most likely responding to that violation at
11:00:55 this time.
11:00:55 I believe their intention is to develop that property.
11:00:57 They have done some demolition to noncontributing
11:01:01 portions of the building.
11:01:03 And I believe they are in permitting to redevelop that
11:01:06 building into their office.
11:01:11 And we'll continue to monitor that.
11:01:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That building is on Howard between
11:01:15 grace and Nassau, on the north side of Nassau, and
11:01:18 that came to council for a rezoning about four, five,
11:01:22 six months ago.
11:01:22 And not only are they moving there, but they have got
11:01:25 a bunch of property that they bought on that corner
11:01:28 between grace and the following block which I think is
11:01:31 Nassau, maybe four, five houses down.
11:01:34 So that's the one that I recused myself.
11:01:37 I remember that.
11:01:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just wanted to reiterate my
11:01:43 compliments to the legal department, to preservation
11:01:46 and code enforcement, for the unprecedented
11:01:48 cooperation, and there are a couple of items that Mr.
11:01:51 Fernandez spoke about that are going to be happening.
11:01:56 What I would specifically request is a report back in
11:01:59 30 days.
11:02:02 In 30 days, council will have already voted on the CRA
11:02:06 budget, which would allocate $100,000 for
11:02:10 stabilization fund.
11:02:11 And what I would specifically like to know is how
11:02:13 quickly can we -- are you going to schedule a hearing
11:02:19 for the people to apply for that money?
11:02:21 I'm thinking specifically about the Jackson house or
11:02:23 other downtown structures that really need help, and
11:02:27 how quickly the process could be created and
11:02:31 implemented, because when we are dealing with these
11:02:34 older buildings, I know Mr. Miranda has identified the
11:02:37 need for rain, which is important.
11:02:38 But when you are an old building, rain is not your
11:02:41 So I would like to move as quickly as we can.
11:02:44 So my motion would be that we receive a report back
11:02:46 from you, and if you wouldn't mind appearing in 30
11:02:48 days giving us an update on specifically the
11:02:52 stabilization fund for downtown and how quickly it
11:02:56 will be implemented.
11:02:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
11:02:59 >>MARY MULHERN: Second.
11:03:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded that we have a
11:03:02 report back in 30 days.
11:03:04 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
11:03:09 >>MARY MULHERN: I just have one more thing.
11:03:11 And I'm bringing this up now because Mr. Dingfelder
11:03:14 reminded me.
11:03:15 And it seems to sort of fit in here.
11:03:20 The fire station in South Tampa that was actually
11:03:27 demolished, or sold and then demolished, I wonder if
11:03:33 we could look into addressing city buildings,
11:03:37 city-owned buildings, and how they can be slated for
11:03:42 demolition and sale without a report to council.
11:03:50 I don't know if this is appropriate to become part of
11:03:53 this, but it is something.
11:03:57 I would like a report on that particular building,
11:03:59 because it was before my time.
11:04:01 But I don't know if it was a historic building and
11:04:06 don't know the story on it.
11:04:07 So I would like to hear about that, and also for staff
11:04:10 to let us know how we can be informed if properties
11:04:17 owned by the city are going to be demolished.
11:04:24 Not on the consent agenda.
11:04:25 I mean, that might just be my motion, that if there is
11:04:29 any property owned by the city that's going to be
11:04:32 sold, that it be put on the agenda as a staff report
11:04:39 or, I don't know, whatever you recommend.
11:04:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, just for your information,
11:04:51 there are surplus properties that the real estate
11:04:54 division regularly puts on the consent docket.
11:04:56 As a matter of fact, today you had some properties
11:04:57 that are for sale that are being sold.
11:04:59 And the question is whether you want individual
11:05:02 reports on that.
11:05:04 I would suspect -- I strongly suspect that this
11:05:07 particular property that had the fire house on, it was
11:05:11 brought before City Council, most probably on a
11:05:12 consent docket.
11:05:14 But if council wishes to have it highlighted in such a
11:05:17 way, if it's a non-economic remainder is one thing
11:05:23 versus to have some building.
11:05:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
11:05:28 If it's a structure, I mean, if it's a lot that we are
11:05:31 selling, I can see that being on the consent agenda.
11:05:33 But if there's actually a structure being sold, I
11:05:36 think that needs to be brought before council with
11:05:44 At least a snapshot of what we are proposing to sell
11:05:50 that may be -- not protected actually.
11:05:53 It's more like they are not protected by any historic
11:05:56 preservation statute.
11:05:58 >>MARTIN SHELBY: It's certainly within council's
11:06:00 purview to request that information be provided as
11:06:04 And do you want to have that under staff reports, or
11:06:08 do you want to continue greater background of the
11:06:11 pictures or whatever?
11:06:13 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't want it to be on the consent
11:06:15 agenda so I guess it would have to northbound staff
11:06:20 With a photograph.
11:06:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And we do want to focus more on the
11:06:23 nature of the building whether it's historic or not.
11:06:26 We have a lot of properties that are not historic.
11:06:28 >>MARY MULHERN: Right.
11:06:30 But they could be reused.
11:06:32 If we see a photograph of a building those falling
11:06:35 apart and doesn't have any historic character, then
11:06:39 that's fine.
11:06:43 But if there's some question about it, and especially
11:06:46 there's been some discussion about that building in
11:06:52 And then not on the consent agenda.
11:06:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also, I believe a lot of times the
11:07:01 sales are for purposes of providing affordable
11:07:04 As opposed to redevelopment, sometime in residences,
11:07:08 somebody would take ownership off of it.
11:07:12 >>MARY MULHERN: I think all of those should be if it's
11:07:21 a structure I would like to see a picture on the staff
11:07:23 report as opposed to the consent agenda.
11:07:27 That's my motion.
11:07:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
11:07:35 (Motion carried)
11:07:36 All right, thank you, Mr. Fernandez.
11:07:48 Item 63, 64 and 65.
11:07:51 So those are our staff items from this morning, right?
11:07:56 We need to take up item 62.
11:08:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Need a full board.
11:08:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me move to the other item is that
11:08:08 under new business.
11:08:10 We can get the rest of the board members so we can
11:08:12 vote on item 62.
11:08:14 And then that should conclude our morning agenda, if
11:08:16 I'm not mistaken.
11:08:20 Item 62.
11:08:24 >> I'll see if I can get the rest of council.
11:08:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, Lt. last week I brought to
11:08:28 your attention that Ms. Miller was requesting a
11:08:31 workshop with us on the MacDill property.
11:08:34 >> Not Gwen Miller.
11:08:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Cindy Miller, right?
11:08:51 I got a call, talked with her in detail.
11:08:53 It's very important you have a workshop, that she
11:08:57 doesn't want to be blind-sided.
11:09:00 On the 23rd?
11:09:04 Let's see, what is that date?
11:09:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could do that at 1:30.
11:09:11 Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a -- I move that we
11:09:16 schedule that for 1:30.
11:09:18 Because all the things are happening in the morning
11:09:20 are important, and I think that she thinks this is
11:09:22 important, and so --
11:09:28 She's requesting this on the 23rd.
11:09:31 October 23rd.
11:09:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We could have it at 1:30.
11:09:38 >>MARY MULHERN: I just want to point out it not on the
11:09:40 yellow sheet because I just put it on the agenda
11:09:43 earlier, October 23rd another 1:30, we are going
11:09:46 to have the community supported agriculture -- yes, so
11:09:50 we could just move that to whatever, after.
11:09:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Do MacDill at 1:30 and then do
11:09:57 agriculture at 2.
11:09:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Special discussion.
11:10:01 I can't remember, was she requesting an hour or 30
11:10:08 I think she was requesting an hour, though.
11:10:15 She was requesting an hour if I'm not mistaken.
11:10:19 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If her office is watching they
11:10:21 could call council office.
11:10:23 >>MARY MULHERN: I think we have it here.
11:10:28 Here it is.
11:10:39 I don't know how much time she needs.
11:10:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, we can set it for 1:30.
11:10:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
11:10:50 >> Second.
11:10:50 (Motion carried).
11:10:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And do we need to move Mrs.
11:10:57 Mulhern's request to 2:00?
11:10:59 >> Yes.
11:11:00 Moved and seconded.
11:11:00 (Motion carried)
11:11:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Daignault is here for those
11:11:10 three items I pulled.
11:11:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, I forgot about those.
11:11:12 Yes, let's tab a vote.
11:11:14 Let's do item 62.
11:11:15 Let me take up item 62, get it out of the way and get
11:11:18 them out of here.
11:11:19 We need a vote.
11:11:20 Let's deal with that.
11:11:21 All we need to do on item 62 is vote.
11:11:25 The public hearing being closed.
11:11:27 We discussed it.
11:11:27 So now we need a vote on item 62.
11:11:34 A motion was made but it didn't pass --
11:11:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion was that council grant the
11:11:40 appeal of Margaret Kelly, petition VRB 08-69.
11:11:46 It was not adopted, did not get the requisite votes.
11:11:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:11:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The motion is still standing.
11:11:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
11:12:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We need to call the question.
11:12:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion is to grant the appeal,
11:12:08 and it's the vote of council.
11:12:11 This is pursuant to rule 4-C.
11:12:13 Public hearing is closed.
11:12:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
11:12:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just for the record, I read the
11:12:19 council's transcript and looked at some of the
11:12:22 So I'm prepared.
11:12:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay then, all in favor of the motion
11:12:26 to grant the appeal, signify by saying Aye.
11:12:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: No.
11:12:35 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Miranda
11:12:36 voting no.
11:12:41 Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no.
11:12:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
11:12:45 All right.
11:12:46 Now we'll take items pulled from consent.
11:12:51 Councilman Dingfelder.
11:12:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I pulled items 11, 12 and 13.
11:12:56 I think two of them are connected.
11:13:07 Charlie, with all due respect, I wanted Steve to get
11:13:10 up as well as the public.
11:13:11 This is about, in my opinion, this appears to be about
11:13:13 the canals, mainly the Westshore canals.
11:13:20 And related waterways.
11:13:21 And I just wanted, you know, since it looked like we
11:13:24 are spending $700,000, I think it's important for the
11:13:27 public and especially the Westshore folks to know what
11:13:29 our progress is on this, and what this is about.
11:13:34 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Administrator public works and
11:13:37 utility services.
11:13:38 As you said 11 and 12 are together.
11:13:40 11 is the financial reso and 12 is the item to award
11:13:46 the contract.
11:13:46 This is for the design piece for the canal dredging.
11:13:50 We have gone, since we have spoken with you last, we
11:13:54 have gotten the survey information.
11:13:57 This design will actually finalize what needs to be
11:14:00 dredged and allow us to move forward to go out for a
11:14:03 bid, and then we'll have the actual cost and we'll be
11:14:06 able again to move forward, decide what -- establish
11:14:12 what the exact assessment area if there's going to be
11:14:16 one will be, and what areas will be dredged and that
11:14:19 sort of thing.
11:14:20 So this is the piece where we need to get the design
11:14:23 completed so that it can be bid so that we can
11:14:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is it the city's intent that if
11:14:29 ultimately this program passes with the residents
11:14:33 along there to the assessment that the city would get
11:14:36 reimbursed for all our part of these funds that we are
11:14:40 putting out in advance?
11:14:42 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Yes, to some extent.
11:14:45 There's two pieces of this dredging part that the city
11:14:49 is responsible for that we would take care of: And
11:14:52 then another part that's the navigational piece that
11:14:54 the citizens would pay for.
11:14:59 You are aware of an EPA grant but we are also -- we
11:15:05 basically have approval.
11:15:06 We don't have the documents and the agreement put
11:15:08 together yet.
11:15:09 But we have approval for a grant with SWFWMD for the
11:15:13 disposal of the dredge spoil, and that's about a
11:15:16 million dollars.
11:15:16 So some of this work is reimbursable, yes.
11:15:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My next question, unless there's
11:15:24 other questions of 11 and 12, I'm comfortable with
11:15:27 Just really wanted some clarification on the record.
11:15:29 And then as related to item 13, that's basically an
11:15:35 agreement for us to -- well, it's a budget item for us
11:15:39 to start building a nonferrous metal recovery system.
11:15:47 Which I think is great.
11:15:48 So we'll start pulling more things out of our
11:15:50 wastestream and we can make money from the nonferrous
11:15:57 >>> Exactly.
11:15:59 There's a market for that.
11:16:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It appeared that the agreement we
11:16:02 have with the company -- what's the name of the
11:16:05 >>> Wheelabrator?
11:16:06 >> Wheelabrator.
11:16:08 We have a long-term agreement with Wheelabrator. This
11:16:10 is probably an amendment to that agreement.
11:16:12 But it says up front, I like the agreement, but then
11:16:18 after we paid for the equipment and we paid for the
11:16:22 system, then later on it switches to a 60-40 split.
11:16:29 Thank you, Charlie.
11:16:31 And I'm just wondering, it just seems like they get a
11:16:34 And I'm wondering what it is, why we put off all the
11:16:38 money, it's our plan.
11:16:39 Why is it that they get 45%?
11:16:46 >>> They have to do the operation.
11:16:47 >> Is that a base being split for everything over
11:16:52 I mean, how do we know that their operation of this is
11:16:57 worth 45%?
11:16:59 Have we done some analysis on that or what?
11:17:04 >>> City of Tampa department solid waste, and I have
11:17:06 not been sworn.
11:17:08 I don't have to be?
11:17:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are just chatting.
11:17:12 >>> Way want to share is that Wheelabrator is paying
11:17:16 the $55,000 maintenance fee.
11:17:20 In addition to that, we will no longer have to incur,
11:17:24 and getting the costs right now, when we getting ready
11:17:29 the nonferrous metal, there's another cost.
11:17:33 So we are not incurring --
11:17:35 >> I think it's great and I'm glad we are doing it.
11:17:38 How do we know that's a good split?
11:17:40 How do we know what their costs will be as related to
11:17:43 the 45% that they are going to be getting?
11:17:45 And if you want to just put that off for two weeks, we
11:17:49 can put it off for two weeks.
11:17:50 >>> That cost, the 55-45 split is based on the fact
11:17:53 that they have the $65,000 maintenance fee cost, that
11:17:58 they pay.
11:17:58 >> Annually or just up front?
11:18:01 >>> Annually.
11:18:02 >> And they are maintaining that specific of piece?
11:18:06 >>> That specific system.
11:18:07 >> So somebody calculated out the total, and then
11:18:12 that's the 65,000 is equal to the 45%?
11:18:15 >>> And I don't have all the members here -- numbers
11:18:18 here in front of me but that was how we got to --
11:18:21 >> Would you all mind putting it off for two weeks?
11:18:24 Any surge urgency?
11:18:28 >>> Solid waste department.
11:18:29 The item, the team that negotiated this agreement
11:18:33 through separate directors, or through Brickhouse,
11:18:40 there's been a number of consultants, outside
11:18:43 This agreement has been heavily negotiated for over
11:18:45 two years and analyzed by both outside engineering
11:18:49 department, as well as in-house expert engineers and
11:18:54 outside attorneys.
11:18:55 And that was a deal that was negotiated.
11:18:59 The outside consultants that participated in the
11:19:01 agreements, the type of agreements, so it's my
11:19:10 understanding that's about the best deal you can get.
11:19:17 The other item on this is this becomes our equipment.
11:19:20 So, you know, at the end of the day, we are getting
11:19:22 the title.
11:19:23 This becomes our property and part of the operation.
11:19:27 They do have a 20-year agreement with us.
11:19:30 But you can bring in the actual people that worked on,
11:19:34 the members, David McCary, and, you know, the
11:19:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, my intent is not to belabor
11:19:46 this in front of council.
11:19:47 What I would just ask, if we have been doing this for
11:19:50 two years, if we can wait two weeks to agree on this,
11:19:53 and then during that two weeks I can do my due
11:19:56 diligence, speak to you a little more and maybe look
11:19:58 at some of these written reports, et cetera.
11:20:01 I don't think I am going to get David or Mr. Jacob who
11:20:04 is in the mideast, I guess, to come chat with me.
11:20:07 But, anyway, I'll just move this, just item 13 to
11:20:10 continue for two weeks so I can get a little more
11:20:13 >>> Just so you know, council, you approved the
11:20:16 agreement that was 14, part 1 and part 2 on the
11:20:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, that was my mistake.
11:20:24 And we can't spend the money till we do 13 so wile
11:20:28 just pull 13 for two weeks and maybe just don't have
11:20:31 the mayor sign the agreement until we do 13.
11:20:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern, then
11:20:37 Councilwoman Saul-Sena.
11:20:38 >>MARY MULHERN: I am actually going back to 11 and 12
11:20:41 and had a question for Mr. Daignault.
11:20:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought she was speaking on the
11:20:46 one -- you are speaking on 11 and 12.
11:20:49 Your motion is on 13.
11:20:50 >>MARY MULHERN: I know, but I couldn't get your
11:20:52 I had questions on 11 and 12.
11:20:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You don't have a question on 13?
11:20:58 Then motion and second.
11:21:02 (Motion carried).
11:21:03 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I had a question on 13.
11:21:05 You say we own that equipment?
11:21:07 And the company that's doing the work there is going
11:21:10 to be operating this equipment?
11:21:13 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: Yes, sir.
11:21:13 They operate the plant snoop who maintained the
11:21:16 equipment in the event of a break down?
11:21:18 >>> They maintain it.
11:21:19 That's what the split was.
11:21:20 >> Any parts or whatever is involved to get it
11:21:24 >>> Yes, sir.
11:21:25 >>MARY MULHERN: I think I'm okay with number 11
11:21:29 because the money is coming from the stormwater
11:21:32 commercial paper program.
11:21:40 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: It's CIP collars dollars.
11:21:42 It is not stormwater fee.
11:21:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:21:45 It says stormwater commercial paper program.
11:21:48 >>> Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
11:21:53 >>MARY MULHERN: Is that what it is?
11:21:54 Or is it CIP money?
11:21:55 >>> It is not stormwater utility fee dollars that are
11:22:01 going to this.
11:22:02 >> It's commercial paper.
11:22:05 >>> The actual cash, yes.
11:22:08 >>MARY MULHERN: What my question was, so that on
11:22:10 number 12, I'm trying to determine if any of the EPA
11:22:14 grant money and the city match -- was it the city that
11:22:19 was going to match that money or was it SWFWMD?
11:22:24 >>> No.
11:22:26 For the EPA grant the city has to match that money.
11:22:29 That's correct.
11:22:29 You do not have that grant yet.
11:22:34 >> So does any of the money -- and for number 12 then,
11:22:38 does any of -- is any of that money coming from the
11:22:41 EPA grant or the match that the city has to provide?
11:22:46 >>STEVE DAIGNAULT: It is not coming from the grant.
11:22:48 He would do not have the grant yet.
11:22:51 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay.
11:22:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any additional questions on 11 and 12?
11:23:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you to Steve and Bonnie.
11:23:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So 11 and 12.
11:23:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So move 11 and 12.
11:23:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And item 35, councilman Caetano, we
11:23:17 can move that as well?
11:23:19 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
11:23:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So 11, 12 and 35 in the motion.
11:23:23 Moved and seconded.
11:23:24 (Motion carried)
11:23:29 Seconded by councilman Miranda.
11:23:31 Anything else coming before --
11:23:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Recognizing the role of council and
11:23:35 the role of the mayor, I would like to request a
11:23:39 report under staff reports that the mayor request --
11:23:45 her willingness to employ the city lobbyist or
11:23:49 attorney before the PSC to deny the TECO rate hike
11:23:54 So we are just asking her if she would be willing to
11:23:56 put the energy of the administration behind then
11:24:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not
11:24:04 opposed to anyone lowering the electric rates.
11:24:07 I'm opposed to anything going up -- but before we do
11:24:10 this, we are going into troubled waters.
11:24:12 I don't know if the PSC can even be lobbied.
11:24:17 I don't know that.
11:24:22 He was talking about a different fruit.
11:24:25 Wes talking about 25 cents -- wait a minute, just let
11:24:28 me finish.
11:24:31 I think we ought to have the city of attorney come
11:24:34 down very briefly and give us all of what's
11:24:37 happening -- I'm not against it but I want to make
11:24:40 sure that before I take a step into the water it's not
11:24:43 47 feet deep and I don't know how to swim.
11:24:45 So I want to have clarity so these things can be
11:24:50 determined at the right time, and when don't have 200
11:24:52 people here, and when they get here, we tell them we
11:24:56 can't discuss the issues, whatever.
11:24:57 I'm not against you, I just want to make sure that I
11:24:59 know what I'm getting, and I need some legal
11:25:05 clarification as to what these ramifications mean,
11:25:09 like I said earlier.
11:25:11 Do I like to pay more for second luggage at the
11:25:14 Evidently not.
11:25:15 But evidently if you carry one you are going to have
11:25:17 to pay.
11:25:18 So what I am saying, everything goes up in time.
11:25:22 I do like to pay so much a gallon?
11:25:24 Absolutely not.
11:25:26 But I don't think anyone else does either.
11:25:28 And I see the city attorney come in and maybe you can
11:25:32 pose the question to him.
11:25:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Attorney, this is my question.
11:25:36 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes, ma'am.
11:25:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can City Council request a report
11:25:41 under staff report that the mayor respond to be a
11:25:47 request by council as to her willingness to employ the
11:25:50 city's lobbyist or attorney to speak before the PSC?
11:25:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I think as I indicated previously
11:25:57 the appropriate --
11:25:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Right, we can do policy.
11:26:04 What I'm asking is a report from the administration
11:26:05 about their willingness to deploy either a lobbyist or
11:26:09 city attorney.
11:26:09 I must say that your predecessor David Smith and I had
11:26:12 this conversation, and he said that he has
11:26:16 conversations with the mayor, and at that time she
11:26:19 didn't want to do it.
11:26:21 But maybe since the stock market has been lowering the
11:26:26 last two weeks maybe her mind has changed.
11:26:28 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The first thing I think we need is
11:26:32 a clear statement of the policy that you all think
11:26:33 should be brought before the PSC.
11:26:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's the question of the size of
11:26:37 the rate increase.
11:26:39 >>> Okay.
11:26:41 Then the answer to that issue would be, no, I don't
11:26:43 think that would be appropriate.
11:26:45 I think the appropriate approach would be for you all
11:26:48 to adopt a resolution that states your policy
11:26:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
11:26:55 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: And then we could look at whether
11:26:57 or not -- the action that would Ned to be taken to
11:27:00 become involved in that process would be to initiate
11:27:03 litigation, and to intervene in the rate case.
11:27:06 That is the really only avenue to become involved in
11:27:09 that process.
11:27:10 So that's a different issue, I think, than whether we
11:27:16 can have our lobbyist get involved.
11:27:18 We would actually have to become a party in that rate
11:27:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Wasn't a letter sent to the mayor
11:27:28 asking the same thing about the desires of the mayor?
11:27:31 Do you have a copy of that?
11:27:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know that they asked her.
11:27:33 I don't know if --
11:27:35 >>GWEN MILLER: There is a letter from them.
11:27:38 You can read it and consider which way she would go.
11:27:40 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: What I was asking for was her
11:27:43 But with what Mr. Fletcher has said, I guess it will
11:27:49 simply be up to the administration about whether they
11:27:53 want to --
11:27:54 >>GWEN MILLER: If you have a copy of that letter, she
11:27:58 can talk with Mr. Fletcher and see which way she is
11:28:04 >>> Yes, ma'am, that's correct.
11:28:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I do not believe that the charter
11:28:08 precludes any council member from contacting the mayor
11:28:10 or going to the mayor and having that discussion.
11:28:12 You want to have a discussion, you have a right to go
11:28:14 and do that.
11:28:17 And based on outcome, the mayor is certainly free to
11:28:20 advise council on discussing with Councilwoman
11:28:23 Saul-Sena, that discussion take place.
11:28:29 Am I not right?
11:28:31 >>> Yes, that's correct.
11:28:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'm glad we are agreeing here today.
11:28:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I will do that, Mr. Chairman.
11:28:37 Thank you.
11:28:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
11:28:39 Anything else need to come before council?
11:28:41 Then we stand in recess until 1:30.
11:28:43 And, board members, we have a long afternoon.
11:29:59 (The meeting recessed at 11:30 a.m.)
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.
Tampa City Council
Thursday, October 2, 2008
1:30 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.
13:36:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
13:36:17 We'll have roll call.
13:36:26 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
13:36:28 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
13:36:29 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
13:36:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
13:36:35 Let me read a memorandum from Councilwoman Mary
13:36:39 I will be unable to attend the afternoon session of
13:36:42 today's council meeting.
13:36:45 Let my absence be noted in the record.
13:36:47 I submit this to the clerk.
13:36:50 That's from Councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
13:36:52 We need to clean up a few items.
13:36:56 We need to deal first of all with the wet zoning.
13:37:07 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
13:37:10 I have provided the clerk with a substitute ordinance
13:37:12 including the limited hours of operation.
13:37:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So now we need to make a motion on
13:37:26 We also have a walk-on.
13:37:28 Is that right?
13:37:34 And we have a resolution.
13:37:40 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance making lawful the sale of
13:37:44 beverages containing alcohol of more than 1% by weight
13:37:46 and not more than 14% by weight and wines regardless
13:37:49 of alcoholic content, beer and wine, 2(APS), in sealed
13:37:53 containers for consumption off premises only at or
13:37:56 from that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
13:37:59 at 4015 north 15th street, Tampa, Florida, and
13:38:03 more particularly described in section 2 hereof,
13:38:06 waiving certain restrictions as to the distance based
13:38:09 upon certain findings, imposing certain conditions,
13:38:12 providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
13:38:15 providing an effective date.
13:38:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For the record that's number 54 on
13:38:20 the agenda.
13:38:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by council man Miranda.
13:38:27 All in favor -- roll call.
13:38:33 It's going back to first reading.
13:38:34 >>> First reading.
13:38:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
13:38:41 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena voting no.
13:38:45 Mulhern and Dingfelder being absent at vote.
13:38:50 Second reading of the ordinance will be held October
13:38:53 16th at 9:30 a.m.
13:38:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much.
13:38:58 We will take up now the walk-on.
13:39:00 Then we'll come back to the resolution.
13:39:02 Walk-on item.
13:39:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, there's a resolution that
13:39:05 requires setting a public hearing for a vacating that
13:39:09 goes along with a rezoning for November 13th, the
13:39:14 clerk has it if you just move the resolution.
13:39:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
13:39:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
13:39:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Councilwoman Miller.
13:39:22 (Motion carried)
13:39:26 Okay, then we have the resolution.
13:39:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to council's
13:39:31 motion, containing the language in Ms. Saul's proposal
13:39:36 to council, I have prepared the resolution in form.
13:39:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I want to thank you, Mr. Shelby,
13:39:46 for your quick work, and I would like to move this
13:39:55 And not being a second, I'll wait until later.
13:39:59 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not opposed to seconding.
13:40:01 I'm not even opposed to voting for it.
13:40:03 What I am opposed to and stated clearly on the record
13:40:06 that I as one elected official have very little impact
13:40:09 on the Public Service Commission to deal
13:40:17 I think they are appointed by the governor.
13:40:18 And I have no problem with supporting the thing.
13:40:22 When you go into lobbying the Public Service
13:40:23 Commission, you are asking for an enormous amount of
13:40:26 money for an attorney or a lobbyist to do that extra
13:40:31 So if we want to spend money that way, it will be up
13:40:35 to the mayor.
13:40:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So you second the motion?
13:40:40 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I did, sir.
13:40:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
13:40:43 All in favor say Aye.
13:40:45 So moved and ordered.
13:40:47 We will move now to our afternoon agenda.
13:40:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Does this go to the governor?
13:40:56 >> That wasn't part of the resolution.
13:40:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That wasn't part of my
13:40:59 resolution -- of my motion.
13:41:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
13:41:04 Take up our first item for this afternoon.
13:41:06 All those who are going to be speaking before City
13:41:08 Council, will you please stand and be sworn at this
13:41:14 All persons who are going to be speaking.
13:41:18 (Oath administered by Clerk).
13:41:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I would ask that autumn written
13:41:27 material that has been available for this afternoon's
13:41:29 and this morning's public hearings be received and
13:41:31 filed into the record at this time.
13:41:37 By motion, please.
13:41:38 >> So moved.
13:41:40 >> Second.
13:41:41 (Motion carried).
13:41:41 >>GWEN MILLER: We are on item 9 is our first item up.
13:41:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I thought it was 66.
13:42:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 66 is the first alcoholic beverage.
13:42:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You're right, I'm sorry.
13:42:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I may, just to remind those people
13:42:09 in the audience, there is a sign-up sheet outside,
13:42:12 that if you do intend to testify, that you do sign in
13:42:15 the sign-in sheet, and that you do make sure that you
13:42:18 have acknowledged that you have been sworn in.
13:42:21 Council, I would just like to remind those people who
13:42:23 are going to testify per council's rules, rule 6-G
13:42:28 states that all persons who provide testimony,
13:42:30 information or opinion regarding a position in a
13:42:32 quasi-judicial matter pending before City Council must
13:42:35 disclose any direct or indirect business or personal
13:42:39 interest between themselves and the petitioner or
13:42:42 applicant, which is requesting action.
13:42:44 The information shall not be used to deny the
13:42:46 petitioner matter but goes to the weight of the
13:42:48 evidence, information, or opinion provided.
13:42:51 So we ask that if you do have that relationship that
13:42:53 you do disclose it to the City Council.
13:42:55 Thank you.
13:42:58 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
13:42:59 Item 66, V 08-67, is a continued public hearing.
13:43:05 Original public hearing was August 21st and there
13:43:07 was a request as to the parking requirements.
13:43:11 They did amend the site plan and put the correct
13:43:14 occupancy load on and they actually did not need a
13:43:18 waiver for parking.
13:43:19 There's 180 on-site.
13:43:21 Only 119 are required.
13:43:27 This is 52nd.
13:43:31 Temple Terrace is just to the east.
13:43:33 It's the old Whistle Stop Junction.
13:43:35 I believe it was a Ryan Steak House before.
13:43:41 Staff found it consistent based on the corrected site
13:43:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
13:43:46 >>> Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of council,
13:43:51 my name is Jim Diaz, West Kennedy Boulevard.
13:43:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Before we move forward I need to know
13:43:59 at this point since we heard this petition how much
13:44:01 time are -- our rules allocate to the petitioner?
13:44:07 I know it went through a full hearing.
13:44:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: My suggestion would be rather than to
13:44:13 rehear the entire case, council has had this custom
13:44:17 where those people who previously testified at a
13:44:22 continued public hearing do not have an opportunity to
13:44:24 testify again as to the same things. If there's new
13:44:29 additional evidence that needs to be brought forward,
13:44:32 on the parking situation or any other new evidence
13:44:34 that has to be brought forward, then that can be done,
13:44:38 and the petitioner obviously will be allowed an
13:44:41 opportunity for rebuttal of whatever is presented.
13:44:46 There was an issue as to whether he reserved time from
13:44:50 his previous, I believe the chair ruled that he did
13:44:54 not waive his time, to my recollection.
13:44:57 So if you wish to afford him time to address the issue
13:45:00 and any other issue that came up between now and the
13:45:02 previous public hearing, first reading, you may do so.
13:45:07 It council's discretion.
13:45:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Diaz, we will give you five
13:45:13 minutes to go and just bring anything that you may
13:45:16 want to rebut at this particular time, or to present.
13:45:20 Is that right?
13:45:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, my suggestion would be if you
13:45:22 wish to have him -- I don't know whether anybody else
13:45:25 intends to testify, but my suggestion would be that
13:45:28 Mr. Diaz is afforded the last word as well.
13:45:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I would allow him to speak his opening
13:45:36 We don't need a full-blown hearing but I will give you
13:45:38 the opportunity to bring council back up if they don't
13:45:42 remember, and then also ask for any new information,
13:45:45 then I will have you come back and close it out with
13:45:48 an additional three minutes.
13:45:50 >>> Mr. Chairman, I have nothing to add with respect
13:45:52 to the parking issue.
13:45:54 So if that's what you are going to maybe take
13:45:56 testimony, I am going to have to come back and rebut
13:45:58 at the same time, then you are welcome to take
13:46:00 whatever testimony you may want to take or any
13:46:02 opposition as to the parking issue.
13:46:05 And I guess I'll come back and do my rebuttal on the
13:46:07 original hearing and the testimony that was presented
13:46:09 at that time, and on this parking issue that may arise
13:46:13 It's my understanding all that was going to happen
13:46:15 today was my rebuttal and whether or not that parking
13:46:19 I certainly have nothing to say against the parking
13:46:21 issue because we have complied with it.
13:46:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
13:46:27 In relation to the parking, is that right? So you
13:46:29 will have five minutes now, I will have you come back.
13:46:31 You will have five minutes rebuttal time.
13:46:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm just wondering why it came
13:46:39 Procedurally I'm a little lost.
13:46:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: That is a good question for Ms. Coyle
13:46:43 to refresh your recollection related to the -- there
13:46:47 was an issue but the site plan being reviewed.
13:46:50 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
13:46:51 That was the reason it was continued from August.
13:46:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And the parking.
13:46:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: A neighboring parcel or something?
13:47:00 >>CATHERINE COYLE: There was opposition to it, to the
13:47:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the name of the club?
13:47:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They had asked for an "R"
13:47:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand. But you all remember
13:47:12 what the discussion was now.
13:47:15 And we had a number of people from here from Temple
13:47:18 Terrace, from university community area, okay.
13:47:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If I can, Mr. Dingfelder, to refresh
13:47:27 your recollection, what happened was the site plan was
13:47:29 not ready to be signed off on by land development, but
13:47:33 because the room was filled with a lot of people,
13:47:36 council made these policy decisions to allow those
13:47:40 people the opportunity to offer that you are
13:47:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But we never voted on anything.
13:47:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY: No, sir.
13:47:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
13:47:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we can only take testimony today
13:47:50 based on the parking, but they comply with the
13:47:53 So everyone understands, they comply with the parking.
13:47:58 Because the only thing they can talk about is the
13:48:04 parking but they meet all the requirements for the
13:48:10 So no comments from the public?
13:48:12 All right.
13:48:13 About the parking.
13:48:25 >> As you know, we.
13:48:39 >> There's a plaza across the street inside the city
13:48:42 limits that has to do with -- I have a feeling we are
13:48:44 going to have some overflow problems based on the
13:48:46 number of people that can be inside and the number of
13:48:55 parking spots.
13:48:57 We have other concerns but I understand we can can't
13:48:59 talk about those today?
13:49:01 >> Right.
13:49:01 You can only speak to the parking issue.
13:49:03 >>> So if you compare the parking spots to the number
13:49:05 of people that can be held inside that building,
13:49:09 unless they come in three or four per car, then we are
13:49:15 going to have a problem, and I imagine we are going to
13:49:17 have parking problems in the public parking lot right
13:49:22 across the street.
13:49:23 Thank you.
13:49:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you very much. Mr. Caetano has
13:49:24 a question.
13:49:24 >> Turn your mike on.
13:49:43 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Is this an application for
13:49:45 outside also?
13:49:46 >>> It's a special use request and the description
13:49:48 does cover the outdoor dining area.
13:49:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: It does cover that?
13:49:53 >>> Yes.
13:49:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman.
13:49:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ding to either staff or the
13:50:03 Ours of operation, have you mentioned that as part of
13:50:05 your testimony, Mr. Diaz?
13:50:08 >>> Diaz: No.
13:50:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I assume you have a parallel
13:50:14 operation, I think in, Orlando.
13:50:15 What are the proposed hours of operation here going to
13:50:19 >>> You know, Mr. Dingfelder, that's the problem.
13:50:21 We don't have a parallel operation in Orlando.
13:50:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I stand corrected.
13:50:27 Forget that comment.
13:50:28 What are your hours of operation going to be here?
13:50:30 >>> What we would like to see here on Thursday, Friday
13:50:33 and Saturday, we would like to see 1:00 in the morning
13:50:35 and the rest of the week --
13:50:38 >> For your restaurant?
13:50:39 89 for the restaurant?
13:50:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Would you be amenable to early
13:50:46 Because I think most restaurants, I don't know, ten on
13:50:50 the weekday, maybe eleven on a weekend.
13:50:54 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, let me tell you what's happening.
13:50:57 We are kind of jumping the gun here.
13:51:01 I know you all heard what you heard, and I understand
13:51:03 what you have been shown as going on in Orlando.
13:51:06 Let's just be very clear.
13:51:07 The Orlando operation is a 4(COP) operation.
13:51:14 We don't have before you an application for a 4(COP).
13:51:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Right.
13:51:18 And I already accepted that.
13:51:19 >>> We have before you -- I understand, but that's
13:51:22 what they presented to you guys, and --
13:51:25 Mr. Diaz, the councilman asked a question.
13:51:29 Will you be amenable to the hours?
13:51:31 You have not answered that question.
13:51:32 You will have time for rebuttal.
13:51:34 Sir, you will have time to rebuttal.
13:51:37 You are getting into the details of your rebuttal.
13:51:41 The question, are you amenable a to the hours?
13:51:44 >>> I am not authorized to accept the hours that Mr.
13:51:46 Dingfelder has proposed.
13:51:47 I'm authorized to accept the hours that I advanced to
13:51:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is your client here to ask?
13:51:54 >>> Unfortunately my client is observing the holiday
13:51:57 season and my client is not here.
13:52:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
13:52:01 Any other question from council?
13:52:03 Mr. Diaz, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
13:52:06 >>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
13:52:09 As I stated application is a 4(COP-R).
13:52:12 City staff has now found it consistent, what was maybe
13:52:17 inconsistent before was the parking.
13:52:18 Police department has reviewed it, has no objections,
13:52:20 no neighborhood association opposition was reflected
13:52:24 in the police report, and so they had no opposition to
13:52:31 When this matter appeared before council, you had
13:52:35 eight people that came and spoke in opposition.
13:52:39 Two of those people were the mayor, the city of Temple
13:52:43 Terrace, and the chief of police for the city of
13:52:45 Temple Terrace.
13:52:47 Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to rebut what
13:52:52 they told you because they apparently held a meeting
13:52:55 the night before and they took a vote and they were
13:52:57 all in opposition to it, never having given an
13:53:00 opportunity to appear at that hearing or present any
13:53:02 testimony, I can't tell you what went on at that
13:53:05 hearing and what they heard.
13:53:07 All I can tell you is council met and they voted
13:53:10 against it.
13:53:13 The next party that appeared against it was a
13:53:17 gentleman by the name of Ken banks.
13:53:19 Mr. Banks was the dean of students at USF.
13:53:22 Mr. Banks told you how the college is very concerned
13:53:28 about drinking with students and everything, and lo
13:53:30 and behold, two days after our hearing comes out that
13:53:36 they are having a drinking problem on the campus, and
13:53:39 the university has to close down a facility-owned
13:53:45 So what are they telling you? We are against
13:53:49 Yet they licensed an establishment on their facility
13:53:52 that serves alcoholic beverages and in fact was
13:53:55 selling alcoholic beverages during the daytime to its
13:53:58 students and employees and they had to shut that thing
13:54:03 The next group basically revolved around a church that
13:54:09 was about 800 feet from this location.
13:54:14 You had a gentleman by the name of Bill Lyons who came
13:54:18 to testify.
13:54:18 Mr. Lyons testified that he was a member of the
13:54:21 church, and how the crime had gone up in the area.
13:54:27 Well, I don't know if the crime has or hasn't gone up
13:54:30 in that area.
13:54:30 But I can a sure you it can't be attributable to our
13:54:34 We are not even open.
13:54:36 So what has happened in that locale with crimes and
13:54:40 things of that nature, we don't know but we are
13:54:43 certainly not responsible for it.
13:54:45 You then had a deacon on behalf of that same church
13:54:48 who appeared, and he likewise testified he lived in
13:54:52 Lutz, and he was concerned about what was happening in
13:54:55 the area.
13:54:57 We are not there.
13:54:58 So how can they sit there and tell us that what is
13:55:02 happening in that area is being attributable to us?
13:55:05 We are not even open for business.
13:55:09 The next one you had testify was a fellow by the name
13:55:12 of Galen Thomas, the pastor of the same church, and
13:55:15 Mr. Thomas lives in St. Petersburg.
13:55:19 And Mr. Thomas' testimony was, we just oppose it.
13:55:25 And the last person with respect to the church was a
13:55:28 gentleman by the name of Peter Frontack, and he said
13:55:32 he was a member of the church and they just didn't
13:55:34 think it was a good idea for this bar to be next to
13:55:36 the church.
13:55:37 We are not asking for a 4(COP).
13:55:39 We are asking for a 4(COP-R).
13:55:43 The last part that spoke in opposition was -- two more
13:55:47 people, excuse me.
13:55:48 A lady by the name of Karen Hernandez.
13:55:52 She stood and told you she was a professionally
13:55:54 trained bartender, that she had a service that trained
13:55:58 responsible vendors and she was appearing here in her
13:56:01 capacity as a member of the Tampa alcohol coalition.
13:56:07 She then went on to tell you that, you know, we really
13:56:10 don't have any objections to it if it's a restaurant.
13:56:13 They keep saying they want to be a restaurant, they
13:56:15 want to be a restaurant, we really don't have any
13:56:17 opposition to it.
13:56:18 Well, that's what we are asking you for.
13:56:23 We're not asking you for a bar.
13:56:25 So what they have gone is brought a whole bunch of
13:56:28 pictures and a whole bunch of information regarding a
13:56:30 location which has an entirely different wet zoning
13:56:34 from the wet zoning that we are requesting before you
13:56:40 They brought Keith Hamilton from the Division of
13:56:42 Alcohol, Beverages and Tobacco.
13:56:44 If you look at the document that Mr. Hamilton gave you
13:56:48 all, you are going to see the Scoops in the 4(COP),
13:56:51 it's not a 4(COP-R).
13:56:55 We had the rabbi who came and appeared before you all,
13:57:03 and I believe that if you recall, his testimony was
13:57:05 that he thought that this was a wet zoning that you
13:57:08 all should support, and the rabbi told you that he
13:57:12 was, with respect to both USF and university of Tampa,
13:57:17 had been associated with both of those institutions
13:57:20 for quite some time, and I think said with respect to
13:57:23 the university went back to like '86 or something like
13:57:28 that but he felt it was something that the opportunity
13:57:29 should be afforded.
13:57:31 And that's all we are asking.
13:57:33 Look, if you want to tell us, if you want to give us a
13:57:37 one-year conditional, 99% of the time I will tell my
13:57:40 client don't do it.
13:57:41 We bought an existing restaurant location.
13:57:43 The equipment is already there.
13:57:46 So it's not like we are running this -- we
13:57:52 respectfully request your approval on 4(COP-R).
13:57:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, thank you.
13:57:56 Councilman Caetano.
13:57:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Sir, you said Temple Terrace.
13:58:01 Was that a City Council meeting?
13:58:05 >>> The best that I can tell you, when I printed the
13:58:07 transcript of the minutes, when the mayor appeared,
13:58:11 the mayor said that they have a meeting the night
13:58:15 before -- excuse me, what he said was, so this past
13:58:18 week our council voted unanimously to oppose this.
13:58:23 Can't tell you any more than that.
13:58:24 I can tell you that we never received any notice of
13:58:26 any hearing or any opportunity to appear and offering
13:58:30 testimony or evidence whatsoever.
13:58:31 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Did you attempt to get a
13:58:34 transcript of that meeting?
13:58:35 >>> No, sir, I did not.
13:58:36 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: You also mentioned that at the
13:58:39 university they closed down a place.
13:58:41 Are you referring to Beef O'Brady's?
13:58:44 >>> Yes, sir.
13:58:44 >> I don't think they closed it down.
13:58:46 I think what they did, if you had classes during the
13:58:48 day, could you not go there and drink in between
13:58:53 I don't think it's closed.
13:58:54 >>> No, it's open at night.
13:58:56 They still serve alcohol on campus at night.
13:58:58 >> As long as you don't have classes, you can go
13:59:01 But if you have classes during the day, you are
13:59:03 forbidden from going there.
13:59:04 That is the rule.
13:59:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions from council?
13:59:10 Councilman Dingfelder.
13:59:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm still curious about the
13:59:14 opportunity to run the restaurant at reasonable hours,
13:59:20 like I suggested, ten during the weekdays and eleven
13:59:24 on Fridays and Saturdays.
13:59:26 I appreciate the fact you don't have your client here,
13:59:31 and I respect his religious beliefs enough to suggest
13:59:35 that maybe we need a week or two continuance, or
13:59:39 whenever the holiday is over, so you can bring him or
13:59:42 discuss it with him and come back and answer that
13:59:45 question, because I think to me it's a real important
13:59:49 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, if you will recall, we went not
13:59:59 too long ago on Florida Avenue.
14:00:01 >> Well, within the four corners of this petition.
14:00:04 I don't think we should be --
14:00:08 >>> I don't --
14:00:09 >> You don't want to mud that I record.
14:00:11 >>> No, sir, I don't.
14:00:12 >> That would be my suggestion.
14:00:14 I'm not going to make a motion that we continue it
14:00:16 unless you think it might be possible that your client
14:00:19 might consider it.
14:00:20 But that would be what I would throw out to you as a
14:00:24 matter of fairness.
14:00:25 >>> Mr. Dingfelder, I guess for me to sit here and
14:00:28 make that call I think would be kind of difficult, not
14:00:33 really knowing what my client would do.
14:00:36 So I guess I'm almost kind of like having to say, let
14:00:40 me ask and see what his feelings are.
14:00:42 But I'm not authorized at this time to tell you to
14:00:44 take those hours.
14:00:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Miller, then Councilwoman
14:00:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you going to have entertainment
14:00:52 there, a band or disco?
14:00:54 >>> Not to my knowledge, ma'am.
14:00:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I thought I heard you moving
14:01:00 towards the word acknowledge conditional.
14:01:02 Did I hear you say your client would be willing to
14:01:04 accept conditional one-year approval so we could see
14:01:07 how it goes?
14:01:08 >>> Yes, ma'am, did you.
14:01:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Because the neighbors have been
14:01:11 very eloquent on their concerns about this.
14:01:13 And I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting anything.
14:01:17 >>> I have expressed to my client the fact we would
14:01:21 more than likely have to do a one-year conditional.
14:01:23 As I told you, I would not recommend it.
14:01:26 But, yes, this is something we would entertain.
14:01:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
14:01:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As long as the hearing is over I
14:01:35 will make a motion --
14:01:36 I have some questions, if you don't mind.
14:01:38 Let me ask our attorney, if you don't mind.
14:01:40 We have heard testimony by the pastor and members of
14:01:43 the church, and it's my understanding this that church
14:01:46 is within -- what does our ordinance specify?
14:01:50 >>> Within a thousand feet.
14:01:51 >> It doesn't matter whether members live in St. Pete
14:01:53 or whatever.
14:01:54 I have a church and I have members throughout St. Pete
14:01:57 every Sunday so that's irrelevant.
14:01:58 They are members of that church.
14:01:59 So my question is, though, what does that ordinance
14:02:02 specify and how much weight does it carry in this
14:02:10 >>REBECCA KERT: They do have to seek a waiver from
14:02:13 1,000 feet to 800 feet for the two churches in the
14:02:17 area, the EL Bethel primitive Baptist and tabernacle.
14:02:26 Whether you want to consider waiving them is whether
14:02:28 or not if you waive it from 1,000 feet to 800 feet it
14:02:32 still needs to be general standard required in the
14:02:34 code ensuring the public health, safety and welfare,
14:02:37 that it's compatible with surrounding uses, in
14:02:41 conformance with the comp plan and it will not
14:02:43 establish a precedent as intensive or incompatible
14:02:48 To grant the waives you have to find that with the
14:02:50 waivers it still meets all of your general standards.
14:02:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
14:02:59 Mr. Dingfelder?
14:03:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I want to reiterate, I move
14:03:04 for a two-week continuance is two weeks enough?
14:03:08 >>> One week is more than enough, I'm sure.
14:03:10 It's just a matter of me coming and telling you yes or
14:03:12 no and then you taking a vote on that, I think,
14:03:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to be respectful of the
14:03:20 No meeting next week?
14:03:22 I'm sorry, it's a different holiday. Anyway, I move
14:03:24 for a two-week continuance, and would respectfully
14:03:27 request that Mr. Diaz --
14:03:29 He said one week.
14:03:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We don't meet next week.
14:03:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I understand that but he said one
14:03:36 You understand that there will be two weeks.
14:03:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's no meeting next week.
14:03:40 >>> Just so I'm real clear the question you want me to
14:03:43 ask my client the hours of operation.
14:03:46 >> Eleven on Friday and Saturday.
14:03:49 >>> Friday and Saturday, 11:00.
14:03:52 And Monday through Thursday --
14:03:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The rest of the week, Sunday
14:03:57 through Thursday, ten.
14:04:00 Just seems like if I went around to most restaurants,
14:04:03 it would seem to be reasonable hours of operation.
14:04:05 >>GWEN MILLER: I want to know, Mr. Diaz, whether
14:04:10 entertainment, a band or disc jockey.
14:04:12 I want to know if we are going to have any kind of
14:04:15 Will it be a band or disc jockey or something?
14:04:21 >>> Any other questions?
14:04:37 Will that be at 1:30?
14:04:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 1:30 or what time?
14:04:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Do we have room here?
14:04:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, 1:30.
14:05:06 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It won't take very long.
14:05:08 Vote up or down.
14:05:09 >>> Thank you.
14:05:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Got a clarification on the waiver
14:05:16 again, to our counsel.
14:05:19 As I understand it, that's part of the waiver process
14:05:25 because they don't meet the criteria.
14:05:26 And council has to determine that they meet the
14:05:30 criteria for waiver.
14:05:31 >>REBECCA KERT: The applicant's burden to demonstrate
14:05:36 they meet this criteria.
14:05:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just want to be clear, that's all.
14:05:40 There's a motion on the floor.
14:05:41 Moved and seconded that we continue this.
14:05:42 What's the date again?
14:05:45 The 16th at 1:30.
14:05:46 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:05:58 Item 67.
14:06:12 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Case WZ 08-116 requesting a 4(COP)
14:06:18 license, wet zoning, for the property located at 125
14:06:21 south 11th street.
14:06:23 I did provide you with an aerial.
14:06:29 To put in the perspective, this is the southwest
14:06:32 corner of the larger Seaboard Square project that came
14:06:38 through a couple of years back, the larger Channel
14:06:40 District rezoning.
14:06:41 Towers of Channelside are here, on the south side of
14:06:47 What they are requesting is a 4(COP) for the entire
14:06:50 hotel property.
14:06:56 However, within it is a smaller section, which is the
14:07:01 package sales.
14:07:02 You will note the first page of the staff report in
14:07:05 the paragraph A, there's 116,700 square foot total for
14:07:10 that area.
14:07:11 It includes a Piazza and four stores of the 7-story
14:07:15 There is a parking garage that's not included.
14:07:19 Paragraph B describes the consumption off premises,
14:07:21 the package sales.
14:07:22 It is a 3,812 square foot total for a little retail
14:07:26 store that's inside the hotel.
14:07:28 You will note on the first, second and third page, the
14:07:32 uses within a thousand feet.
14:07:34 Other alcoholic beverage establishments, other
14:07:37 residential uses, and other institutional uses.
14:07:40 Staff had no objection to the request.
14:07:57 The staff report was attached to mine, and there was
14:08:02 no objection from TPD.
14:08:03 And that staff report was dated September 8th.
14:08:07 Just to remind council, this is a WZ case so it does
14:08:10 fall under chapter 3 regulations.
14:08:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
14:08:13 >>> Good afternoon.
14:08:24 Grace Yang, 201 north Franklin street, suite 2200,
14:08:28 Tampa, representing petitioner seaboard hotel
14:08:31 associate LLC.
14:08:32 To remind council, this is the hotel Indigo project in
14:08:37 the Channelside district, and Channel District that's
14:08:40 already been approved for development.
14:08:42 So we are here today for the wet zoning.
14:08:44 And this is a very interesting type of a 4(COP)
14:08:48 request in the sense that as Ms. Coyle described, it's
14:08:52 really more like a combination of a 4(COP-X) for
14:08:56 on-premises consumption with a small area for the
14:08:59 retail package sales.
14:09:02 There's that property, there's that small area about
14:09:06 3,812 square feet on the ground floor, that the hotel
14:09:11 would like to use for a gift shop, retail store area,
14:09:14 and that would be the only area in the entire hotel
14:09:16 where package sales are allowed.
14:09:19 The rest of the hotel, the seven-story hotel minus the
14:09:23 parking garage level would be for -- the request is
14:09:28 for full liquor on premises consumption only actually,
14:09:32 and that is written in as part of the conditions of
14:09:33 the ordinance that's being proposed today.
14:09:35 The ordinance also has a condition that the alcohol
14:09:38 will be incidental to the hotel operation.
14:09:42 I'm happy to answer any other questions you may have.
14:09:45 This will be the first hotel Indigo in Tampa and we
14:09:48 are hoping to have it open by next fall.
14:09:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just have a quick question.
14:09:55 Did you speak with the Channel District residents
14:09:58 >>> Yes.
14:09:59 Yes, we did contact them.
14:10:00 I did not receive any formal feedback, back from them.
14:10:04 I have also spoken on several occasions to Bob
14:10:07 McDonough who runs your CRA in the Channel District
14:10:10 and he force me through his conversations that they
14:10:13 did not express any concern.
14:10:15 But I did not receive any formal letters or e-mails
14:10:18 from them.
14:10:20 They were notified, though.
14:10:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:10:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:10:24 Anyone from the public wish to address council on this
14:10:28 Anyone from the public wish to address council on this
14:10:31 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
14:10:33 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:10:34 (Motion carried).
14:10:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I will simply call it to council's
14:10:41 attention that last week we had a similar situation
14:10:44 with the hotel on Busch.
14:10:47 I just point it out, for fairness issue, and you all
14:10:52 said they could not have liquor in the rooms and
14:10:55 beyond the restaurant.
14:10:56 Now we have a hotel in the Channelside, and it's going
14:11:02 to be wet zoned throughout.
14:11:04 I just want top make an observation.
14:11:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Does it have alcohol in the
14:11:11 >> That's my understanding.
14:11:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The previous one had residential
14:11:16 uses closer to it.
14:11:18 And that were like a neighborhood.
14:11:22 And that's my reason for supporting it.
14:11:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: He would don't have residential on
14:11:27 We don't have residents on Channelside?
14:11:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We do, it's mostly --
14:11:32 Do we have residential on Channelside?
14:11:34 I'm just pointing out a fairness thing.
14:11:36 One thing you are going to learn about me is I believe
14:11:38 in being fair, okay?
14:11:40 I'm just pointing out a fairness issue.
14:11:43 We have a petition theory came here last week, and you
14:11:46 all adamantly opposed that.
14:11:49 And if you note that same restaurant is across the
14:11:54 street from Busch Gardens, right across the street
14:11:57 from the biggest entertainment center in Tampa,
14:12:00 Florida, Hillsborough County.
14:12:05 >>CATHERINE COYLE: I was going to answer his question.
14:12:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Please understand I'm not opposed to
14:12:09 I'm just making a point to council, to the petitioner.
14:12:12 That's all.
14:12:13 I'm not opposed to the.
14:12:14 I just believe in fairness.
14:12:17 And consistency.
14:12:18 And continuity.
14:12:19 Okay, yes, go ahead.
14:12:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:12:21 In answer to your question there is residential as
14:12:23 part of the Channel District.
14:12:24 It's a mixed use district.
14:12:26 Residential sticks out, and as part of the Seaboard
14:12:30 Square there was residential from high-rise to
14:12:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:12:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I got it.
14:12:38 And I'll just say, it's hard to argue with the
14:12:44 But I do think -- and I think this is where Ms.
14:12:48 Saul-Sena was headed -- I do think that every
14:12:51 neighborhood is different.
14:12:52 And I know that I support a lot of things in what I
14:12:55 consider to be downtown, including Channelside.
14:12:58 And I sure as heck wouldn't support our other
14:13:01 residential neighborhoods. Anyway, it's a tough one.
14:13:05 And you make a good point, Mr. Chair.
14:13:07 I'll move an ordinance making lawful the conditional
14:13:09 sale of beverages change alcohol beer, wine and liquor
14:13:13 4(COP) for consumption on premises in sealed
14:13:16 containers for consumption off premises in connection
14:13:17 with a business establishment on that certain lot,
14:13:22 plot or tract of land located at 125 south 11th
14:13:25 street, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly described
14:13:28 in section 2 hereof waiving certain restrictions as to
14:13:31 distance based upon certain findings, imposing certain
14:13:33 conditions, providing for repeal of ordinances in
14:13:37 conflict, providing an effective date.
14:13:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded.
14:13:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Before we vote, let me just say
14:13:44 I'm not against a hotel having alcoholic beverages,
14:13:48 not at all.
14:13:49 But when you look back at history and you see what's
14:13:52 happened in Ybor City, and you see what's happened in
14:13:55 the Soho district, and -- they don't start by having
14:14:02 all these areas wet zoned, it's one at a time.
14:14:04 Already in Channelside we have had various discussion
14:14:07 right here on this council, I forget the name of the
14:14:11 building but they had one floor, second floor, third
14:14:13 floor, then they went to the pool and everything else,
14:14:15 and the neighbors were quite upset.
14:14:17 There was agreement reached between the neighborhood
14:14:19 association and the petitioner, and that never got
14:14:22 here, if I recall.
14:14:23 But what I'm saying is that I would support the
14:14:26 alcohol zoning of the hotel if there was a standard
14:14:29 alcohol zoning without the alcohol store on the bottom
14:14:34 selling to everybody.
14:14:35 I don't want to see broken bottles.
14:14:38 If they can sell, they can sell to go out.
14:14:40 And I'm just trying to be fair.
14:14:41 I voted against the other one just for the same
14:14:44 People nowadays are very conscious of their money.
14:14:47 I don't think they are going to spend 35, $45 for a
14:14:50 bottle of alcohol when they can bring one in for $14
14:14:53 from a package store and take it to the rooms.
14:14:55 I just don't believe that's economical for anyone.
14:14:58 So for that reason, I will not be supporting this item
14:15:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was thinking about the little
14:15:09 package store.
14:15:10 And I guess what I'm thinking about is sort of
14:15:13 creating this urban community.
14:15:15 In South Tampa, if you want a bottle of liquor wine or
14:15:21 beer or what have you, go over to Kennedy to the ABC
14:15:24 over there, and it's pretty convenient.
14:15:26 You just drive over there.
14:15:28 But in Channelside, I'm trying to think, if you live
14:15:30 in Channelside or if you live on Harbor Island, I'm
14:15:33 not sure where you have to go to drive to the little
14:15:36 package store.
14:15:38 Well, you can go to Kennedy which is not nearly as
14:15:41 So what I'm thinking is, I guess I'm starting to think
14:15:45 out loud, Charlie, but I guess what I'm thinking is
14:15:48 it's not unreasonable, if we are creating a little
14:15:50 urban community, that those folks would be able to --
14:15:54 who are living in Channelside would be able to walk
14:15:56 over to their own little package store and get their
14:15:58 bottle of wine for dinner as a convenience item.
14:16:02 So I'm comfortable with it.
14:16:04 I think -- is this first reading?
14:16:07 >> Yes.
14:16:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If we hear from Channelside to the
14:16:10 contrary then maybe I'll vote differently.
14:16:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's a motion.
14:16:13 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:16:17 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern being absent
14:16:19 and Miranda voting no.
14:16:21 Second reading of the ordinance will be held October
14:16:24 16th at 9:30 a.m.
14:16:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:16:28 Item 68.
14:16:30 It's a continued public hearing.
14:16:32 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
14:16:37 This case actually goes to our discussion last week
14:16:41 about vendors, and the appeals of our decision.
14:16:45 This is an appeal of the zoning administrator decision
14:16:47 for 2109 east Genesee.
14:16:53 They applied for an annual vendor permit at that
14:16:56 location and do not meet the criteria.
14:16:58 You will note the location at 22nd and Genesee, it is
14:17:03 across the street from the school.
14:17:06 This is commercial property along 22nd street.
14:17:10 What they have, the site on which they are located is
14:17:13 an undeveloped property, and they have a mobile truck
14:17:19 that comes on-site.
14:17:20 But what they have done, and I discussed this with
14:17:22 you, the petitioners for these really are trying to
14:17:25 improve these sites as much as they can without
14:17:28 obviously spending the money to erect a commercial
14:17:30 building which can be very costly.
14:17:32 They have gone in and they have actually landscaped
14:17:34 the site, and the trees, and obviously they are back
14:17:38 to improve it but because of the criteria, and these
14:17:43 were part of the application, and Mr. Scott, I believe
14:17:47 you discussed actually --
14:17:51 Last week.
14:17:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Yep.
14:17:54 So just to show you how it operates.
14:17:56 Noting in the report that we did find it inconsistent
14:17:58 because it does not meet specifically the criteria,
14:18:02 council does have the ability to waive those criteria
14:18:04 noted on page 3 and 4 of the staff report, and
14:18:08 specifically because it is an undeveloped site.
14:18:11 That is the main reason why they were denied.
14:18:14 I'm available for any questions. This goes right into
14:18:16 the conversation we had last week.
14:18:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone --
14:18:24 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Cathy, are these -- and I am not
14:18:27 specifically speaking on this gentleman's request for
14:18:30 this particular site.
14:18:31 Who checks on the health, safety and welfare of the
14:18:35 Does the restaurant hotel commission check these
14:18:37 vehicles on occasion be?
14:18:39 >>> They do have to get their licenses and there are
14:18:42 inspectors from those agencies.
14:18:43 We do require those licenses as part of the
14:18:48 And you can see they have attacks receipt from the
14:18:54 city obviously but they also have department of
14:18:55 business and professional regulation, division of
14:18:57 hotels and restaurants, their mobile crew vendor, so
14:19:00 they are licensed by the state as well.
14:19:04 >>> That's what I want to know.
14:19:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: And they have their own inspection
14:19:08 as well.
14:19:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This was on last week, people drive a
14:19:11 truck in, end of the day they drive off.
14:19:20 I was talking about that last week.
14:19:21 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question of staff.
14:19:24 Cathy, if we made the changes that were -- that we
14:19:28 talked about and sent over to Planning Commission last
14:19:30 week, would they still need to be in here for us at
14:19:38 >>> No, I believe --
14:19:42 >> Because there's a bunch of waivers.
14:19:44 I want to make sure we address them.
14:19:47 >>> This is one of the model cases.
14:19:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's right.
14:19:53 Petitioner, want to add anything to what's been said?
14:19:58 >>> They should put their name on the record.
14:20:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Come on up and put your name on the
14:20:04 >>> Good afternoon, City Council.
14:20:07 My name is James Youngblood.
14:20:10 And I'm the owner of the food truck.
14:20:16 And we do a lot of service to the community.
14:20:18 And I feel like the way we set up, we don't need -- we
14:20:25 don't need the 150 feet back because we are mobile,
14:20:33 and till 7 at night and come down and get the food and
14:20:40 we serve the community of Tampa.
14:20:43 I'm a citizen of Tampa, Florida.
14:20:46 And I'm hoping that you will rule in our favor.
14:20:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:20:50 >>> That's about all.
14:20:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Youngblood.
14:20:53 Thank you again.
14:20:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think that we received a number
14:20:57 of letters in support of your petition.
14:20:59 But I just have to ask, if your staff -- from eleven
14:21:06 to seven, where do the staff people there selling the
14:21:10 food and dispensing it washing their hand and go to
14:21:12 the bathroom?
14:21:14 >>> Yes, ma'am.
14:21:15 We got a mobile food truck.
14:21:18 We got an RV that my wife and her sister, the two that
14:21:24 work the truck.
14:21:25 And they got signs all over the truck.
14:21:27 And we got hot and cold water.
14:21:29 We have been inspected.
14:21:32 So we just need to work.
14:21:34 Thank you.
14:21:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
14:21:37 Motion to close.
14:21:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
14:21:42 >> Second.
14:21:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the audience want to
14:21:44 address council?
14:21:47 >>> Sheila Youngblood.
14:21:58 Good afternoon, council.
14:22:01 I would like to address the question that she had.
14:22:04 In order to be inspected, we have someone come from
14:22:09 the food inspection place.
14:22:12 You have to have cold and hot running water in order
14:22:16 to operate.
14:22:17 They will not license you from Tallahassee without
14:22:22 And we also, as far as our service, the customers
14:22:27 come, it's a pickup and carryout.
14:22:31 As far as the employees, myself and my sister, we have
14:22:34 like a little mobile home.
14:22:38 It's portable.
14:22:39 We go in there.
14:22:40 We use the restroom there.
14:22:42 And we have signs and everything posted there as well
14:22:48 for our use.
14:22:50 You cannot have a mobile truck without hot and cold
14:22:53 running water with signs, sanitation they come out and
14:22:58 dop the inspection.
14:22:59 If you do not pass they close you down right there.
14:23:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
14:23:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mrs. Youngblood.
14:23:06 Anyone else?
14:23:07 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
14:23:08 >> Second.
14:23:08 (Motion carried).
14:23:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we have an ordinance?
14:23:12 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
14:23:13 We do have an ordinance prepared.
14:23:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Chairman, an ordinance approving a
14:23:25 special use permit S-1 on appeal from a decision of
14:23:29 the zoning administrator approving annual vendor in a
14:23:32 CG commercial general zoning district in the city of
14:23:35 Tampa, Florida and as more particularly described in
14:23:37 section 1 approving waivers set forth herein providing
14:23:43 an effective date.
14:23:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved, and seconded by
14:23:47 councilman Miranda.
14:23:48 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern being absent
14:23:53 at vote.
14:23:54 Second reading of the ordinance will be held October
14:23:58 16th at 9:30 a.m.
14:24:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
14:24:06 Mrs. Youngblood, did you hear that?
14:24:08 9:30, second reading.
14:24:10 Okay, anyone else who has not been sworn in, that has
14:24:14 come in since he would began the hearings?
14:24:16 Will you please stand and raise your right hand, if
14:24:18 you are going to address council, if you are going to
14:24:21 speak to council, please stand and be sworn in at this
14:24:26 We have three hearings this afternoon, three appeal
14:24:32 And they are probably going to be kind of lengthy
14:24:34 based upon the material that I have read and looked
14:24:39 Okay, everybody has been sworn in?
14:24:41 All right.
14:24:41 (Oath administered by Clerk)
14:24:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:24:51 Item 69.
14:24:53 This is the camp Nebraska, Inc.
14:25:00 >>> Good afternoon, council.
14:25:01 Today you have before you the appeal of Variance
14:25:03 Review Board denial of application VRB 08-66.
14:25:10 The property in this appeal is located at 103-14 north
14:25:17 Nebraska Avenue and the applicant and property owner
14:25:19 is camp Nebraska incorporated.
14:25:21 The variance request was to seek relief from the Tampa
14:25:25 city code section 27-133 to keep an existing barbed
14:25:30 wire fence on property with that is zoned CI and
14:25:37 Tampa city code section 27-133 paragraph C states that
14:25:42 barbed wire may be used for security purposes in any
14:25:46 industrial district or if necessary to any
14:25:49 agricultural use provided that the barbed wire is
14:25:52 limited to three strands which are located a minimum
14:25:55 of six feet above the ground.
14:25:58 10314 north Nebraska Avenue is in a commercial
14:26:04 Tampa city code section 27-133 allows a variance by
14:26:08 allowing barbed wire for commercial and industrial
14:26:11 uses where a security need is demonstrated by the
14:26:21 After hearing the applicant's presentation the
14:26:22 variance reviewed board denied the application on the
14:26:25 basis that the applicant had not demonstrated the
14:26:27 requisite security need.
14:26:30 The board took notice that the property abutted
14:26:32 residential property.
14:26:34 So the Variance Review Board felt strongly that the
14:26:36 applicant had not demonstrated other means of security
14:26:40 methods were tried and had failed.
14:26:43 Now at this time I would like to turn the podium over
14:26:45 to Ms. Wee to present the applicant application.
14:26:58 >> Good afternoon members of the Tampa City Council.
14:27:10 My name is Mick coal Weese.
14:27:12 I'm vice-president and co-counsel of camp Nebraska,
14:27:16 Inc., a family owned local corporation that has owned
14:27:19 the property at issue for ten years.
14:27:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Excuse me.
14:27:25 Let me interrupt for a minute.
14:27:26 You have a total of 15 minutes to present the
14:27:30 However, you don't have to use all 15 minutes.
14:27:33 Now, I will tell you, I would think that most of us, I
14:27:38 read the backup, I visited the site and I saw the
14:27:41 >>> Okay.
14:27:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So I'm familiar with everything.
14:27:44 I'm just letting now.
14:27:45 >>> I'm brief it up a little bit.
14:27:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:27:52 As mentioned in the report the Variance Review Board
14:27:54 was concerned that the fence abuts residential
14:27:58 Residential property they are talking about is an RV
14:28:01 park which is a commercial use and we have
14:28:03 grandfathered in for that use.
14:28:04 The fence itself only goes along Nebraska and
14:28:08 Bougainvillea Avenue.
14:28:09 So where we are fully exposed on the street.
14:28:12 There is no barbed wire along the fence that partition
14:28:16 it is vacant lot from the RV park itself.
14:28:21 We decided to use the lot for storage because of the
14:28:24 250% tax increase that we had in one tax year.
14:28:27 That comes up to about $2,000 a month in taxes.
14:28:30 We needed the additional revenue, and we felt that
14:28:33 without the security of a barbed wire fence that
14:28:36 uniqueness of the lot being used for -- excuse me, for
14:28:41 RVs and travel trailers would open itself up to more
14:28:45 criminal activity.
14:28:48 You see, the eleven properties that are along Nebraska
14:28:51 Avenue from Fowler to waters, which is about a two
14:28:54 mile distance, camp Nebraska is in the middle of that.
14:28:57 There are eleven other properties with barbed wire
14:29:00 fencing, there's properties with electric fencing, not
14:29:03 one citation for code violations on any one of those
14:29:07 The eleven properties are mostly for automobile
14:29:12 The nature of the RVs and travel trailers, a
14:29:18 traveler trailer can be broken into easily with a
14:29:21 You walk in, you close the door behind you, you are in
14:29:24 a closed, unseen, private space.
14:29:28 You get robbed, vandalize, conduct any sort of illegal
14:29:31 activity without anyone being the wiser.
14:29:33 It's not a car, it's not open -- this is someone's
14:29:38 personal property.
14:29:39 And I'm not saying that we are going to go and check
14:29:41 the property to make sure it hasn't been vandalized.
14:29:44 That doesn't prevent criminal activity from happening.
14:29:48 Also, the board suggested some alternatives to us that
14:29:52 I didn't get a chance to address.
14:29:54 They wanted us to use a guard dog.
14:29:56 A guard dog is not covered by our insurance company
14:29:59 and I'm not willing to take that risk on behalf of the
14:30:04 They addressed lighting.
14:30:05 Lighting will be added.
14:30:06 However, it doesn't stop someone from entering into an
14:30:12 RVs are tall, they cast shadows along with the
14:30:16 Audit, which is a crime prevention through
14:30:19 environmental design.
14:30:19 It's intended for when you are developing a community.
14:30:21 And from speaking to TPD officer Ortiz, it's not for
14:30:27 established properties and is a program not currently
14:30:30 in use.
14:30:30 It's still in development stages and in fact funding
14:30:33 has been curtailed.
14:30:34 Security cameras.
14:30:35 We plan to install security cameras, but they don't
14:30:38 prevent all crimes, as shown by the number of people
14:30:42 who rob 7-Elevens, rob banks, in the face of the
14:30:47 security camera.
14:30:47 And also the nature of the property, the trees, the
14:30:50 height, there are still various places to hide, and
14:30:53 they are still very easily broken into, and not quiet,
14:30:58 closed space.
14:30:59 We would believe the easiest and most cost effective
14:31:02 way of preventing criminal activity is the deterrent
14:31:05 factor added by the barbed wire fence.
14:31:07 Now, we don't believe that this is an unreasonable
14:31:13 There are not any neighbors that called in, no one
14:31:16 wrote, no one showed up for the variance review board
14:31:18 hearing or for the originally scheduled appeal hearing
14:31:22 to oppose us.
14:31:23 Our manager has spoken to the guests in the park, and
14:31:26 those that use the storage lot.
14:31:28 They haven't complained.
14:31:30 In fact, they like the fence.
14:31:31 They like the security that it adds.
14:31:34 The barbed wire fencing is our only alternative of
14:31:37 keeping this property safe and preventing a deterrent
14:31:40 Any other option is an after-the-fact catch the
14:31:44 criminal later, if at all.
14:31:47 It makes small business lose money without that, the
14:31:49 personal property owner can lose their property, and
14:31:51 will probably be sued by them for not showing all the
14:31:55 security that we could give them.
14:31:57 Short of paying someone to sit on that piece of
14:31:58 property from sundown to sun-up, which is completely
14:32:02 unreasonable and not cost effective, there is no other
14:32:08 Now, I have pictures of all the other properties.
14:32:11 Mr. Chairman, you said that you drove down and saw
14:32:14 But I only showed the variance review board two.
14:32:18 I showed them our property.
14:32:19 And you can see our fences.
14:32:21 A high-gauge, black, it meets the standards, it has
14:32:25 the strands that are allowed by code, and then I
14:32:29 showed them the picture of Art's.
14:32:38 Art's is an absolute eyesore to the City of Tampa.
14:32:46 The strands are five or six on top of that fence.
14:32:49 It doesn't meet code.
14:32:50 And they do not have any open violations.
14:32:53 Also, there is a children's daycare center behind that
14:32:56 piece of property.
14:32:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But they have happy faces so I
14:33:00 don't know.
14:33:01 >>> I guess we could put happy faces on our front
14:33:05 [ Laughter ]
14:33:06 Just to review the crime stats, in 2007, there were 79
14:33:11 total incidences of sex-related crimes, and the
14:33:14 one-quarter of a square mile that makes up Camp
14:33:17 Nebraska, and in 2006 there were 70, in 2005 there
14:33:21 were 69.
14:33:24 They are not going down.
14:33:25 They are increasing.
14:33:26 And the neighboring grid, grid 12, there were 169
14:33:31 total instances of theft-related crimes in 2007.
14:33:36 2006 there were 170.
14:33:39 In 2005 there were 196.
14:33:41 For all criminal activity in grid 11 where camp
14:33:45 Nebraska is, there are up 357 total instances of crime
14:33:49 in the year 2006.
14:33:50 For grid 12 there were 611.
14:33:54 Now, the Variance Review Board, I don't know how, our
14:34:03 property itself has had over 20 instances of crimes
14:34:06 since 2001.
14:34:07 We have done our best to curtail it.
14:34:09 And this is an additional way for to us curtail that
14:34:15 Members of the council, I ask that you please grant us
14:34:17 this variance and overturn the ruling of the board.
14:34:20 I believe the board did not give enough conversation
14:34:22 to all the facts that were presented to them, and
14:34:25 their decision was arbitrary and inconsistent.
14:34:28 I ask again that you bring us this variance so a
14:34:31 locally owned family corporation can pay our taxes,
14:34:34 pay our mortgage and stay in business in this tough
14:34:36 economic time.
14:34:37 Thank you.
14:34:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
14:34:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I read through the transcript.
14:34:45 I'm familiar with the location.
14:34:51 Although when my children were younger I called up to
14:34:53 see if they could go to summer camp there.
14:34:56 Just kidding.
14:34:57 >>> The neighborhood has changed.
14:35:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: In all seriousness, the only thing
14:35:02 that disturbed me a little bit -- and I appreciate the
14:35:04 need for security in that area.
14:35:06 We all know that that area has some tough crime
14:35:10 The only thing that bothered me a little bit was the
14:35:12 fact that this fence -- and I don't think it's really
14:35:16 abundantly necessary.
14:35:17 Two things bother me.
14:35:18 A, about the appropriate permits.
14:35:22 >>> There are no permits required for the City of
14:35:25 Construction of a fence.
14:35:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, I don't think that's true.
14:35:30 >>> I had a fence company --
14:35:34 >> Well, I don't think it's true, and we have staff
14:35:36 here to speak to that.
14:35:38 But even if it is true, it's violative of code.
14:35:41 So as a lawyer, I think you can appreciate what I'm
14:35:44 So that bothers me to start with is the fact it got
14:35:47 built contrary to code.
14:35:48 But the other point that's perhaps more germane is the
14:35:51 fact that it's butting right up against the sidewalk.
14:35:54 So you guys are property owners other on Nebraska.
14:35:57 You got more invested there than any of us in terms of
14:36:01 hoping that Nebraska comes back.
14:36:03 But the image of Nebraska as being lined with six-foot
14:36:08 fences, I mean immediately lined right up to your
14:36:10 property line with six-foot fences and barbed wire
14:36:14 stands is not going to help Nebraska come back.
14:36:16 So I'm not disagreeing with you, not looking for an
14:36:20 argument or anything but just pointing that out that I
14:36:22 think it's unfortunate, if it was pushed back, now, 12
14:36:26 feet or something like that, so it gave a little bit
14:36:29 of relief to the streetscape, then it really, I think,
14:36:33 would benefit everybody.
14:36:35 Now, yes, would you lose, you know, 12 or 15 feet of
14:36:38 possible storage space, but that's a big property.
14:36:42 Anyway --
14:36:44 >>> In all fairness, it's like you mentioned before,
14:36:46 you want it to be fair for the --
14:36:51 >> That was just for the chairman.
14:36:53 >>> But there are eleven other properties with fences.
14:36:56 One of the electric fences comes right up to the
14:36:59 >> I understand what you're saying.
14:37:01 There is precedent for it.
14:37:02 I know the street.
14:37:03 And I'm familiar with it.
14:37:04 There's precedent for it and what I'm saying is in
14:37:08 order to get Nebraska to be better, somebody has to
14:37:10 step forward and start making it better.
14:37:13 And, yes, you have a nicer fence than art's, okay?
14:37:17 And that sort of thing.
14:37:18 I'm just saying if there was a what push that thing
14:37:22 back, and I notice your composite, and Sharon can
14:37:29 speak to it as well, but maybe if you can push it back
14:37:31 15 feet then maybe the VRB would be okay and maybe we
14:37:34 would be okay with it.
14:37:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Miranda.
14:37:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm just listening to the whole
14:37:42 I know the area very, very well.
14:37:45 In fact, around here, they started 104 years ago.
14:37:50 But what I'm saying is that the problem is you are
14:37:55 caught in the middle.
14:37:55 If you don't put up a fence you can't be in business
14:37:58 and away from the statistics that I've heard.
14:38:00 And if you put up a fence, you may in someone's mind
14:38:04 or a lot of people's mind saying that Nebraska is not
14:38:06 coming back.
14:38:07 But if you didn't have the fence, it would be just
14:38:09 tumble weed and overgrowth and more crime.
14:38:12 So I understand the position you're in.
14:38:15 And I hope you understand the position we're in,
14:38:17 because without the fence you are not in business
14:38:20 W.the fence newer business.
14:38:21 And it's just one of those things that we have to wade
14:38:25 So let's see what happens.
14:38:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I need to ask staff a few questions,
14:38:34 I went out to this site, rode up and down the site.
14:38:46 I counted about nine fence that is barbed wire is
14:38:51 Have any of those been cited for violations?
14:38:55 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Not that I'm aware of.
14:38:57 As far as being -- erected without a variance?
14:39:01 >> Uh-huh.
14:39:02 >>> That I could not tell you.
14:39:04 I don't know.
14:39:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There's one right next to them, right
14:39:09 on the spot, right there.
14:39:10 And I guess they have something like cement or
14:39:13 whatever that stuff is there, they got all tile.
14:39:19 >>> It used to be a lot about your housing and now
14:39:21 they have gone out of business.
14:39:23 They still have one home there but it's open.
14:39:26 >> But they got stuff all tiled up there.
14:39:28 >>> It's dirt and mulch and -- another comment, I did
14:39:32 check with code before, and --
14:39:36 But I need staff to answer that, okay?
14:39:38 Let me follow with another question.
14:39:42 That's right, almost diagonal down the street there,
14:39:48 they have a fence.
14:39:51 And then another block is the auto care center has
14:39:55 barbed wire fence.
14:39:56 And I go all the way down the street, and all these
14:40:01 businesses have these barbed wire, and we don't have
14:40:03 not one citation S.that what you all are telling me?
14:40:06 >>> Again it's going to have to be staff to answer
14:40:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: But the question, goes back again to a
14:40:15 fairness issue.
14:40:22 Okay, Councilwoman.
14:40:24 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Staff, isn't the distinction here
14:40:27 that this is a residential use and not an industrial
14:40:31 Isn't that why this has been cited, because it's
14:40:38 Is that the sticking point?
14:40:40 >>ERNEST MUELLER: That's one of the issues here.
14:40:41 I don't know whether those other properties are also
14:40:43 zoned residential like this one is.
14:40:44 This one is both CI and RS-50.
14:40:47 I don't have the information on the neighboring
14:40:50 I don't know if any of that information as to what
14:40:53 their zoning was, was brought into the record in the
14:40:59 But this one, yes, you're right, this one has an RS-50
14:41:03 zoning along with the commercial intensive CI.
14:41:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: And the reason that this is cited
14:41:08 is because you can't have the barbed wire next to a
14:41:10 residential, in a residentially zoned property.
14:41:13 >>ERNEST MUELLER: To be more accurate, what the code
14:41:16 says is that it's an industrial district, you can have
14:41:22 the barbed wire, or for an agriculture use, but it
14:41:25 allows for a variance in a commercial -- for
14:41:29 commercial and industrial uses.
14:41:30 And that's what it whats going to be VRB for, was for
14:41:35 a variance to use it for a commercial use.
14:41:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There is no residential fronting
14:41:41 Nebraska, okay?
14:41:42 Where this is located.
14:41:43 In fact all the way down.
14:41:44 The residential is on the backside of there.
14:41:47 In fact, there are duplexes right behind the other
14:41:53 You have got pictures all back there and you have the
14:41:56 barbed wire fence as round.
14:41:57 Then this property only has approximate the barbed
14:42:00 wire on the front, I think to the side.
14:42:02 And that's it.
14:42:05 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I don't know if I understood your
14:42:07 Did you have a question?
14:42:09 >> That was the question about residential.
14:42:11 Maul mule I think there is abutting residential.
14:42:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Not on the front side.
14:42:15 Not opt front of Nebraska.
14:42:17 >>> Sure, not on the front but the property itself --
14:42:20 On the back part area, yes.
14:42:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask?
14:42:23 Was there any conversation in the VRB about the sort
14:42:30 of historically interesting facade of camp Nebraska?
14:42:35 >>> No, I do not recall any discussion there.
14:42:40 >>GWEN MILLER: You say there's a lot of other
14:42:44 businesses that have barbed wire fences.
14:42:47 Have they been cited, too?
14:42:48 >>ERNEST MUELLER: Again, I think that question was
14:42:53 I'm not aware of it.
14:42:54 I don't know whether they were zoned, also had a
14:42:58 residential zoning to it.
14:42:59 I don't know whether they had everything that was the
14:43:03 same as here.
14:43:04 I know only what is the circumstances in this
14:43:06 particular case.
14:43:08 >> One day went out there and saw this place and they
14:43:11 cited them?
14:43:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I am going to ask that you
14:43:19 be careful to compare or not compare this to other
14:43:27 Those may or may not be cited.
14:43:29 Those may or may not have differing facts.
14:43:33 The fact is that even though this is even before you
14:43:39 perhaps as a result of a code enforcement issue, what
14:43:42 they have before you now is the request for variance.
14:43:45 And looking at that specific request, if you feel it's
14:43:50 warranted on the competent substantial evidence, and
14:43:55 actually I provided council member Dingfelder -- a
14:44:03 reminder of the standard of review, to look
14:44:06 specifically at the record below, and to see whether
14:44:09 in fact that the decision of the Variance Review Board
14:44:16 was based on competent, substantial evidence, and it
14:44:19 appears that that's where the appellant is directing
14:44:24 your attention, whether due process was afforded, and
14:44:27 whether the essential requirements of law were met,
14:44:31 whether the proper law was applied to the case.
14:44:34 And based on that, it says in front of you, either
14:44:38 affirm the board's decision below, overturn the
14:44:42 board's decision below, or remand it back with
14:44:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Question to our attorney.
14:44:48 Then let me ask you this question.
14:44:51 In looking at these appeal cases and looking at the
14:44:54 ruling on the Variance Review Board, and considering
14:45:01 substantial evidence, competent, substantial evidence,
14:45:05 have they precluded from will go at the surrounding
14:45:08 neighborhood and what exists or does not exist?
14:45:11 >>> I believe if they did discuss that, as a basis of
14:45:18 review, then it would be relevant.
14:45:20 Whether or not those particular places were cited and
14:45:26 are under violation for code, I don't believe would
14:45:28 have been relevant to their discussion, either.
14:45:31 But as to the surrounding area, that would be one of
14:45:39 the things that you can look at, with regard to a
14:45:44 I would also like to remind council, by passing out --
14:45:50 My question was again -- I think you just answered
14:45:52 it -- that the Variance Review Board, and this
14:45:55 council, must consider not only the evidence before
14:45:58 you, but also consider the environment, the existing
14:46:04 parameters in which this business exists.
14:46:07 I will tell you from the record, I will tell you
14:46:11 because I read it and watched it on DVD, that it was
14:46:18 mentioned and -- she said eleven.
14:46:21 I counted nine.
14:46:22 That's a part of the record.
14:46:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, but the thing is, you can look
14:46:26 at what was brought in in the record below, and you
14:46:29 can reweigh that evidence.
14:46:32 You can do that, yes.
14:46:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, all right.
14:46:34 Any other questions?
14:46:35 Yes, councilman Dingfelder.
14:46:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Ms. Weese, can I ask Mr. Weese a
14:46:53 And you are a partner in this project?
14:46:59 >>> Correct.
14:46:59 >> You heard my comment before about the -- it's right
14:47:05 on the sidewalk right now.
14:47:06 >>> Can a dress that comment?
14:47:07 >> Yes.
14:47:08 >>> I want to let you know that the city sidewalk
14:47:11 encroaches upon our property, probably ten feet on the
14:47:17 Bougainvillea side, and we have set that back.
14:47:20 We have set the fence back to accommodate and just let
14:47:23 it be there.
14:47:23 >> Does it encroach on the Nebraska side?
14:47:26 >>> It doesn't encroach on Nebraska, but it encroaches
14:47:29 on the Bougainvillea.
14:47:30 >> I'm not concerned begun Bougainvillea.
14:47:32 >>> You asked about that and I did want to address
14:47:35 >> Because the whole thing I'm talking about is what
14:47:38 do we want Nebraska -- if you own this, you want to
14:47:40 encourage Nebraska to pick up.
14:47:42 I don't think a barbed wire corridor is going to help
14:47:44 the future of Nebraska.
14:47:47 And so I just would say, ask voluntarily, and frankly,
14:47:52 it's not going to be the basis of my vote or anything
14:47:54 else, but is it possible that you could just have
14:47:56 those guys set that thing back to the back of that
14:47:59 structure, that historic structure there?
14:48:02 >>> Let me tell you the problem with that.
14:48:04 I could do that, and we considered doing something
14:48:06 like that.
14:48:07 But as we set things back, then it gives another place
14:48:11 for the vagrants to hang out and be.
14:48:16 This is where we had our problem.
14:48:17 We had a lot of homeless.
14:48:19 It's in there camping, blankets, beer cans, bottles,
14:48:22 and we don't want that for Nebraska, because we are
14:48:27 old time city residents of Tampa.
14:48:29 Nor do we want it for our property, or those that sit
14:48:32 behind in the RV park.
14:48:34 And it's an RV park now.
14:48:35 Everybody is addressing it as residential.
14:48:37 RV parks are commercial.
14:48:39 It's a transient thing.
14:48:40 It's not a permanent residential thing.
14:48:44 >> I mean, you thought about it, pulling it back off
14:48:47 the street a little bit?
14:48:48 >>> We set it back off the property line.
14:48:50 We set it back two feet off the property line.
14:48:53 So it's considerably off the sidewalk.
14:48:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
14:49:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Weese, is this the same
14:49:02 property that years ago that used to be there Stuart's
14:49:06 mobile home, AAA mobile homes, K&L mobile homes?
14:49:09 Is this the same property that had those also looks
14:49:12 like 12 by 14 cabins and then in the back was RVs?
14:49:17 >>> This property, councilman, is one of the oldest
14:49:20 camps in the State of Florida, and the oldest camp
14:49:24 ground, and the only camp ground in the City of Tampa.
14:49:26 We have preserved that front building to have that
14:49:30 The other ones were deteriorated so bad that we set a
14:49:35 couple of them there for ambience.
14:49:37 But the RV park now does not contain that.
14:49:40 >> I have the right property.
14:49:41 >>> You have the right one, camp Nebraska.
14:49:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
14:49:46 Anyone in the public wish to address council?
14:49:49 Anyone from the public?
14:49:50 Motion to close.
14:49:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
14:49:53 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
14:49:53 (Motion carried).
14:49:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What's the pleasure of council?
14:50:09 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, I think this is a
14:50:12 really special place and I really appreciate the
14:50:13 owners saved the front of it.
14:50:15 And I dislike intensely barbed wire.
14:50:20 I think it's extremely hostile to the pedestrian
14:50:23 But I think that -- I move to remand this back to the
14:50:27 VRB based on the fact that the property owners
14:50:33 presented evidence of crime and that doing this to
14:50:42 specifically protect their property.
14:50:43 But I wonder if we could put a time limit on it.
14:50:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I don't know if it can be
14:50:48 remanded back.
14:50:48 I mean, what basis -- that's the issue.
14:50:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It could be but, Ms. Saul-Sena, if
14:50:55 I may make a suggestion.
14:50:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Sure.
14:50:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This provision now that we changed
14:50:59 it allows to us reverse without sending it back.
14:51:01 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
14:51:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Those on the page Marty handed me.
14:51:07 So if these your intent, we don't have to remand it
14:51:11 They would probably not hear it again.
14:51:13 >>> My intent is that we reverse the position based on
14:51:16 the evidence of activity.
14:51:18 But my question to staff would be, could we have some
14:51:23 sort of time provision in this?
14:51:24 I feel that barbed wire is so his till to the street
14:51:29 and hopefully the area will improve and crime
14:51:33 statistics will go down and I don't -- this is a staff
14:51:39 Could we put a time limit on the had allowance of
14:51:48 barbed wire?
14:51:48 >>> What you are asking at some point could it come
14:51:50 down, or that it should come down?
14:51:56 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes?
14:51:57 >>ERNEST MUELLER: I don't know. I would have to check
14:51:59 into that.
14:51:59 >> If crime improves, can we ask the property owners to
14:52:03 remove the barbed wire?
14:52:09 >>> I think what Ms. Kert was telling me, you probably
14:52:13 can put a condition on this, but I think first of all
14:52:17 maybe need to get the approval of the applicant just
14:52:19 like the VRB would, and also as long as she intend it
14:52:32 for that use.
14:52:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, although I understand
14:52:40 the conversation, I find it very difficult in my mind
14:52:42 to regulate something without any facts of what is
14:52:47 going to say at this time to me that the fence comes
14:52:52 Is time tied into the sector of crime within district
14:52:55 11 or 12 or 14?
14:52:57 I don't know that answer.
14:52:58 So I don't know what's going to happen there in five
14:53:00 years or ten years.
14:53:01 What I'm saying is, I don't think any owner is going to
14:53:04 leave a fence up that's not necessary.
14:53:07 But what I'm saying is, the only fence I have in my
14:53:11 house is to keep me in the house.
14:53:14 My wife tells me I'm always out in the street.
14:53:17 But what I'm saying is -- that's a fact, I'm not going
14:53:20 to lie to you.
14:53:21 I should have been under oath, not the public.
14:53:24 So what I'm saying is that what we are saying here, I
14:53:27 agree with your concept.
14:53:28 I don't know how to enforce that concept, and what
14:53:31 parameters do we put in place to say, okay, this has
14:53:35 been reached, this has been reached, and this has been
14:53:38 reached, therefore the three items, now you have got to
14:53:40 take the fence down.
14:53:41 I don't understand that part of it, or the quotation.
14:53:45 That's all I'm asking.
14:53:46 I don't understand how we can enforce that without
14:53:48 having something to say that the fence stays or goes
14:53:57 I make a motion that we reverse the Variance Review
14:54:03 Board on the decision that was competent and
14:54:09 substantial evidence that was not granted to the
14:54:11 petitioner, and any one of the lawyers can correct me
14:54:15 if I am wrong if I am in any way difficult to
14:54:19 understand because of the wording, that you have to be
14:54:21 very specific about, and the due process, although
14:54:27 received, was not totally understood, let me put it
14:54:32 that way.
14:54:32 I'm not trying to get the Variance Review Board upset
14:54:35 with me or any members of council that may or may not
14:54:38 support this.
14:54:38 But based on the evidence, I move to overrule the
14:54:41 Variance Review Board.
14:54:43 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
14:54:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
14:54:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And I'll support the motion.
14:54:47 I think that Ms. Saul-Sena, I think your idea is a good
14:54:51 one but I think the market will dictate when that fence
14:54:53 comes down.
14:54:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I do, too.
14:54:57 I agree.
14:54:59 There's a motion.
14:54:59 Been moved and seconded.
14:55:01 Moved by councilman Miranda, that we reverse the
14:55:05 decision of the VRB, seconded by Councilwoman Miller.
14:55:09 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
14:55:14 So moved.
14:55:16 Thank you.
14:55:18 And you didn't use all your time.
14:55:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to share with the owners
14:55:23 that you could get -- I'm serious.
14:55:26 You have a historic property.
14:55:28 If you get it registered as a historic property and
14:55:30 then you invest any money in making it nicer, you can
14:55:35 get a tax credit for that.
14:55:37 Dennis Johnson -- I mean Dennis Fernandez talking to
14:55:42 the attorney over there can talk do you about it
14:55:44 because it's distinctive, and you all should get
14:55:48 benefit from this preservation process.
14:55:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
14:55:52 Item 70.
14:55:56 Move to open?
14:55:56 >> So moved.
14:55:57 >> Second.
14:55:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 70.
14:56:01 An appeal hearing.
14:56:06 Petition for Allan and Marie Martin.
14:56:11 >>> Ron Vila, staff, for preservation.
14:56:20 This is appeals hearing on a petition for Allan and
14:56:26 Marie Martin regarding the decision of the architecture
14:56:29 review commission, ARC number 08-143 regarding
14:56:33 certificate of appropriateness for the address of 801
14:56:36 south Delaware and the board denied that request.
14:56:45 I put the vicinity map to give you a better
14:56:54 understanding of where this parcel is at, highlighted
14:56:56 in yellow.
14:56:58 You have Inman to the north, it sits on Delaware, you
14:57:02 see Bayshore and Hyde Park Village.
14:57:09 This is an aerial, the same parcel.
14:57:12 Highlighted in the back.
14:57:13 Once again you have Inman to the north, Delaware to the
14:57:17 east, New Port to the west, and Bayshore Boulevard to
14:57:22 the south.
14:57:29 This is current photos of the property.
14:57:32 There is a lot of renovation going on.
14:57:34 The renovation to the structure right now was all
14:57:36 approved at the staff level.
14:57:38 The fence came before us, the ARC, because staff felt
14:57:41 it was inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior
14:57:44 standards, and the Hyde Park design guidelines.
14:57:50 This is another shot showing the renovation going on
14:57:54 currently at the house.
14:57:58 And then the last shot currently.
14:58:01 Here you see the retaining wall.
14:58:03 They wish to put a purely decorative fence on top of
14:58:07 the retaining wall.
14:58:08 It was never -- it was purely a security measure,
14:58:15 decorative only.
14:58:17 This is the retaining wall that faces Inman.
14:58:21 This is to the north. This is the wall that faces
14:58:26 This is how the property looks.
14:58:28 This is from 1984.
14:58:30 This is from our files showing the property in all its
14:58:37 I would like to move to the board at this time.
14:58:45 This is what was submitted at the public hearing.
14:58:48 This is the property.
14:58:49 This is the structure here.
14:58:50 This is the front of the house which is Delaware.
14:58:53 This is the east.
14:58:53 This is Inman to the north.
14:58:56 The bold line is what the proposal was.
14:59:00 Staff and the ARC both thought it was inconsistent with
14:59:03 design guidelines and Secretary of Interior standards
14:59:05 as it encroached into the front yard.
14:59:09 If the fence was brought along the north and returned
14:59:11 to the structure in this manner, that would be
14:59:14 consistent with our criteria.
14:59:16 The issue is it goes forward and encompasses the front
14:59:25 This is the elevation of the fence.
14:59:27 That's proposed.
14:59:29 You see on the north elevation, this is the existing
14:59:31 retaining wall.
14:59:33 And then the decorative fence on top.
14:59:45 In the staff decision we used the two documents for
14:59:53 Hyde Park, the Hyde Park design guidelines.
14:59:55 On page 99, that addresses on the last paragraph, that
15:00:08 fences or wall as long should fall behind the front
15:00:13 yard setback.
15:00:14 Going to page 100, there's a picture here.
15:00:19 This fence was erected prior to Hyde Park becoming a
15:00:22 local district.
15:00:23 It was grandfathered in.
15:00:24 This is an example of an inappropriate front yard
15:00:28 All those theirs is iron.
15:00:29 It's not the material we are discussing here.
15:00:32 It's the placement of another fence.
15:00:34 And then moving to page 101, not permissible to locate
15:00:40 fences in the front yard setback or front building line
15:00:43 of an existing structure.
15:00:45 Moving to the Secretary of Interior document that I
15:00:53 spoke of, on page 67, it talked about the building
15:01:00 site, what's not recommended, adding landscape features
15:01:06 to a site such as reproduction lamp, fences,
15:01:12 vegetation, that are historically inappropriate.
15:01:15 Moving to page 74, what's not recommended, introducing
15:01:19 a new landscape feature which a fence is, which is
15:01:24 visually incompatible with the site.
15:01:27 Continuing on page 75, the settings in district to a
15:01:32 neighborhood, the elements of a setting such as the
15:01:34 relationship of the building to each other setbacks,
15:01:36 fences, fence patterns, use, driveways and walkways and
15:01:40 streetscape together create character of the district.
15:01:43 And we feel this imposes on that.
15:01:48 Moving to page 80, which also not recommended,
15:01:52 introducing new construction to the district that
15:01:55 visually is incompatible or destroy the historical
15:02:00 relationship within the setting.
15:02:02 I have some photos here to better illustrate the
15:02:11 This is a current photo.
15:02:24 You see the Seville to the left and this is a historic
15:02:31 photo showing the open vista of the front yard, the
15:02:35 street and the sidewalks.
15:02:37 This is down depot. You see the historic structures on
15:02:44 the reference.
15:02:46 And that's the same street shot showing Hyde Park with
15:02:52 the open front yards.
15:02:55 Now I am just going to show you a series of photos
15:02:57 taken just within the district.
15:03:00 In close proximity to the structure in question.
15:03:03 You see the relationship of the sidewalk, the parkway,
15:03:07 the planting area, the curbing and the street.
15:03:10 You see the historic light over here.
15:03:18 This is looking down a sidewalk once again.
15:03:22 The open front yard.
15:03:23 The sidewalk.
15:03:24 The parkway.
15:03:24 The planting areas of the trees.
15:03:26 And the street.
15:03:33 It's just repeated throughout the district.
15:03:35 The same relationship.
15:03:37 Here is one showing the retaining wall with no fence on
15:03:43 The relationship that a pedestrian would experience as
15:03:46 he travels down the sidewalk.
15:03:55 And another one.
15:03:58 Moving on to some historic shops.
15:04:01 Once again this is from the Berger collection.
15:04:07 This is when they erected Hyde Park what their vision
15:04:10 was, with the open wall.
15:04:12 You see the houses are closer to the property line than
15:04:14 today's codes allow so these houses are set back maybe
15:04:17 15 feet where today's codes are 20, 25.
15:04:20 So you have that relationship to your neighbors as you
15:04:22 pass by, and sit on your porch, have a dialogue with
15:04:26 them, small retaining walls, small sidewalks, the
15:04:30 planting in the streetscape again.
15:04:35 And an earlier shot showing when Hyde Park was coming
15:04:39 out of the ground.
15:04:40 Once again the vocabulary, there's no intrusion into
15:04:45 the yards.
15:04:47 It's an open vista and the relationship again.
15:04:50 And one more historic photo.
15:04:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Can you put the subject house back
15:05:02 Have you had that up already?
15:05:03 >>> This is from 1984, I think.
15:05:08 >> And put it on top of the wall?
15:05:10 >>> If you look at the --
15:05:15 >> Near the wall?
15:05:19 It's hard for me to know what that's showing.
15:05:22 >>> It gives you the illusion of a retaining wall and
15:05:28 then a fence on top of it so you get that height.
15:05:35 You see there is a relationship in Hyde Park, if we
15:05:37 could go back to the Elmo.
15:05:39 We tried to get some research on this fence that was he
15:05:43 We have no knowledge of this.
15:05:44 So this I believe predates the ARC.
15:05:48 Moving down the block, you see a fence here.
15:05:50 This is 901.
15:05:52 This is John Sykes' house here.
15:05:57 This is 901 New Port here.
15:06:00 This is 800 block.
15:06:04 As one travels down the sidewalk here, they have this
15:06:07 buffer, and you don't enjoy the open vista to the
15:06:10 Directly across the street heading to Bayshore you have
15:06:14 this relationship.
15:06:14 You see the difference as the pedestrian travels.
15:06:21 And this shot brings it all together.
15:06:23 You have the fence that buffers, and then across this
15:06:26 street as you enter towards Bayshore, you don't have
15:06:30 that buffer.
15:06:31 >> How did that fence get erected?
15:06:34 >>> Excuse me?
15:06:35 This be fence was denied by the ARC, and they are very
15:06:38 consistent with their denials, and then it was
15:06:41 overturned by City Council.
15:06:43 >> Not this council.
15:06:44 >>> No, not this council.
15:06:47 This is probably about ten years old.
15:06:51 I would like to read the motion from the ARC.
15:06:55 The architecture review commission reviewed the
15:06:58 revocation at the meeting on August 4, 2008.
15:07:01 ARC voted denial for the issue of the level of
15:07:05 appropriateness based on the following:
15:07:08 The language expressly prohibits front yard fences, and
15:07:11 everyone if they are not read expressly prohibiting
15:07:16 such fences by the open front yard is among the most
15:07:19 significant and character defining feature of the
15:07:22 historic district, and be represented as the potential
15:07:26 character of the district is to be observed and
15:07:31 Lastly, I am going to leave you with this historic
15:07:35 photo here.
15:07:38 Their agent is going to discuss an item as far as the
15:07:42 language in the guidelines and in the
15:07:44 ordinance, "shall" and "should," the consistency in the
15:07:50 code is not clear, in their opinion, but looking at
15:07:54 this image here, I don't think there's anything for
15:07:58 debate what the direction should be.
15:08:00 And I'll be here to answer any questions.
15:08:03 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Dingfelder?
15:08:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You probably know virtually every
15:08:08 home in the district, in the Hyde Park district.
15:08:12 Can you give an educated guess on what percentage have
15:08:17 or do not have front yard fences?
15:08:21 >>> It would be a low numbers, the one that is have
15:08:28 Come to mind maybe five or six.
15:08:30 >> Five or six properties?
15:08:32 >>> That have fences.
15:08:32 >> And out of how many total?
15:08:36 >>> About 700.
15:08:37 >> So about one percent?
15:08:41 Thank you.
15:08:49 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask you a question?
15:08:51 Are you familiar with this picture?
15:08:52 Where is this house at?
15:09:00 >>> That's 852 New Port.
15:09:04 And that was the fence that I made reference to that we
15:09:07 tried to gain access to.
15:09:10 We have no record of that fence coming in front of the
15:09:13 ARC, receive any permits to be erected.
15:09:16 So I think that that fence was prior to the ARC's
15:09:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Thank you.
15:09:24 >>GWEN MILLER: Petitioner?
15:09:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Madam Chairman, before you begin, I
15:09:30 want to bring to council's attention, with this case
15:09:32 and I'll indicate for the record, the next case that
15:09:35 comes afterwards, sometimes when you have a public
15:09:38 hearing, you get e-mails from constituents telling you
15:09:43 their position with regard to this appeal.
15:09:46 And those are ex parte communications and those
15:09:50 normally come into the record when you receive and file
15:09:52 and you take those into account.
15:09:54 With an appeal hearing, setting as an appellate board,
15:09:58 that is new evidence that was not heard at the board
15:10:01 Therefore, as well intentioned as it could be, it would
15:10:06 be improper for you to consider those e-mails in
15:10:11 weighing the evidence in the case because that is not
15:10:17 evidence that was presented in the record below.
15:10:19 So I just wanted to bring that to your attention, to
15:10:21 ask you, as well intentioned as it is, that in this
15:10:25 format, in which you sit, it would be inappropriate for
15:10:27 you to take those into consideration.
15:10:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just as a point of order, my office,
15:10:33 as well as I'm sure the rest of yours, we have received
15:10:36 e-mails as a matter of course during the week when we
15:10:39 get them, we give them to the clerk, and they are in
15:10:41 the file.
15:10:43 So there's nothing we can do about that.
15:10:45 We have done what we always do for any of these things.
15:10:47 But you're just instructing us to disregard those
15:10:51 e-mails and not include them in our deliberations.
15:10:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes.
15:10:54 As a matter of fact, I think it still continues to be
15:10:56 appropriate to put them into that box so at least those
15:10:59 petitioners, whoever wish to take a look to see what
15:11:02 e-mails are coming in, will at least know what it is in
15:11:09 basing your decision.
15:11:10 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I told you we should have been sworn
15:11:14 [ Laughter ]
15:11:15 >>> Thank you.
15:11:16 Cathleen O'Dowd with the law firm of Shoemaker and
15:11:19 Hendrick and here on behalf of the property owner Allan
15:11:22 and Marie Martin.
15:11:23 Allan Martin is with us this afternoon.
15:11:25 He's in the back of the room.
15:11:26 He is the proud owner of this home.
15:11:28 He purchased it in April of 2008 and modally took on
15:11:32 the line for line rehabilitation of the home, so the
15:11:37 pictures that Ron Beeler showed earlier they retain
15:11:41 structural to do all of that work, if you were to drive
15:11:44 by there today you would find that the scaffolding has
15:11:46 been removed, the grounds have been cleared to make way
15:11:49 for the landscaping, and there are no longer signs of
15:11:55 any type of lack of maintenance that was allowed to
15:12:00 occur by the prior owner.
15:12:02 The issue this arch is very simple.
15:12:04 The issue is about the location of the fence.
15:12:06 We are not here to talk about the height of the fence.
15:12:08 We are not here to talk about the materials of the
15:12:11 We are also not here to talk about the design.
15:12:13 The height of the fence conforms to the zoning code.
15:12:16 We are not seeking a variance from those height
15:12:19 The design and the materials were found to be
15:12:22 consistent and compatible with the design guidelines.
15:12:25 If you look at your transcript on pages 11 and 15,
15:12:29 staff on two occasions, one in response to a question
15:12:34 presented by the ARC, confirms that the design and the
15:12:36 materials are consistent with the design guidelines.
15:12:39 So we are here simply to talk about the location.
15:12:42 I want to briefly allow Mike Callahan, a certified
15:12:45 planner to walk you through the site plan and the
15:12:49 elevations as well as show you a copy of what we
15:12:52 propose, actually a sample of what we propose that's
15:12:55 still on the property.
15:12:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And this has already been on the
15:13:01 record below?
15:13:02 >> Yes, sir.
15:13:03 >>> Good afternoon.
15:13:10 I'm Mike Callahan with the planning firm of way trim,
15:13:14 8745 Henderson road in ^ Tampa.
15:13:17 I would just like to -- there's a couple of things that
15:13:20 Ron showed us that I would like to clarify a little bit
15:13:22 in terms of the site plan, if you would.
15:13:25 Starting on the -- as you may be aware, the property,
15:13:33 Delaware with Inman on the north side of the property.
15:13:35 It's a very handsome house.
15:13:37 If you have not been there lately, it is absolutely
15:13:40 exquisite and will continue to do so as the renovations
15:13:44 But the fence that we are talking about begins on the
15:13:49 north, along Inman, and up to the corner here on
15:13:52 Delaware, south, and encompasses the stairwell there
15:14:00 behind it, two feet sections of fence and back down and
15:14:04 along Delaware, and then up and around the driveway,
15:14:09 the 12-foot concrete driveway, back down to the corner
15:14:13 and then return westward for about 50 feet where it
15:14:16 meets the brick. ^
15:14:22 And what I wanted to show, also, Mr. Beeler talked
15:14:25 about the idea of it being on the wall.
15:14:26 It is not on the wall.
15:14:27 It never penetrates the wall.
15:14:29 It's behind the wall.
15:14:30 And six inches.
15:14:32 And it is merely a 34-inch fence.
15:14:35 And I have an actual sample for you to look at.
15:14:40 But the fence itself sits behind a wall, and then it is
15:14:45 34 inches consistently parallel to the top of the wall
15:14:49 all the way around the front.
15:14:50 And I think it's also important to note that it's not
15:14:53 just some sort of design that we pulled out of a
15:14:58 It was thoughtfully and creatively designed fence with
15:15:04 the architect, the original architect of the house in
15:15:09 I think that's very important to note as well.
15:15:23 Lastly, the wall along Inman, you can see consistently
15:15:27 it is 34 inches above the top of the wall, and that
15:15:34 occurs all the way around the property there.
15:15:36 We have two gates, as I said, one in the front, up to
15:15:40 the front of the house, and then also one for the
15:15:44 vehicular use.
15:15:46 And then, if you would, this is an exact replica of
15:16:06 what will be built.
15:16:07 And it is wrought iron steel.
15:16:09 And I just thought I would put it up here on the dais
15:16:12 so you could view it.
15:16:25 >>> We are here today because the ARC's decision failed
15:16:28 to follow the essential requirements of the law.
15:16:30 It was not based on competent, substantial evidence.
15:16:33 And the ARC's procedure failed to provide due process.
15:16:37 The ARC made a decision, not based upon a comprehensive
15:16:41 and consistent application of the zoning code, the
15:16:43 historic preservation code, and the district design
15:16:47 Instead, the ARC's decision was intended to send a
15:16:50 message to council and was based upon an assumption
15:16:54 that the code had been revised to correct a problem
15:16:57 highlighted by the court and the Citivest decision.
15:17:00 Transcript page 17, commissioner Roberts said:
15:17:02 Citivest decision pointed to something that needed to
15:17:05 be corrected and my belief was that it had been in the
15:17:08 terms of the scope of our authority and I am going to
15:17:10 proceed on that assumption.
15:17:11 At no point after this comment was there any
15:17:13 clarification or confirmation of the assumed correction
15:17:17 to the code.
15:17:18 Behind tab 8 of your materials you will find a copy of
15:17:21 section 27-133 which is the regulations and the zoning
15:17:27 This section regulates the location, the height, and
15:17:30 the permitted materials for fences throughout the city.
15:17:34 Subsection E expressly allows fences to be placed in
15:17:37 the front yard of properties located within
15:17:40 single-family residential zoning districts, provided
15:17:42 the Heidt does not exceed three feet for fence material
15:17:47 and four feet for fences built of transparent materials
15:17:51 which do not obstruct light, air and visibility.
15:17:54 Until July 2006, subsection C of this section,
15:17:59 permitted fences throughout the city to be constructed
15:18:02 as chain link, wood, masonry or decorative wrought
15:18:06 iron. This section was amended to add the language "or
15:18:10 as may be further regulated by historic district design
15:18:13 You will find the amendment in tab 9 of your materials.
15:18:16 This amendment granted the ARC the authority to further
15:18:18 restrict fence materials within the district.
15:18:21 It is interesting that similar language was not added
15:18:23 to subsection E.
15:18:25 If the ARC were granted authority to restrict or
15:18:28 further regulate the location of fences in front yards,
15:18:31 that authority would be included in subsection E,
15:18:34 similar to the authority granted with respect to fence
15:18:37 materials in subsection C.
15:18:40 The ARC ignored the zoning code and instead focused
15:18:44 exclusively on one sentence in the design guidelines,
15:18:47 guidelines that are ambiguous and inconsistent.
15:18:49 On page 99 of the design guidelines it is stated,
15:18:52 fences and walls along the primary facade should fall
15:18:55 behind the building setback lines.
15:18:57 This does not mandate that fences fall behind the
15:19:01 building setback line.
15:19:02 On page 101 of the design guidelines, it is stated: It
15:19:06 is not permissible to locate fences in the front yard
15:19:08 setback or front building line of an existing
15:19:11 These two sentences are inconsistent.
15:19:15 Despite this, the chair concluded that the guidelines
15:19:18 don't leave much room for interpretation.
15:19:21 You will find that comment in the transcript at page
15:19:24 Commissioner Roberts went on to say, on page 31 of the
15:19:27 transcript: "One of the most absurd arguments on which
15:19:30 to base a decision that I can possibly imagine.
15:19:32 I'm going to go so far as to deliver this message to
15:19:35 City Council."
15:19:36 I respectfully disagree with the commissioners'
15:19:39 The design guidelines do leave room for interpretation.
15:19:42 The ambiguity created between these two pages must be
15:19:45 read in favor of the property owner.
15:19:48 When this issue has been appealed to council, council
15:19:50 has consistently overruled the ARC's denial and read
15:19:54 the zoning code and the design guidelines to allow
15:19:56 fences to be placed within the front yard.
15:19:59 Examples include -- if you go to tab 3 of your
15:20:03 materials, there are pictures of the fence that was
15:20:08 allowed to be installed at the Sykes residence at 901
15:20:11 South New Port. This is a metal fence located above
15:20:14 the retaining wall and ties into the brick pillars. On
15:20:18 July 1 of 1997, the ARC denied the variance.
15:20:22 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry.
15:20:23 I apologize.
15:20:25 >>> On July 1 of 1997 the ARC denied the variance for
15:20:29 the proposed height of 7 feet 6 inches.
15:20:32 Interestingly, immediately following the motions to
15:20:35 deny the height variance, the ARC unanimously approved
15:20:37 the certificate of appropriateness for the fence
15:20:40 itself, finding that it did comply with the design
15:20:44 I can only take this to mean that the ARC approved the
15:20:47 location and design of the fence, but not the height.
15:20:50 On September 9th, 1997 on appeal to City Council,
15:20:54 the ARC's denial of the height variance was overturned.
15:20:56 The pictures in tab 3 show the fence as approved and
15:21:00 permitted by council and the ARC.
15:21:03 In tab 4 of your material, you will find pictures of
15:21:06 the fence located at 1403 Bayshore Boulevard.
15:21:10 In December 2004 the ARC voted to deny a variance for
15:21:15 the proposed height of 6 feet 6 inches. In March of
15:21:18 2005, City Council overturned the ARC decision.
15:21:21 The pictures show the fence as approved by the ARC in
15:21:25 April of 2005.
15:21:26 Finally, in tab 5 of your material, for the property
15:21:30 located at 1715 Bayshore Boulevard, in June of 2005,
15:21:34 the ARC denied the variance for the proposed height of
15:21:36 6 feet.
15:21:38 Thereafter, in August 2005, staff approved a new
15:21:41 retaining wall and wrought iron fence above the
15:21:44 retaining wall.
15:21:47 I'm concerned about two representations that were made
15:21:51 during staff's presentation to the ARC, which focus on
15:21:53 the predominant pattern of development, and the spatial
15:21:57 relationship between the public space, the semi-public
15:21:59 space, and the private space throughout the district.
15:22:02 At one point in the presentation it was represented
15:22:05 that the fence installed at 901 south New Port created
15:22:08 an incompatible situation when compared with the
15:22:11 residences across the street.
15:22:12 This testimony can be found on pages 12 and 134 of the
15:22:16 This sentence the same fence, the design and location
15:22:19 of which was approved by the ARC and the height which
15:22:22 was approved by council.
15:22:25 As approved by council and the ARC it is necessarily
15:22:28 compatible with the district.
15:22:29 A design that is approved by the ARC and council, and
15:22:33 that may not follow the predominant pattern of
15:22:35 development, is not evidence of incompatible
15:22:42 When staff addressed the fence at 1715 Bayshore
15:22:45 Boulevard, again this is the one at tab 5 of your
15:22:48 materials, the ARC was advised that this is considered
15:22:51 to be a retaining wall and not a fence.
15:22:54 The explanation unusually was that anything up to 18
15:22:56 inches above grade is considered a retaining wall.
15:22:58 This is an 18-inch fence.
15:23:01 Later on in the presentation, I believe on page 19 of
15:23:03 the transcript, staff clarified, commented on the
15:23:07 difference between a fence and retaining wall stating
15:23:09 that anything up to 12 inches is a retaining wall,
15:23:12 anything over 12 inches is a fence.
15:23:15 What was built at 1715 Bayshore Boulevard is a fence
15:23:19 above a retaining wall.
15:23:20 That was approved by the ARC.
15:23:23 Finally, staff concluded its presentation, that no one
15:23:28 from the public wished to comment on the application,
15:23:30 the chair immediately closed the public hearing without
15:23:31 allowing us an opportunity to rebut or respond to the
15:23:35 staff presentation.
15:23:37 In summary, we respectfully request that council take
15:23:39 action today consistent with the precedent established
15:23:42 by council, and allow for a harmonious interpretation
15:23:45 of the zoning code, the historic preservation code, and
15:23:48 the design guidelines.
15:23:50 We ask that you grant our petition, overturn the ARC's
15:23:54 decision and approve the location of the fence.
15:23:56 Thank you.
15:23:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions from council?
15:24:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question for our City
15:24:09 Council attorney.
15:24:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:24:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, Ms. Kert.
15:24:15 Were you present at this hearing?
15:24:17 >>REBECCA KERT: I was not present at the hearing but I
15:24:18 did watch it and I did see the transcript.
15:24:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay.
15:24:27 Do you concur and support the city staff
15:24:32 >>REBECCA KERT: I do believe the city staff
15:24:35 representation is legally defensible.
15:24:37 There were some legal issues raised and perhaps it
15:24:39 would be an appropriate time for me to address that
15:24:42 from my perspective.
15:24:44 First one has to do with the Citivest.
15:24:46 As now Citivest is ongoing so I don't want to comment
15:24:49 in detail on that case but there were some issues
15:24:53 raised about how the second DCA and the circuit court
15:24:57 hearing might opine the situation.
15:25:00 First of all I don't feel the facts before you is
15:25:02 analogous to the Citivest case.
15:25:04 That case had to do specifically with height, and very
15:25:07 specifically how those Heights regulations, the numbers
15:25:11 contained in the zoning code, related to design
15:25:13 guidelines, that did not have specific language.
15:25:16 This is more of issue of alignment, spacing, so I don't
15:25:20 think it's an analogous situation.
15:25:22 If it were an analogous situation, we have provided the
15:25:24 code to clearly point out that new construction must
15:25:28 comply with the ARC guidelines, and the ARC code, even
15:25:34 if this section requires development and/or
15:25:36 construction but it's more restrictive than the
15:25:38 applicable requirements found elsewhere in the code.
15:25:41 So I don't think that Citivest is analogous.
15:25:43 If it is we believe it's within City Council's purview
15:25:49 to apply the guidelines.
15:25:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask another question?
15:25:54 The other question I have is, is our code clear that
15:26:03 one of the points of having a protective mechanism for
15:26:08 the Hyde Park district is to protect the character and
15:26:15 rhythm based on the setbacks and the relationship
15:26:17 between the homes, the front yards, and then the public
15:26:22 realm, the sidewalk and the street?
15:26:26 >>> That's the reasons we address setbacks, and the
15:26:29 creation of a fence would be addressed clearly in the
15:26:34 guidelines, and the ARC would be able to address the
15:26:38 appropriate setback for a fence.
15:26:39 >>REBECCA KERT: I'm not sure if I definitely use the
15:26:42 term setback but as far as the placement of the fence I
15:26:45 do believe it's appropriate for the ARC to review that.
15:26:50 Ms. O'Dowd did point out the guidelines meet different
15:26:53 phraseology in that, pointed out examples where City
15:26:55 Council has in fact allowed certain fences in the front
15:27:00 You as well as the ARC have the discretion to review
15:27:04 that and apply the guidelines, and there may be certain
15:27:08 instances where it is appropriate for the alignment and
15:27:10 the rhythm and spacing within the district.
15:27:13 That being said, just because you approve some doesn't
15:27:16 mean it's appropriate in this location on this street.
15:27:18 So you need to review it in its entirety.
15:27:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: There's a lot of materials here, but
15:27:29 I'm looking -- Ms. O'Dowd, I think this is your
15:27:34 notebook, perhaps tab 11.
15:27:37 This page 99 that speaks to fences and walls, is that
15:27:46 out of the guidelines?
15:27:48 >>> Yes.
15:27:49 This notebook includes all of the list materials that
15:27:51 were made part of the record during the ARC so it not
15:27:55 just those materials that I have presented to the ARC.
15:27:57 But what you find between tab 11 and 12 are the
15:28:01 materials I provided.
15:28:02 And tab 11 does include copies of certain pages of the
15:28:06 design guidelines.
15:28:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me ask, are you relying in your
15:28:22 argument on this bought pom of page 99 related to
15:28:25 building setback lines and that sort of thing?
15:28:28 >>> 99, 100 and 101 out of the Hyde Park design
15:28:33 >> I don't seem to have page 100 and 101.
15:28:36 But go ahead.
15:28:36 >>> And the Secretary of Interior standards on page 68
15:28:40 talks about the spatial relationship that's being
15:28:46 That's what staff ruled their T petition on, yes.
15:28:52 >> And how about this provision here?
15:28:54 And this looks like it's out of chapter 27-216.
15:28:59 So it's compatible design, architectural something and
15:29:06 construction that will fit harmoniously into the
15:29:08 district, knew construction shall be compatible with
15:29:12 quality construction, adjacent to building structures.
15:29:17 And then it goes on to talk about the restrictiveness.
15:29:20 >>> That's out of chapter 27.
15:29:22 And that discusses the purview that the ARC has when
15:29:25 reviewing new construction.
15:29:27 >> and a little fence like this is interpreted as new
15:29:32 >>> That's correct.
15:29:32 >> So in regard to compatibility, when you and I spoke
15:29:39 a minute ago, I think we came up with a number that 99%
15:29:44 of the single-family homes in Hyde Park do not have
15:29:47 fences in the front yard.
15:29:49 >>> The ARC has been consistent in denying them.
15:29:53 Where they have been overturned --
15:29:55 >> Don't go there yet.
15:29:56 Let me just finish this thought.
15:29:58 My point is, in your professional opinion, does that
15:30:01 speak to the compatibility, that 99% of the homes in
15:30:05 Hyde Park do not have front yard fences, do you have a
15:30:08 professional opinion as related to compatibility?
15:30:10 >>> I think they conform to the district and it is
15:30:14 incompatible to put a front yard fence.
15:30:16 >> And is than your opinion consistently throughout
15:30:18 this proceeding?
15:30:19 >>> Yes.
15:30:21 >> Okay.
15:30:22 Go ahead.
15:30:23 You can finish up with what you were saying, if you
15:30:27 >>> The fences -- staff has the ability to approve
15:30:31 these at the staff level.
15:30:32 We thought it was incompatible with the criteria than
15:30:35 we judge it.
15:30:37 It went to the board.
15:30:38 Board felt the same.
15:30:39 It had come to this body.
15:30:40 In the past, this board has overturned fences in
15:30:44 certain situations.
15:30:46 From my recollection all of them are on Bayshore
15:30:50 There is traffic issues, and security issues.
15:30:53 This is purely decorative in nature.
15:30:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that was going to be my point
15:30:59 Ms. O'Dowd is diligent as always and has a couple of
15:31:04 tabs including 1453 Bayshore and -- I'm not sure --
15:31:12 1750 Bayshore.
15:31:13 I was part of one of these decisions about Bayshore.
15:31:16 On Bayshore, I know my decision making specifically
15:31:20 went to those issues that you are talking about, in
15:31:22 regard to security.
15:31:24 We hold parades and big events on Bayshore about every
15:31:29 other weekend.
15:31:30 So that's why I believe that on Bayshore they deserved
15:31:33 a little bit of different treatment.
15:31:35 And I think that's completely appropriate.
15:31:37 This is my district, okay.
15:31:39 This is a district I now represented almost six years.
15:31:42 And I feel very strongly that those people up and down
15:31:47 all of those streets running from Bayshore up to Swann,
15:31:51 which include the entire district, you know, probably
15:31:55 many of those folks would like front yard fences,
15:31:57 perhaps for various reasons.
15:31:59 But guess what, that's not what they bought into when
15:32:01 they bought into the Hyde Park district.
15:32:05 Likewise, I'm sure this gentleman is doing a wonderful
15:32:07 job of transferring this property into something
15:32:13 But he bought it in 2008 knowing that is not the norm
15:32:16 in the district.
15:32:17 And I haven't heard any evidence to the contrary.
15:32:22 And I'm seeing perhaps one exception, Mister whatever
15:32:27 in 1997 who got a different council eleven years ago to
15:32:32 make one exception on one of the side streets.
15:32:35 But other than that, I haven't heard any other
15:32:37 exceptions by the city, and frankly what we need to do,
15:32:42 okay, if there's any question about this code, what we
15:32:44 need to do is strengthen up and tighten up this code
15:32:47 even more so, so it's abundantly clear on paper what is
15:32:50 abundantly clear in common sense.
15:32:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: This particular street we are
15:32:59 talking about where the house fronts, I'm very familiar
15:33:02 with it.
15:33:02 I can't think of any front fences on this street.
15:33:06 Can you?
15:33:07 >>> There's none on the street that I recall.
15:33:09 >> There's none on the street.
15:33:10 You go up.
15:33:11 You go down.
15:33:12 There are no front fences on this street.
15:33:17 I'm saying this for all the council members who are
15:33:19 looking in different directions.
15:33:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
15:33:28 We'll take comments from the public.
15:33:33 Is that right?
15:33:34 That were on the record.
15:33:35 Those who spoke at the hearing may come and address
15:33:40 Anyone wishing to address council on this petition?
15:33:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I don't believe there were any.
15:33:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, you have five minutes for
15:33:53 >>KATHLEEN O'DOWD: Thank you.
15:33:54 The ability to install a front yard fence is not
15:33:57 limited to Bayshore Boulevard.
15:33:59 There happen to be two on Bayshore but the one on New
15:34:02 Port is right around the corner from my client's
15:34:06 There is also a comment that this is a purely
15:34:09 decorative fence.
15:34:10 I don't believe there is any testimony before the ARC
15:34:13 indicating that this is a purely decorative fence.
15:34:17 I was asked at the ARC by my client -- why my client
15:34:21 desired the fence.
15:34:22 My client was not present at that meeting.
15:34:24 He was out of town.
15:34:26 So I wasn't able to relay to the ARC all of the reasons
15:34:31 that supported the need for this fence.
15:34:32 I would welcome the opportunity for him to address
15:34:34 council and provide you with those reasons.
15:34:36 >> It wasn't on the record.
15:34:42 >>> Well, staff is saying there was this was purely a
15:34:47 decorative fence.
15:34:48 There was know testimony supporting that conclusion.
15:34:50 And with respect to the 27-216, there is language added
15:34:55 that says new construction must comply with this
15:34:57 section, everyone if this section requires development
15:35:00 and/or construction that is more restrictive and
15:35:03 applicable requirements found elsewhere in the code.
15:35:05 Section 27-216 does not prohibit the placement of
15:35:09 fences in the front yard.
15:35:11 This is the supposed fix that Keith Roberts talked
15:35:15 about during the ARC hearing.
15:35:17 This section only deals with -- if there's language in
15:35:22 26 ---in 27-216 that's more restrictive than other
15:35:26 provisions in the code then that language in 27-216
15:35:29 will govern.
15:35:29 The design guide loins were not adopted in 27-216.
15:35:33 The design guidelines which I submit to you are
15:35:35 ambiguous are adopted in chapter 17.5.
15:35:38 They aren't even in the zoning code.
15:35:40 So I don't know that it's appropriate to raise this
15:35:44 sentence that was added as the supposed fix to prohibit
15:35:47 front yard fences.
15:35:48 I think when you go back and look at 27-133, which
15:35:52 allows front yard fences in residential zoned district,
15:35:56 and you look at the design guidelines, and how they are
15:35:58 inconsistent between page 99 and 101, and you look at
15:36:02 how prior councils have addressed this issue, approval
15:36:06 of the front yard fence is appropriate.
15:36:07 Again we are talking about the location.
15:36:09 The height moats the code.
15:36:10 Design and the materials are consistent with the design
15:36:13 Thank you.
15:36:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder?
15:36:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just close.
15:36:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
15:36:22 Seeing none motion to close?
15:36:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
15:36:24 >> Second.
15:36:24 (Motion carried)
15:36:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I believe the appropriate motion is
15:36:31 to affirm the ARC decision denying.
15:36:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:36:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I just want to elaborate a little
15:36:39 bit because there's a lot of sections and codes
15:36:43 provisions flying around.
15:36:47 But the change to 27-216 (L) I think is critical and
15:36:53 did it come after the Citibank -- the Citivest
15:36:58 Some of you were here for it.
15:36:59 Some of you weren't.
15:37:02 The reason that council put this code provision in, as
15:37:06 a matter of legislative history, is the fact that in
15:37:09 the Citivest decision, the circuit court judge
15:37:13 specifically said, I can't tell by your codes what
15:37:18 trumps what.
15:37:20 He says, does historic preservation trump the zoning
15:37:24 code or does the zoning code trump the preservation
15:37:25 code? I can't tell.
15:37:30 So as a result, on the advice of staff and our legal
15:37:34 counsel we specifically add the provision that Ms.
15:37:36 O'Dowd just spoke to and it reads as follows: New
15:37:40 construction must comply with this section everyone if
15:37:42 this section, historic preservation section, requires
15:37:45 development and/or construction that is more
15:37:47 restrictive than applicable requirements found
15:37:49 elsewhere in this code.
15:37:51 Yes, Ms. O'Dowd is 100% correct that all across the
15:37:55 city, if you want to put up a little 3-foot fence that
15:37:58 it's allowed in the zoning code.
15:37:59 However, okay, in the historic district, there are
15:38:02 provisions that limit and restrict that.
15:38:06 And I'm going to read one of those provisions
15:38:08 specifically on this page 101 of the design guideline.
15:38:11 Page 101 of the design guideline specifically says --
15:38:14 and, Mr. Chairman, you have to indulge me because
15:38:16 somebody is going to be reading this later -- 101 of
15:38:19 the design guidelines says it is permissible to, quote,
15:38:25 design new fences and walls which will be compatible
15:38:27 with historic fences and walls in the Hyde Park
15:38:29 historic district.
15:38:30 The second provision: It is permissible to design new
15:38:35 fences and walls which will be compatible with the
15:38:37 style or period of buildings to which they are being
15:38:41 The same page, it says, it is not permissible to locate
15:38:45 fences in the front yard setback or buildings, front
15:38:49 building line of an existing structure.
15:38:52 For 100 years, the Hyde Park has been around everybody
15:38:59 except for that one percent who somehow or other snuck
15:39:02 in otherwise, but 99% of the people recognize you don't
15:39:05 put fences in the front yard in Hyde Park.
15:39:07 That is the norm.
15:39:08 That is the law.
15:39:09 And I believe that we should up hold the ARC very, very
15:39:15 strongly on that issue, and that's where my motion
15:39:17 comes from.
15:39:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
15:39:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved --
15:39:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask?
15:39:23 On page 99, where does this paragraph refer to?
15:39:28 Ornamental iron fences may be appropriate where
15:39:30 compatible with the style of the building.
15:39:32 In some cases, or certain fencing materials are
15:39:35 predominant along the street, on adjacent properties,
15:39:39 these type of fences can be used.
15:39:41 Can someone explain that to me?
15:39:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If you wish to have that, you need to
15:39:48 reopen the hearing.
15:39:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Fine.
15:39:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Move to reopen.
15:39:53 >> So moved okay.
15:40:00 Do you understand the question?
15:40:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also remind council with regard to
15:40:05 giving --
15:40:07 Yes, thank you.
15:40:09 You are doing your job -- well.
15:40:17 >>> Mr. Caetano, this is addressing along the street
15:40:21 some of the properties in Hyde Park, the side yards are
15:40:24 adjacent to the street.
15:40:25 This is not referring to a front yard fence.
15:40:29 This is a side yard fence.
15:40:33 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Where does it say that there?
15:40:35 >>> It's inferred.
15:40:36 It doesn't say.
15:40:36 >> What?
15:40:37 >>> It's inferred.
15:40:39 If you keep on reading, the next paragraph, it talks
15:40:41 about the fences should fall behind the property.
15:40:44 >> The next paragraph?
15:40:46 >>> 99.
15:40:48 The last paragraph.
15:40:49 Second sentence.
15:40:52 Fences or walls along the primary facade should fall
15:40:55 behind the building setback line.
15:40:57 That's the front yard.
15:41:04 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: So if you call it a retaining wall
15:41:06 along the front, it's beyond the front line.
15:41:08 >>> That's correct.
15:41:09 >> They put a fence on it.
15:41:12 That's not legal?
15:41:12 >>> No.
15:41:13 A retaining wall, it hold back the earth.
15:41:16 So that's not considered a fence.
15:41:18 It performs a service.
15:41:20 Holding back the earth.
15:41:21 Anything above 12 inches by code definition becomes a
15:41:25 So anything that is erected 12 inches in height is
15:41:28 considered a fence, and it would be inappropriate to
15:41:31 place in the front yard.
15:41:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Other questions?
15:41:47 You have to speak to that question.
15:41:57 >>> O'Dowd: Page 99?
15:42:00 I think that's example of fences that are appropriate
15:42:02 within the district.
15:42:03 And I don't believe it's appropriate to say that it's
15:42:05 inferring that it's a side yard fence.
15:42:09 If it's supposed to limit to a side yard fence it
15:42:11 should say that rather than being inferred.
15:42:14 And if I may just add, this home is part of that one
15:42:17 percent that is appropriate for a front yard fence.
15:42:22 It's a corner home, similar to the Sykes residence.
15:42:26 It has security issues on a regular basis, folks are
15:42:29 going up to the front door, asking for tours of their
15:42:32 home, because they have seen the rehabilitation work
15:42:34 that is going on there.
15:42:35 I think --
15:42:41 >> -- the record below.
15:42:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:42:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Since Ms. O'Dowd mentioned the
15:42:48 bottom of page 99 and says there might be confusion
15:42:51 related to that first sentence that Mr. Caetano pointed
15:42:54 out, it says ornamental iron fences may be appropriate
15:42:58 for compatible size building.
15:42:59 Well, that's probably a subjective thing that we could
15:43:01 all argue about for a few days.
15:43:04 But then how about the next line?
15:43:06 In some cases where certain fencing materials are
15:43:08 predominant along the street on adjacent properties,
15:43:11 this type of fencing can be used.
15:43:13 Do you have any evidence in front of us today?
15:43:16 The only evidence I've heard, that Ms. Saul-Sena
15:43:19 pointed out, staff confirmed, there's no other fences
15:43:22 on the front yard up and down this street.
15:43:24 So predominant along the street on adjacent properties.
15:43:27 So even if you are correct, on your interpretation of
15:43:31 the first line, how about the second line?
15:43:33 Do you have any evidence at all that your client is the
15:43:37 norm as opposed to the extreme exception?
15:43:40 >>> I don't think I ever said that this is the norm.
15:43:43 Way did say was that failure to follow the predominant
15:43:46 pattern of development does not constitute incompatible
15:43:49 >> So therefore you can't rely on that first line
15:43:51 because you don't have any evidence for the second
15:43:54 >>> I wasn't relying on that first line.
15:43:56 What I'm focusing on is where it says fences and walls
15:43:59 along the primary facade should fall behind the setback
15:44:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:44:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
15:44:08 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Second.
15:44:11 (Motion carried).
15:44:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then back to the motion.
15:44:12 The motion is to uphold the variance review.
15:44:20 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
15:44:25 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott and Caetano
15:44:28 voting no.
15:44:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is not new.
15:44:32 I brought it before.
15:44:33 These are the issues that I bring out.
15:44:36 The amount of time that was spent today and the amount
15:44:38 of time we are going to spend in a little while, these
15:44:40 good folks have been here now before 1:30.
15:44:43 And it's already 3:30.
15:44:45 Or 3:40.
15:44:47 And that's why I always say that these appeals should
15:44:50 be heard by a court of law in a circuit court.
15:44:54 They are spending just as much money on legal fees here
15:44:58 as they are over there.
15:44:59 And I don't mind listening to them.
15:45:00 But they are not getting a full knowledge -- I'm not a
15:45:04 lawyer, and I'm a little bit short of being a judge.
15:45:08 About two inches.
15:45:10 So what I'm saying is that this is the thing that
15:45:13 belongs somewhere else.
15:45:16 >> I agree.
15:45:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:45:24 Well, chapter 9, I think it is, come back.
15:45:28 That's part of that chapter 9.
15:45:33 I think our last hearing, 71.
15:45:40 Anyone that's going to be addressing council, if you
15:45:43 have not been sworn, if you have not been sworn, now is
15:45:47 your last chance to stand up and be sworn, if you have
15:45:50 not been sworn.
15:45:52 This is your last time we are going to swear anybody
15:46:00 (Oath administered by Clerk).
15:46:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a reminder to council just for
15:46:13 the record before we begin, the comments that I made
15:46:15 earlier with regard to e-mails that you might have
15:46:17 gotten in support or opposition to the positions that
15:46:21 are being taken today, those are outside the record and
15:46:25 I would ask that council, even though they have been
15:46:27 made available and received and filed, that council do
15:46:33 not take those into consideration in this situation
15:46:36 where they serve as an appellate board.
15:46:39 Thank you.
15:46:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could somebody take away that easel?
15:46:44 >> They may need to use it.
15:46:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just slide it over.
15:46:53 >>> You have before you the variance review decision
15:47:16 case VRB-08-48.
15:47:20 The property in this appeal is located at 205 south
15:47:23 Hoover Boulevard.
15:47:25 And the property is a marina owned by Tampa marina
15:47:30 This is not an appeal of a variance application that
15:47:34 you normally have.
15:47:35 Instead, this case started out as a request for a
15:47:39 zoning administrator interpretation by Tampa Bay
15:47:43 marina, Inc., and they are asking for a determination
15:47:45 of the nonconforming status of the marina in the OP-1
15:47:50 zoning district.
15:47:52 The zoning administrator reviewed the information and
15:47:55 documentation submitted by Tampa Bay marina, and
15:47:58 reviewed the history of the property as well as the
15:48:00 history of zoning of the property since 1956.
15:48:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: May I have a point of order to clean
15:48:10 up a little housekeeping?
15:48:11 Mr. Shelby, I haven't had a chance to discuss this with
15:48:14 My father lives about a block away from this on
15:48:20 And I haven't spoken with him about this particular
15:48:23 issue, but I just wanted to make sure that you're
15:48:26 comfortable with me participating in this.
15:48:28 I'm comfortable in me participating in this.
15:48:30 I just wanted to make sure that you were.
15:48:36 He does not own -- he doesn't own, he rents.
15:48:41 >>MARTIN SHELBY: He rents.
15:48:53 >>: He doesn't have a boat in this marina that he's
15:48:59 told me about.
15:48:59 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Dingfelder, based on what I know,
15:49:02 it appears that it would be remote and speculative as
15:49:06 to, if at all, it would inure to his gain or detriment
15:49:14 in this case.
15:49:15 So I do believe it would be appropriate for to you hear
15:49:18 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you.
15:49:20 I just wanted to advise you.
15:49:25 And I believe it's appropriate for to you state you
15:49:31 have visited the site if you have visited the site.
15:49:32 I think it would be appropriate to the parties that you
15:49:35 disclose that you have, before, that they have the
15:49:37 opportunity to respond to it, at least as part of your
15:49:41 So thank you for disclosing that.
15:49:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: If we have a board, read all these
15:49:50 documents, watch the DVD, which I had about four DVDs,
15:49:55 we still have to disclose that we went out and looked
15:49:59 at the site, which is part of our responsibility?
15:50:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: One might argue that if you rely
15:50:04 solely upon the record that there is in fact no need
15:50:08 for you to do an on-site inspection.
15:50:09 That may or may not be true as an appellate body.
15:50:12 If you do a strict certiorari standard, you are limited
15:50:16 to the record below, if you were sitting as a judge.
15:50:21 You are not necessarily judges.
15:50:22 Now not members of the bar.
15:50:24 And this is quasi-judicial.
15:50:26 One can even argue that it's not.
15:50:28 So then the question is, you are still elected members
15:50:33 of the public and have the right to view property.
15:50:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I visited the site.
15:50:41 I read the backup.
15:50:42 I watched the DVD.
15:50:44 I got three or four DVDs.
15:50:51 Go ahead.
15:50:56 >>> Just to remind you, this started out as a zoning
15:51:01 administrator interpretation request made by Tampa Bay
15:51:05 And they are asking for a determination of the
15:51:07 nonconforming status of the marina in an OP-1 zoning
15:51:12 The zoning administrator reviewed the information
15:51:14 provided to her and issued the interpretation for
15:51:19 determination that the marina was a legal nonconforming
15:51:23 use subject to the provisions of Tampa city code
15:51:29 Than the zoning administrator determined that it did
15:51:31 not appear that the activity at the location had ceased
15:51:34 or been abandoned since the effective date of zoning
15:51:41 Be the zoning administrator interpretation was appealed
15:51:43 tots review board by the Ralph W. Hughes family.
15:51:49 At the appeal to the Variance Review Board, new
15:51:51 evidence can be submitted and the board -- Variance
15:51:56 Review Board was allowed to reweigh its evidence and
15:51:59 make its own determination.
15:52:01 At the appeal hearing evidence was presented to the
15:52:03 Variance Review Board that the zoning administrator did
15:52:06 not have when she made her determination.
15:52:08 And members of the public also presented testimony at
15:52:11 the Variance Review Board.
15:52:13 At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, and after
15:52:16 substantial deliberation, the Variance Review Board
15:52:19 granted the Hughes family's appeal finding that there
15:52:23 had been evidence demonstrating that the marina had
15:52:26 ceased operation for an 180-day period and that there
15:52:29 was evidence to support an intent to abandon the
15:52:34 Tampa Bay marina has now appealed to this council, the
15:52:38 variance review board's finding that the marina lost
15:52:43 its legal nonconforming status.
15:52:46 Again I want to Lee mind you as Mr. Shelby has, that
15:52:49 unlike the appeal in the Variance Review Board, there
15:52:52 can be no new evidence presented to the City Council
15:52:55 today, and your actions are solely based upon the
15:52:58 record that was created during the Variance Review
15:53:01 The appellant today, Tampa Bay marina, is represented
15:53:03 by Mr. David Mechanik, and the Hughes family is
15:53:06 represented by Mr. John Grandoff, and zoning
15:53:11 administrator Catherine Coyle is also here.
15:53:13 Before I turn the podium over to Mr. Mechanik to
15:53:16 present Tampa Bay marina's appeal, there is an
15:53:20 evidentiary issue that needs to be resolved so I will
15:53:22 be actually having Mr. Grandoff speak to you first.
15:53:31 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members
15:53:33 of the City Council.
15:53:34 My name is John Grandoff.
15:53:36 My address is suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
15:53:40 I'm joined this afternoon by co-counsel Mr. Steve
15:53:44 Anderson of the Ruden firm whose address is 401 East
15:53:47 Jackson Street, and also joined by members of the
15:53:50 Hughes family, Betty Hughes, Shea Hughes and Randal
15:53:56 Please raise your hands.
15:54:00 As Mr. Mueller explained, we have a brief evidentiary
15:54:04 issue which Mr. Mechanik and I have no dispute on.
15:54:08 Let me explain.
15:54:09 At the Variance Review Board level, on rebuttal --
15:54:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I apologize.
15:54:17 If you could stop the clock.
15:54:18 This is an evidentiary -- an evidentiary matter that
15:54:21 really shouldn't count against the time.
15:54:29 >>> Yes, this is not argument.
15:54:31 Just want to make everything right.
15:54:33 I had the opportunity to provide rebuttal testimony,
15:54:36 and I referenced two documents in the record.
15:54:41 I tendered them on the Elmo.
15:54:43 I inadvertently put them back in my folder and sat back
15:54:46 down without putting them into evidence.
15:54:49 I would like to put them into evidence this afternoon.
15:54:50 But in fairness Mr. Mechanik has the opportunity as he
15:54:53 would have had at the Variance Review Board level to
15:54:56 distinguish these documents as to their relevance.
15:54:58 So what I am going to provide for you is eight copies,
15:55:03 which is one for council and seven for the City
15:55:09 >> Does Mr. Mechanik or city legal have any objection
15:55:12 to the depositing of this document that Mr. Grandoff is
15:55:20 >> Well, let me, before he does that, let me see -- I
15:55:24 wanted Mr. Grandoff to finish his statement, and then
15:55:26 we'll ask those questions.
15:55:28 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Now, what you have is a letter of May
15:55:31 15 which is the Friday after the hearing, where I
15:55:33 discovered the issue.
15:55:35 And I delivered these.
15:55:37 Ernie Mueller asked to file them and basically they go
15:55:41 to the issue of the abandonment of the use of the
15:55:43 marina, and its two letters, one TBRPC letterhead and
15:55:49 one on McFarland Ferguson letterhead which goes to the
15:55:51 issue that we'll get into later, as to the abandonment
15:55:54 of the Marina.
15:55:57 Without further ado, I yield to Mr. Mechanik so that he
15:56:01 can say what he would like.
15:56:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Mechanik, do you want to respond to
15:56:07 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 South Boulevard.
15:56:13 We do not have objection to be the entry of those two
15:56:16 documents, provided that we are allowed to speak to
15:56:20 them as part of our presentation today.
15:56:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
15:56:28 >>REBECCA KERT: Legal department.
15:56:30 On behalf of Cathy Coyle, zoning administrator there.
15:56:34 No objection to it was presented at the hearing, it
15:56:38 just wasn't filed.
15:56:39 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: These all I have on that.
15:56:42 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is Mr. Mechanik going to respond now?
15:56:44 Is that what you wish?
15:56:46 >> Well, who is going to come and present the case?
15:56:51 That's who needs to be up.
15:56:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The question that I ask of council is
15:56:55 in terms of setting the time frame.
15:56:57 I just want to be clear that the party, appellant shall
15:57:02 limit his or her argument to 15 minutes and the
15:57:04 appellant may yield time to persons offering testimony
15:57:04 in support, and those persons opposed to the appeal
15:57:09 shall speak for no more than 15 minutes total.
15:57:11 And under council's rules speakers are limited to three
15:57:14 minutes each unless otherwise designated by City
15:57:19 And it appears that Mr. Grandoff is going to want to
15:57:22 respond to this.
15:57:24 So I just want -- and maybe members of the public,
15:57:27 So the question is, would it be appropriate and without
15:57:30 objection by either party to allow both parties 15
15:57:35 minutes for their presentations?
15:57:38 And if council wishes to open it up for those people
15:57:40 who can deal with that at that time.
15:57:42 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's fine.
15:57:47 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I was going to ask for an additional
15:57:49 five minutes for a total of 20 minutes.
15:57:52 This has got some complicated issues.
15:57:54 And I felt I needed just a little bit more time to
15:57:57 speak to those.
15:57:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to allow the additional.
15:58:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me ask, Mr. Grandoff?
15:58:04 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I'm okay with that.
15:58:05 I believe I can finish my argument in less than 15 but
15:58:10 if not I would like a little more time.
15:58:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, okay.
15:58:13 It's 4:00.
15:58:15 I want to make you all aware of that.
15:58:18 Number one.
15:58:19 And number two, I will tell you, Mr. Mechanik, I will
15:58:21 tell you, Mr. Grandoff, I think -- I read the record,
15:58:28 reviewed the DVD and some of us have visited the site.
15:58:31 I can tell you, I'm telling you, okay.
15:58:38 Just be aware of that.
15:58:39 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I would be more than happy to move
15:58:43 along on this if I can.
15:58:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to allow an additional five --
15:58:48 Well, we can do that.
15:58:50 But thank you.
15:58:52 >>DAVID MECHANIK: 305 South Boulevard here on behalf of
15:58:56 Tampa Bay marina.
15:58:57 We have appealed the decision of the Variance Review
15:59:00 Board, which as Mr. Mueller indicated upheld an appeal
15:59:08 by Mr. Grandoff of Cathy Coyle's determination that the
15:59:15 marina use of my client's property off of Hoover
15:59:18 Boulevard is a legal nonconforming use.
15:59:21 And I would just like to emphasize that Cathy Coyle as
15:59:25 the zoning administrator is the professional staff
15:59:28 person who the city relies on to make these zoning
15:59:32 determinations, and we believe that she correctly and
15:59:36 appropriately made her determination.
15:59:42 I would also like to make out -- and there was a lot of
15:59:45 discussion on the record about new evidence.
15:59:48 Ms. Coyle, during the VRB hearing, said at the time
15:59:52 that she, as she heard the new evidence, she offered
15:59:57 the same opinion as she originally did in making her
16:00:00 determination that the use was a legal nonconforming
16:00:03 So for whatever it's worth to this council, Ms. Coyle
16:00:07 indicated that that new evidence did not change her
16:00:09 determination, in her opinion.
16:00:16 I'm going to go through all of the arguments that Mr.
16:00:21 Grandoff argued in this case, and some of which I
16:00:24 believe are currently irrelevant to the determination,
16:00:27 but I feel I need to speak to them, for council's
16:00:31 benefit, in case there are issues in someone's mind.
16:00:35 Mr. Grandoff argued, and he used the term theories, and
16:00:40 I think it's interesting that he used the term
16:00:43 He said he had three theories for why our marina, my
16:00:47 client's marina, is not a legal nonconforming use.
16:00:51 And I'd like to start by telling you my client bought
16:00:54 this business, the Tampa Bay marina, in the 1960s,
16:00:59 and he provided an affidavit under oath, of course,
16:01:02 that he has operated this business as a marina since
16:01:05 that time, continuously, and without interruption.
16:01:10 It was quite shocking to him to have any suggestion
16:01:13 that he at some point abandoned his marina use.
16:01:19 Anyway, Mr. Grandoff said he offered three theories,
16:01:22 and I suspect the reason why he offered three theories
16:01:25 is because he really had no evidence which he presented
16:01:28 into the record, which established a discontinuance of
16:01:33 the use of the marina during any relevant period of
16:01:38 And I'll speak to that in more detail.
16:01:40 So I guess he's using theories as opposed to facts and
16:01:44 evidence to support that.
16:01:46 His first theory is that the use was illegally
16:01:51 established under the C-2 zoning which was on the
16:01:56 property at the time the use was legally -- was
16:02:01 established, and actually we do have evidence it was
16:02:04 established in the '40s but at the very least in the
16:02:09 1950s the property was zoned C-2.
16:02:12 Mr. Grandoff made the argument that a marina was not
16:02:15 listed as a use in the C-2 zoning district, and
16:02:19 therefore it was not a permitted use.
16:02:24 At the hearing, Ms. Coyle pointed out that a marina was
16:02:27 not listed in any zoning category in the City of Tampa,
16:02:31 and that under her authority she interprets a marina to
16:02:36 be analogous to other types of uses such as
16:02:40 transportation, repair, and storage, and therefore she
16:02:44 determined that it would be a permitted use.
16:02:46 If you accept Mr. Grandoff's theory on this, all of the
16:02:49 marinas in the City of Tampa in the 1950s, '60s and
16:02:55 '70s and '80s would have been illegal including the
16:02:58 city's Marjorie Park marina as well as the marina on
16:03:02 Bayshore Boulevard.
16:03:03 So we don't believe that's a valid theory or argument.
16:03:08 Mr. Grandoff's second theory is that there was a period
16:03:14 of time between 1976 and 1979 where my client ceased
16:03:20 operation of the business as a marina.
16:03:25 And I would point out, if you accept the fact that the
16:03:28 marina was legally established in the '50s under the
16:03:35 C-2 zoning, the C-2 zoning continued to exist for the
16:03:38 property until 1987.
16:03:40 Therefore, it would not really be relevant whether the
16:03:43 operation ceased between 1976 and 1979.
16:03:48 But, nevertheless, we'll address that issue.
16:03:53 And we contend there was no cessation of marina
16:03:56 operations during this or any period.
16:04:00 Mr. Grandoff presented some aerial photographs which
16:04:03 are in the binder, which has been submitted to council,
16:04:07 which shows that there are a removal of a -- I think he
16:04:14 refers to it as an awning on the east basin, there was
16:04:17 an awning that I think was an aluminum structure that
16:04:20 was erected over the boat slips.
16:04:24 And at that particular time, in the late 70s from '76
16:04:30 to '79 that awning was removed.
16:04:33 But we fail to see how that is evidence of any
16:04:36 cessation of marina use.
16:04:38 What you are left with is on the east basin, a wharf,
16:04:42 which is used for larger ships.
16:04:45 When you talk about boat slips or boat docks, you are
16:04:48 looking at -- and if you are looking at any of the
16:04:50 aerial photographs, they would look on an aerial
16:04:53 photograph like toothpicks, and those are there to
16:04:56 accommodate the small type pleasure craft that you see
16:05:00 over on Harbor Island or Marjorie Park, that kind of
16:05:04 But, of course, a wharf, just like at the port of
16:05:07 Tampa, accommodates larger boats and ships.
16:05:11 And so you have a wharf.
16:05:13 You don't have those little sticks that are coming out
16:05:16 off the marina.
16:05:17 But we see no evidence whatsoever of a cessation of the
16:05:21 marina as a use during that period of time.
16:05:26 Finally, we are now at the period -- and this would be
16:05:29 Mr. Grandoff's third theory -- he's alleged we have at
16:05:35 some point ceased the business operation during the
16:05:37 period from 1987 to the present date, which would be
16:05:41 the period 1987 was the dates that OP-1 zoning was put
16:05:47 on the property, or thereabouts that date.
16:05:53 So his argument is that it has ceased.
16:05:58 However, Mr. Grandoff has not presented one piece of
16:06:00 evidence which indicates why or how the marina
16:06:04 operation ceased during that particular period of time.
16:06:09 I would like to point out that my client submitted to
16:06:13 support the continuous operation, aerial photographs
16:06:17 and affidavits, occupational licenses, all of which
16:06:22 establish the use, the continued use during this
16:06:26 particular period.
16:06:28 I'd like to just speak to very quickly two of those
16:06:33 The affidavit, there were ten affidavits submitted.
16:06:36 These are sworn under oath, who the of whom were
16:06:41 employees of Tampa Bay marina.
16:06:43 And I would like to just point out that these are
16:06:45 people who would be in a position to know about the
16:06:47 marina operation, because they were there, this was
16:06:50 their job, and they would have been not only familiar
16:06:54 with what was visually happening, but they would be
16:06:57 familiar with the business operation and understand
16:07:01 what is taking place from an income revenue standpoint.
16:07:05 And all of those affidavits indicate during the
16:07:08 applicable period that the marina was active and
16:07:13 There are two other affidavits, one of whom was your
16:07:16 former colleague, Mary Alvarez, who was working for an
16:07:21 accountant and familiar with the business operations of
16:07:24 Tampa Bay marina, and she also confirmed that the
16:07:28 business operations continue.
16:07:32 I would also like to point out -- oh, and those
16:07:34 affidavits are found in your tabs in the notebook
16:07:37 between tab F-1 and tab 11.
16:07:41 Also, in your notebook, behind tabs 13 through -- I'm
16:07:46 sorry, F-13 through F-26, there are aerial photographs
16:07:53 submitted by Tampa Bay marina.
16:07:54 And what I would like to point out to you that is
16:07:58 noteworthy is both our aerial photographs as well as
16:08:00 those presented by Mr. Grandoff are pretty much the
16:08:03 same thing.
16:08:04 You will see predominantly the small type of boat slips
16:08:08 in the west basin.
16:08:09 You will see pre-dominantly, although certain
16:08:13 photographs actually do show smaller boat slips over
16:08:16 various periods of time in the east basin, but in all
16:08:20 cases, you see in these photographs a wharf that would
16:08:24 have been used for the larger ships.
16:08:26 And while we all know that a photograph is just one
16:08:29 small point in time, you can see through the numerous
16:08:33 photographs that both we and Mr. Grandoff submitted,
16:08:37 and we are talking about photographs extending from
16:08:41 1962 all the way to the present day, then you are
16:08:44 dealing with several dozen of these photographs, you
16:08:47 can see a continuous pattern of operation at the
16:08:59 I would like to -- and I know that Mr. Grandoff has
16:09:02 argued that the testimony of the neighbors somehow
16:09:08 established a discontinuation of use.
16:09:10 I'm going to move very quickly.
16:09:12 The testimony from the neighbors was strictly
16:09:15 anecdotal, and was absolutely could not be considered
16:09:19 competent substantial evidence.
16:09:21 Here are some of the comments.
16:09:25 There were long periods when there were no boats there,
16:09:27 have no idea what time frame they are talking about,
16:09:30 whether they are talking about 180 days or 20 days or
16:09:34 five years.
16:09:35 There is no possible way.
16:09:37 They haven't pinpointed a date or anything that would
16:09:40 be useful to use as evidence to support this.
16:09:46 One of the neighbors said there were no docks, the
16:09:52 location of this particular property.
16:09:53 Mr. Grandoff's own photographic evidence show that
16:09:57 there were docks there, so we can't possibly understand
16:10:00 what the basis of that testimony would be.
16:10:03 Someone said there's been no activity there for the
16:10:06 last ten or fifteen or twenty years.
16:10:10 I mean, it's hard to imagine that somebody couldn't
16:10:13 pinpoint that a little closer.
16:10:14 But more importantly as we all know and even Mr.
16:10:18 Grandoff's own evidence indicates that there was
16:10:22 activity there for at least much of that period of
16:10:26 time, and of course we take the position that it was
16:10:29 there continuously all during that period of time.
16:10:34 Probably the most central issue was Mr. Grandoff's
16:10:38 argument that my client had an intent to be abandon
16:10:42 this use.
16:10:44 And I need to tell you, and the case law is very clear
16:10:48 on this, if there is no evidence of an actual
16:10:51 abandonment, the intent to abandon is not really a
16:10:56 relevant concept, because the intent to abandon only
16:10:59 comes into play legally if someone has abandoned a use
16:11:04 or a business for 180 days, but there are circumstances
16:11:09 such that the person had a building damaged and they
16:11:13 needed to get a building permit.
16:11:16 What the courts say is if you do abandon it but you are
16:11:19 trying to get a building permit to get it back in
16:11:21 business, that that doesn't count as an abandonment for
16:11:24 purposes of the 180-day rule.
16:11:28 But Mr. Grandoff is using that as one of his theories
16:11:34 to suggest somehow that that becomes the basis for
16:11:37 determining that my client actually abandoned the
16:11:41 business operation for 120 days, or 180 days, I'm
16:11:48 He makes two arguments during zoning conformance in
16:11:55 My client asked for OP-1 zoning which does not allow
16:11:58 for a marina.
16:11:59 Well, at that time, my client also had an office
16:12:03 building on the property which was built in two phases,
16:12:08 in the mid 1970s and in 1980.
16:12:12 The staff recommendation was for OP, which is a very
16:12:15 low intensity office.
16:12:17 My client, in order to support the office use, asked
16:12:20 for OP-1.
16:12:22 This is not in any way a reflection on an abandonment.
16:12:29 Marina. In fact the best evidence that it's not an
16:12:31 abandonment is my client built the office building and
16:12:36 yet continued the marina operation to this very day.
16:12:39 So it's hard to imagine how that could be evidence of
16:12:45 an abandonment.
16:12:48 The second thing is, he sites a report by the Tampa Bay
16:12:51 Regional Planning Council as evidence of abandonment.
16:12:58 And this is one of the pieces of evidence that Mr.
16:13:00 Grandoff just asked to be admitted.
16:13:03 I would like to put this on the Elmo.
16:13:08 Is that readable at all?
16:13:14 The important point here is Mr. Grandoff used this
16:13:20 document at the hearing to say, well, my client was
16:13:22 proposing to fill in a 1.7 acres of the basin, which is
16:13:26 shown in the hatched area.
16:13:30 I do need to turn this the other way.
16:13:33 But he neglected to mention that the west basin is
16:13:37 shown also in that same exhibit to the TBRPC report,
16:13:43 and the words active marina are very prominent.
16:13:47 So again it's a question of selective reference to the
16:13:51 document here.
16:13:53 This is a document, of course, my client submitted, and
16:13:56 I think also amply demonstrates that there was no
16:14:00 intent to abandon the marina.
16:14:04 I fear I'm running out of time.
16:14:06 >>THOMAS SCOTT:
16:14:13 >> You have about 45 seconds.
16:14:14 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Could I ask for an additional two or
16:14:16 three minutes?
16:14:17 I'm really down to the very conclusion here.
16:14:19 >> So moved.
16:14:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
16:14:22 (Motion carried)
16:14:23 >>DAVID MECHANIK: As I mentioned earlier, the VRB
16:14:31 failed to base its decision on competent, substantial
16:14:33 evidence and departed from the essential requirements
16:14:36 of the law.
16:14:37 I will be referring now to the transcript which is also
16:14:40 in your notebook in citing three pages within that
16:14:48 transcript, pages 53 through 55.
16:14:53 And I need to say that this is not a disrespect of the
16:14:57 members of the variance review board.
16:14:59 They are not judges, they are not trained.
16:15:02 There are some serious flaws in their deliberation.
16:15:06 And I need to point this out as part of my job here
16:15:09 The maker of the motion on page 53, line 20, maker of
16:15:14 the motion to support Mr. Grandoff's appeal, gives no
16:15:19 basis whatsoever for her motion.
16:15:22 Ernie Mueller correctly then interjects himself and
16:15:26 advises the VRB that you must have a factual basis for
16:15:29 your motion.
16:15:30 That's on page 54, line 3.
16:15:33 Mr. Barren, who seconded the motion, was then offering
16:15:38 the rationale for the motion.
16:15:40 Mr. Barren says: Evidence is conflicting now.
16:15:44 We have some people who say it is terminated for more
16:15:48 than 180 days.
16:15:49 Then we have other people who say it hasn't.
16:15:52 He also states that this is the only evidence before
16:15:55 the VRB.
16:15:56 This is page 54, line 4.
16:15:59 Then he says:
16:16:00 We have to go by anecdotal evidence.
16:16:05 Then another VRB reminds Mr. Barren he can't rely on
16:16:11 anecdotal evidence, only insubstantial evidence.
16:16:16 Mr. Barren then says the evidence he just sited is --
16:16:21 sited is substantial and competent.
16:16:22 Before he just said it was anecdotal.
16:16:24 Now he says it's substantial and competent.
16:16:28 As you can imagine there's some serious problems with
16:16:30 this as a basis for the motion.
16:16:33 He simply can't recharacterize the evidence one minute
16:16:37 as anecdotal and competent and substantial the next.
16:16:41 And he was citing in fact the same neighborhood
16:16:46 testimony that I read you excerpts from.
16:16:49 There wasn't one particular date cited by any of the
16:16:53 The fact that they went out one day and didn't see a
16:16:55 boat is anecdotal evidence.
16:16:58 That is not real evidence of what was happening on this
16:17:01 particular property.
16:17:06 Is that my -- that's the three minutes, too?
16:17:09 Can I get another two minutes?
16:17:11 [ Laughter ]
16:17:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, that's 23 minutes.
16:17:18 An additional one minute.
16:17:20 And Mr. Grandoff will have some more time.
16:17:22 >>DAVID MECHANIK: I will move even faster then.
16:17:28 Probably more importantly than redefining anecdotal
16:17:33 versus real substantial competent evidence, he gives
16:17:36 absolutely no weight to the photographic evidence and
16:17:39 the affidavits.
16:17:39 He absolutely does not consider them.
16:17:42 I'm almost thinking that he for get them but I can't
16:17:45 speculate on that.
16:17:47 But it's unimaginable that he could not have cited
16:17:53 those four as real substantial competent evidence.
16:18:01 At this point, Rebecca Kert -- and this is on page 54,
16:18:05 line 19, explains the intent rule.
16:18:09 And then Mr. Barren, who is still trying to explain his
16:18:12 motion, says: Okay, well, I'll add that to my
16:18:17 In that case I'll append my statement that the evidence
16:18:19 before us concerning the office building and the fact
16:18:22 that it appears there is some interpretation in the
16:18:26 evidence that perhaps the petitioner wished to abandon
16:18:30 the marina business in order to go into the office
16:18:35 building business, would show an intent to abandon the
16:18:39 Again, I respectfully suggest as a matter of law he
16:18:43 cannot say "perhaps the petitioner wished to examine."
16:18:50 He needs to make a finding that the petitioner either
16:18:52 intended to abandon or he didn't.
16:18:54 Not that he perhaps did.
16:18:57 Thank you very much.
16:18:58 I appreciate your time.
16:19:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I ask counsel to come and clarify what
16:19:12 council understand was we should be doing, because it's
16:19:15 a little different.
16:19:16 We have an applicant appealing the decision of the VRB.
16:19:31 And the burden shifts now to the Tampa Bay marina.
16:19:38 We need you to come explain that.
16:19:39 The burden is not on the Hughes family.
16:19:41 Burden now is on the Tampa Bay marina.
16:19:45 I want the attorney to come and clarify so that you
16:19:47 will understand what's happening here now.
16:19:54 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman?
16:19:56 >> Let me have him speak and then I'll turn to you.
16:20:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe the chair has characterized
16:20:02 it correctly.
16:20:03 Do you have the standard of review as I previously gave
16:20:05 you, in a previous hearing, you have that still before
16:20:10 You are now to determine whether the board's decision
16:20:13 was supported by competent, substantial evidence, two,
16:20:17 whether due process was accorded, and three, whether
16:20:20 essential requirements of law have been observed.
16:20:22 Again, Mr. Mechanik represents the appellant in this
16:20:24 case, and he does have the burden.
16:20:30 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: I'm looking at Tampa city code,
16:20:32 says marina, facility for storing, berthing, a large
16:20:38 pleasure craft which may also include the sale of fuel
16:20:41 and incidental supplies and marina repairs.
16:20:45 Does this marina meet this criteria?
16:20:47 >> Before we get into that, what I would like to do is
16:20:50 for Mr. Grandoff to come and present and then we'll
16:20:52 raise those kinds of questions, if you don't mind.
16:20:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This again is along the lines that
16:20:56 you were adding to -- this came before an administrator
16:21:00 who ruled in the favor of the marina.
16:21:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
16:21:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Then the family, Mr. Hughes,
16:21:05 appealed to the VRB.
16:21:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
16:21:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: They ruled in favor of the family.
16:21:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
16:21:13 >> Mr. Hughes.
16:21:14 Now it's before City Council.
16:21:16 And you know what I think?
16:21:17 This is not the end of the road.
16:21:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
16:21:19 >> This will eventually end up in court.
16:21:21 But that's just an opinion of one.
16:21:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
16:21:25 >> Editorial comment.
16:21:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Grandoff, you have approximately 23
16:21:31 And let me just say, you don't have to use all 23
16:21:36 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Well, Mr. Scott, I will be very, very
16:21:41 Just a very, very brief argument.
16:21:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
16:21:45 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Suite 3700 Bank of America Plaza.
16:21:49 On behalf of the Hughes family.
16:21:51 Let's go back to the beginning of what the code
16:21:54 requires you to do this afternoon.
16:21:56 And you need to understand first of all what the VRB
16:21:59 was charged with doing.
16:22:01 They have to do three things.
16:22:03 They had to a sure that there was due process.
16:22:06 Notice and opportunity to be heard.
16:22:07 There's no issue there.
16:22:09 Number two, their decision had to be based upon the
16:22:12 correct law.
16:22:13 What was the correct law at the time?
16:22:15 That is the law of nonconforming uses in chapter 27.
16:22:20 No usual you that they applied the correct law.
16:22:23 Number three, their decision must be rendered upon
16:22:26 competent and substantial evidence.
16:22:29 If they did those three things at their level on May
16:22:32 13, then you must affirm their decision.
16:22:36 So your inquiry this evening, this afternoon, is not to
16:22:39 reweigh the evidence, to consider more evidence, to
16:22:42 rethink the evidence.
16:22:43 Your decision is to question whether the VRB did those
16:22:47 three things.
16:22:47 I submit that they did all three of those things.
16:22:52 Mr. Mechanik is basically rearguing the evidence.
16:22:55 That is not the task this afternoon.
16:23:02 For purposes of discussion, however, if you reviewed
16:23:04 the DVD, you will notice that it was refuted that this
16:23:10 marina had a dormancy sometime between 1976 and 1979.
16:23:15 Those aerials prosecutor put -- were put into evidence.
16:23:19 They were not refuted at the time.
16:23:20 Also, please consider that this process started with
16:23:24 the city citing the marina as illegal.
16:23:30 The city marina had an opportunity then to challenge
16:23:34 the decision and put evidence in the record.
16:23:36 They asked for a decision by Ms. Coyle which is based
16:23:39 upon more of their evidence in the record, which they
16:23:43 This evidence went into the record.
16:23:48 You have seen the record that was delivered at the VRB
16:23:51 The bulk of that evidence was evidence provided by
16:23:53 Tampa Bay marina into the record.
16:23:57 Our opportunity was to appeal Ms. Coyle's decision
16:24:01 which we disagreed with.
16:24:02 We have the opportunity to put evidence in the record,
16:24:04 which we did.
16:24:06 Ms. Coyle's letter of January 22 -- excuse me, February
16:24:10 22, if you will see it in your binder, on page 2, she
16:24:16 recites the items that were provided by Tampa Bay
16:24:18 You provided.
16:24:19 You provided.
16:24:20 You provided.
16:24:20 On and on and on.
16:24:22 Item 1 through 14.
16:24:26 This evidence was all considered.
16:24:29 The Variance Review Board made the decision.
16:24:31 Mr. Barren's recitation at the motion on item -- on
16:24:37 page 353 and 54 clearly says there's competent,
16:24:41 substantial evidence before us to render this decision,
16:24:44 the decision was made 5 to 2.
16:24:47 An appeal was taken by the Tampa Bay marina.
16:24:49 And on their appeal form, which they filed with the
16:24:52 clerk, in a timely fashion, they stated, quote, the
16:24:56 evidence presented at the successful appeal by the
16:25:00 Hughes family, that decision is substantially
16:25:05 outweighed by the evidence which was submitted by and
16:25:08 relied upon the city in its determination of the marina
16:25:11 being a nonconform use.
16:25:13 Even at that stage, Tampa Bay marina is admitting that
16:25:16 there's competent, substantial evidence in the record,
16:25:18 but they are disputing the decision was made.
16:25:20 Your task is not to reweigh the evidence and to be the
16:25:24 super VRB board.
16:25:25 Your task is simply to address those three items I
16:25:28 mentioned, due process, appropriate law, competent,
16:25:32 substantial evidence.
16:25:33 Furthermore, as to the issue of abandonment, the city
16:25:39 code, and -- let me phrase the issue with you briefly.
16:25:46 Should you determine whether there's an intent of a
16:25:49 property owner to abandon the property, the city code
16:25:52 says that has no place in the analysis.
16:25:55 It says -- excuse me for a second.
16:26:01 I'm quoting 27-297-2.
16:26:04 It says cessation of the use includes but not limited
16:26:09 to discontinuance of the activity, consistent with or
16:26:13 required for the operation of such a nonconforming
16:26:16 use -- a marina.
16:26:17 And here's the important part.
16:26:19 The determination of cessation of use or change to a
16:26:23 conforming use will be determined irrespective of
16:26:27 whether or not an intention to cease or abandon the
16:26:31 nonconform use may exist.
16:26:34 And that's a city code.
16:26:35 So whether they intended to or not has actually nothing
16:26:38 to do with the issue.
16:26:39 The VRB locked right on that issue and they recognized
16:26:43 based on the evidence that we placed in the record,
16:26:46 specifically, the aerial photographs, and letters, that
16:26:51 there was abandonment of the marina operation.
16:26:57 When the hearing began, I filed two items that I had
16:26:59 spoken about on rebuttal.
16:27:01 And Mr. Mechanik refers to those in his case in chief.
16:27:04 And I would like to also refer to those briefly.
16:27:09 And -- excuse me, this is a cover letter from the
16:27:15 Now, what is going on at the time?
16:27:19 They have applied for a dredge and fill permit.
16:27:21 Excuse me, they have applied to fill this area.
16:27:26 And the BR has jurisdiction because the water is the
16:27:31 The finding is the applicant proposes to fill an
16:27:34 existing empty boat basin and put an office building in
16:27:38 its place.
16:27:39 According to the applicant, the local demand for
16:27:42 in-water moors has increased over the last two years,
16:27:45 the owners wish to market the property as a potential
16:27:47 office site.
16:27:49 And as Mr. Mechanik showed you, that area was cross
16:27:54 hatched here, clearly shown an abandonment.
16:27:59 He did mention that, yes, there's an active marina,
16:28:03 citation shown here.
16:28:06 But this is in -- this is 1990.
16:28:18 However, they revised that to an active marina or not
16:28:22 is not an issue.
16:28:23 The Variance Review Board still found that in April of
16:28:26 1976 to April -- to December of 1979 based upon the
16:28:29 aerials, that the marina no longer operated.
16:28:36 So what does the code say?
16:28:37 Chapter 43 which predated chapter 27, and chapter 27
16:28:42 which is your current code, basically says cease
16:28:46 operations for 180 days.
16:28:48 You can no longer operate.
16:28:50 You must conform to the current code.
16:28:51 We simply ask that the Tampa Bay marina no longer
16:28:56 operate any longer, it is a legal nonconforming use,
16:29:01 they certainly have all their rights within OP-1 to
16:29:04 build high-rise, we have in a issue with that, but the
16:29:07 marina days are over.
16:29:08 We respectfully submit that the evidence before the
16:29:10 variance review board was competent, substantial, and I
16:29:13 ask that you uphold that decision.
16:29:15 Thank you for your time.
16:29:19 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Grandoff.
16:29:24 Question by council at this point?
16:29:26 Questions by council?
16:29:29 Councilman Miranda, councilman Dingfelder.
16:29:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I'm listening to all
16:29:34 this evidence, and again, you have to become somewhat
16:29:36 of a judge here pretty soon and pretty quickly based on
16:29:40 the legal terms of both these fine counselors that have
16:29:44 appeared before us this afternoon.
16:29:45 When we go back to what was just pointed out to us, in
16:29:49 1990, on a portion of land that was zoned to build a
16:29:54 building, I don't recall reading anywhere or any one of
16:29:59 the two prominent attorneys saying that the owners ever
16:30:02 said that there was not going to be a marina.
16:30:05 I take it to be that a portion of the land is going to
16:30:09 have a building on it, and that portion was the portion
16:30:12 that was rezoned, I assume.
16:30:14 I have to make that assumption.
16:30:17 They were allowed to build on that portion of the land
16:30:22 I have here a document, a permit, authorized to permit
16:30:28 a con -- to construct a marina consisting of 33 docks
16:30:34 with double boat slips and 70 mooring piles that was
16:30:39 issued on September 21st of '89.
16:30:43 And so I was skimming through this.
16:30:48 It's right there page -- docket number 13.
16:30:54 Permit number was H-7-371, and the expiration, I guess,
16:30:58 they do a little bit more work, issued by the Port
16:31:01 Authority, where this would expire on March 31st,
16:31:07 And it was signed by -- authorized by David C.
16:31:11 Carpenter. This was not alluded to but it's part of
16:31:13 the evidence, I would assume.
16:31:15 So, therefore -- and it should be.
16:31:21 There's two sides to every story.
16:31:23 There's a side of the marina.
16:31:24 There's a side of those that are against the marina.
16:31:26 There's a side of was it a marina?
16:31:29 There's a side of those who said it wasn't a marina.
16:31:32 There are good people here on both sides of the issue.
16:31:35 And before we go into any further detail, Mr. Chairman,
16:31:37 and maybe I spoke out of turn, I'm assuming we are
16:31:41 going to let the public speak.
16:31:43 So I would like to listen to them first before I go any
16:31:47 And then I'll go further than this.
16:31:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: And then we have some questions.
16:31:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can legal answer that question for
16:31:53 me about a marina?
16:31:55 On page 2134, Tampa code.
16:32:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What was the question?
16:32:03 >> I think I was out speaking with Mr. Shelby when that
16:32:07 question came up.
16:32:20 >>JULIA COLE: Julia Cole, legal department.
16:32:23 If you don't mind restating your question because I was
16:32:26 outside when you asked that question.
16:32:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The definition on the second to
16:32:32 last paragraph on that page.
16:32:34 >>JULIA COLE: Then what you handed me -- and I
16:32:37 understand this is the definition from chapter 27 as it
16:32:40 stands today, for what a marina is.
16:32:43 So that would be an appropriate definition for looking
16:32:47 at any kind of marina coming through a permitting
16:32:52 How it affects this marina, because you are going back
16:32:55 to a point of time.
16:32:56 I don't know if you want to hear from Ms. Coyle to kind
16:32:59 of explain a little further how she got to her
16:33:02 interpretation because you are looking at this
16:33:04 particular request which was a request for a
16:33:07 nonconforming use, knots to today's code standards
16:33:10 necessarily, looking at it from the snapshot in time
16:33:15 back when we were actually before zoning code, and
16:33:18 everyone from an earlier version of the zoning code.
16:33:21 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: But my point on, it states on
16:33:24 there pleasure craft.
16:33:26 What's considered a pleasure craft?
16:33:27 >>JULIA COLE: I don't know the answer to that question
16:33:31 why we would be considering a pleasure craft.
16:33:34 Those something you would normally have the zoning
16:33:36 administrator opine on.
16:33:38 I'm just not sure she ever opined on that within the
16:33:40 context of this record.
16:33:41 And it may well be that that particular question does
16:33:43 become irrelevant -- a relevant question that this
16:33:47 council needs an answer to and it may obligate this to
16:33:50 be remanded back to the VRB to answer that question.
16:33:54 >> So our present code, chapter 27, does this paragraph
16:33:59 fit our present code now?
16:34:01 Is there fuel there?
16:34:03 >>> This paragraph is how a marina is defined within
16:34:06 our present code including the terms private pleasure
16:34:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Which was --
16:34:15 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Chapter --
16:34:17 If you go back to the zoning, Variance Review Board,
16:34:23 there was no definition going back, going back to 67,
16:34:30 and there was really no definition by Ms. Cole, to try
16:34:38 to come up with a definition.
16:34:40 Also, councilman Miranda stated a document, I think
16:34:44 '88, '89, but Mr. Grandoff's issue was the date between
16:34:49 '76 and '79, not '89.
16:34:53 So I just want to clarify that.
16:34:55 But everyone all of that in my opinion, the issue
16:34:59 before us is, did the variance board, for three issues,
16:35:07 all right?
16:35:08 Did they make a decision on substantial and competent
16:35:13 Did they afford due process? Is that right?
16:35:16 And what was the third?
16:35:22 >> Apply the law to that.
16:35:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Basically, we have opined, on those
16:35:29 three elements.
16:35:30 Is that right, counsel?
16:35:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, sir.
16:35:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
16:35:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Also, council, just so the record is
16:35:37 clear, Mr. Caetano was making reference to the
16:35:40 definitions, present definitions, section 27-545,
16:35:47 marina, a copy of which has been provided to members of
16:35:50 council and a copy of that to the clerk for the record.
16:35:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
16:35:56 Thank you.
16:35:56 Any other questions?
16:35:57 Yes, councilman Dingfelder.
16:35:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Grandoff, just for
16:36:02 clarification, I got a little confused on your 1990 --
16:36:11 is that a DRI document?
16:36:14 >>JOHN GRANDOFF: Let me pull it up real quick.
16:36:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: While he's trying to find that
16:36:42 document, do you have any other questions, councilman?
16:36:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: No, I'll reserve my other questions.
16:36:58 >>> When a dredge and fill permit is filed with the
16:37:11 Port Authority at that time, it would automatically go
16:37:12 to the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council because they
16:37:14 have the agency on bay management and they have a
16:37:17 comment right on a Port Authority dredge and fill
16:37:20 You will see on the letter says dredge and fill permit.
16:37:23 And that's what they were going to -- going to do.
16:37:26 They were going to fill that portion of the marina.
16:37:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
16:37:32 But the drawing -- I just want to clarify.
16:37:35 So your argument is they wanted to fill that upper
16:37:40 area, and they have said in their application that it
16:37:44 was abandoned or whatever term they use.
16:37:46 >>> An empty boat basin.
16:37:49 >> Empty boat basin.
16:37:50 >>> But do you have evidence that in the same time
16:37:53 period they weren't using the western part of the
16:38:00 >>> I have evidence between 1976 and 1979 based upon
16:38:03 aerials that they were not using it.
16:38:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me go and then you go so the
16:38:10 record is clear.
16:38:10 My question was, not about the 70s but you are
16:38:13 talking about a 1990 application.
16:38:15 >>> Right.
16:38:16 >> Okay.
16:38:16 That perhaps they even admit here in this petition, in
16:38:20 the application to the Port Authority, that it's an
16:38:24 empty boat basin.
16:38:26 But my question is, on the western part of the basin,
16:38:31 are you saying that they refer to it as an active
16:38:35 marina on that same drawing that you are showing me.
16:38:37 Do you have any evidence that it was not active during
16:38:40 that same time period?
16:38:41 >>> If you look at the water, no dock.
16:38:43 >> Also there's a survey in the record prepared by
16:38:50 Walter Caldwell who show no docks in the western basin
16:38:59 It was an earlier time.
16:39:01 >> I want to focus on the 1990 time period.
16:39:04 >>> Right.
16:39:04 >> It says active marina.
16:39:08 Mr. Mechanik has indicated that he's provided
16:39:11 affidavits which are in the record that speak about it
16:39:13 being active through the '90s.
16:39:18 I just want to make sure I know whatever evidence you
16:39:20 put forward.
16:39:21 >>> Okay, good.
16:39:22 I understand you.
16:39:23 Let me explain a couple things.
16:39:25 Here is -- they call it an active marina but that's
16:39:31 >>: How about aerial photos?
16:39:34 Are there any photos in the record in this time period?
16:39:36 >>> I don't know offhand.
16:39:39 But it not relevant, Mr. Dingfelder, because --
16:39:42 >> Well, it's relevant only on this usual you.
16:39:44 >>> You can't revive it.
16:39:46 >> It's relevant only on this issue.
16:39:48 Is it your argument that half the basin is empty, and
16:39:52 the other half is being used, that the entire thing is
16:39:55 >>> Yes.
16:39:56 And this is why.
16:39:57 They own the property under one folio number.
16:39:59 >> Okay.
16:40:00 >>> If they had it under two folio numbers, okay, let's
16:40:04 say the property was split by the property appraiser
16:40:07 this way.
16:40:09 Folio number one, folio number 2.
16:40:11 They would probably have an argument that that marina,
16:40:14 active marina may have been active in 1990.
16:40:17 And the zoning lot, you have one zoning lot.
16:40:21 >> But that seems to cut the other direction.
16:40:23 >>> Well, they only have one zoning lot.
16:40:26 >> They have one zoning lot.
16:40:28 If I have one big zoning lot and I'm using half of it
16:40:33 and the other half is fallow, I can still claim the
16:40:36 whole thing is agricultural under would you know zoning
16:40:40 I just have to shift my cows over to one side.
16:40:42 I put a southern accent Wen I said "side."
16:40:48 But I think it's analogous here.
16:40:50 And I just want to make sure we are all on the same
16:40:52 >>> Well, we are close.
16:40:54 Let me explain.
16:40:54 There is one marina on one zoning lot on this property
16:40:57 that went dormant between 1976 and 1979, and that
16:41:01 evidence is considered by the variance review board.
16:41:03 At that point it was over.
16:41:05 What they did later, whether they revived the marina or
16:41:07 brought the marina back, is actually no issue.
16:41:11 >> For some reason you have shown us a 1990 document so
16:41:14 therefore you brought it into relevance.
16:41:16 >>> I want to tell you why I brought it in.
16:41:18 The reason I brought it in is even though the code does
16:41:20 not require an intent to abandon, this document proves
16:41:26 that they intended to abandon at least the eastern
16:41:32 basin. What they should have done before they filed
16:41:34 the application, they should have divided the property
16:41:36 into two folio numbers.
16:41:37 They would have preserved the active marina on the
16:41:40 western basin, and they would have cut the eastern
16:41:44 basin loose because it was going to be dredged and
16:41:47 They didn't do that.
16:41:48 They left it in one folio number.
16:41:50 Unfortunately that's where they got hooked on this
16:41:52 issue, Mr. Dingfelder.
16:41:54 You cannot have a nonconforming half use on one folio
16:41:59 Either the whole half is nonconforming or the whole pig
16:42:02 sty is nonconform or the whole rendering is
16:42:05 nonconforming or the whole marina is nonconforming.
16:42:08 You can't chop in the half.
16:42:11 >> I think you're trying to chop it in half.
16:42:13 >>> No, I'm not.
16:42:15 Their argument is they want half the marina to live and
16:42:19 half not to live.
16:42:19 They can't do it that way.
16:42:21 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I'm going back in
16:42:25 history a little bit.
16:42:26 I can name you one or two right now and I'm sure
16:42:29 there's many that had a beautiful home on it, and on
16:42:32 the back of it, and on a larger lot there was a
16:42:36 two-story garage, two-car garage, and on top of the
16:42:40 garage there is an apartment dwelling.
16:42:42 And they used to be under one meter.
16:42:46 Sometime back -- and I remember this about six or
16:42:49 search years ago, and you can name you one, the address
16:42:52 right now, where they applied to get two meters,
16:42:57 because they want to rent out the back part because
16:42:59 they were already there.
16:43:00 And people were living there.
16:43:03 They didn't get two folio numbers.
16:43:06 They didn't have two folio numbers.
16:43:08 After they applied for the meter, I believe there was
16:43:11 an administrative decision made by the previous
16:43:14 administration to allow them to have that second meter,
16:43:18 and TECO went after that, they got that approval and
16:43:21 mutt the meter in.
16:43:25 But I don't know this about folio numbers.
16:43:28 I'm not an expert there.
16:43:32 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Could I be given an opportunity --
16:43:35 The process, let me explain, Mr. Mechanik.
16:43:38 No, you cannot speak unless someone asks him a
16:43:40 The process, you rebut.
16:43:42 You have opportunity top rebut.
16:43:43 Anything you say, you have five minutes, unless council
16:43:46 asks you a question.
16:43:47 Mr. Grandoff was here because Mr. Dingfelder raised a
16:43:50 That's the reason he was there.
16:43:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to ask Mr. Mechanik a
16:43:54 question, which is, what is your interpretation of the
16:43:57 active marina?
16:43:59 >>DAVID MECHANIK: Thank you.
16:44:00 I would like to speak to that.
16:44:04 The interpretation that John Grandoff is offering is
16:44:08 specifically contrary to the opinion that Cathy Coyle
16:44:12 gave at the hearing.
16:44:14 Cathy was citing a Gina Grimes opinion from the early
16:44:18 1990s regarding a duplex, and that opinion was that
16:44:20 if you own a duplex which is under a single folio and
16:44:24 you cease to operate or cease to rent out one of the
16:44:28 duplex units for 180 days, do you not lose the
16:44:32 nonconforming status for the entire duplex, which is, I
16:44:36 think, the point that Mr. Dingfelder was making.
16:44:41 Our argument is -- and of course we are not
16:44:45 acknowledging that there was any abandonment of the
16:44:48 east or the west basin, but even if you accept that
16:44:52 premise, the proposal to fill a portion of that basin
16:44:57 is not under the Gina Grimes interpretation, a basis to
16:45:03 lose the nonconforming status for the marina as a
16:45:08 And we also have an aerial photograph which is not a
16:45:11 great quality, but contrary to what Mr. Grandoff just
16:45:15 answered, there are boat docks in the west basin in
16:45:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was that also in the evidence?
16:45:25 >> It's in the record.
16:45:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you.
16:45:27 >>GWEN MILLER: Move it up a bit.
16:45:34 >>> You can see right here, those are -- you see the
16:45:47 little hatch marks.
16:45:48 Mr. Grandoff just told you there were no docks, and
16:45:51 this is, by the way, an exhibit that he submitted into
16:45:54 the record.
16:45:55 And it shows clearly that there are docks in 1991.
16:46:02 And also the survey that he mentioned in 1974 which
16:46:06 showed no docks, that's because that was a land survey.
16:46:09 No improvements were shown on that particular survey.
16:46:12 When you order a survey, you can order it with or
16:46:15 without improvement.
16:46:17 No improvements, because that costs more money.
16:46:19 And if you are not interested in what the improvements,
16:46:21 you can get a pure land survey.
16:46:27 Thank you.
16:46:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
16:46:30 >>> I think we have a better aerial if you want to see
16:46:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Excuse me.
16:46:40 Mr. Mechanik?
16:46:43 We'll take public comment at this point.
16:46:45 Only those who spoke at the variance review will be
16:46:48 allowed to come and address council at this point.
16:46:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Again, council, I would also ask that
16:46:54 they limit their arguments ton the standard of review
16:46:58 that City Council must abide by.
16:47:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do they need to be sworn?
16:47:04 I know they are sworn in from the variance review.
16:47:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I think they were sworn in.
16:47:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, right.
16:47:14 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
16:47:19 At a meeting that evening I spoke for the board of the
16:47:22 Beach Park homeowners association, a past motion to
16:47:26 support the use in their appeal of the zoning
16:47:29 administrator, but more importantly for myself.
16:47:33 I have lived there now since 1963.
16:47:36 And when that rezoning occurred in -- around '75, I
16:47:42 guess the building went in in '76, Helen Chavez was on
16:47:46 this City Council.
16:47:48 We -- the neighborhood, we were concerned about a large
16:47:52 building of that size coming onto that property at that
16:47:56 But after it was all over, and that ugly old marina, as
16:48:01 we have always called it, went away, she reminded me
16:48:05 year in and year out, wasn't it so much better that
16:48:08 that marina went away?
16:48:10 And from 1976, it's interesting that Mr. Miranda just
16:48:15 brought up -- I mean, just brought up the fact they
16:48:20 asked for these boat docks in 1989, because there were
16:48:25 none there.
16:48:25 I mean, he brought that evidence.
16:48:27 That's why they needed those boat docks, because
16:48:30 everything went, okay, it's new testimony, but a lot
16:48:33 of -- new testimony has been given here.
16:48:37 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Well, I don't believe that's the case.
16:48:39 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Well, okay.
16:48:42 Anyway --
16:48:45 But the thing of it is, they can't speak to the
16:48:49 evidence in the record?
16:48:50 Is that right?
16:48:52 >>MARTIN SHELBY: They can speak to the evidence in the
16:48:53 record as it relate to your standard of review but to
16:48:56 come up and testify as to what they previously said
16:48:58 into the record is redundant.
16:49:02 And the other concern is that if it is new evidence,
16:49:06 then they should not have that opportunity.
16:49:08 >>MARGARET VIZZI: Well, anyway, I testified that
16:49:12 evening that absolutely not, there was no kind of
16:49:14 marina back there for at least ten years.
16:49:19 That's was my testimony that evening there. Were many
16:49:22 others who were here that evening as well.
16:49:24 Maria Sullivan who wrote you a letter because she was
16:49:27 not able to be, and it was postponed, or again today
16:49:32 was she able to be here.
16:49:33 So it is absolutely the case, longer than 180 days
16:49:41 there. Were no marina operations there.
16:49:44 There were no boat docks or anything of the kind.
16:49:46 And I asked council to please not overturn the Variance
16:49:51 Review Board, because they listened to the evidence,
16:49:54 they listened to the people who were here, and please
16:49:59 up hold their decision.
16:50:01 We said that evening that it was unfortunate that Cathy
16:50:05 Coyle only had the testimony -- and I just say that
16:50:09 that evening -- of the marina. She did not have the
16:50:14 value of the testimony of the people who have lived
16:50:16 there and saw it, and there were no boats there.
16:50:22 And I said that night, I swore to tell the truth, and
16:50:26 I'm swearing to tell the truth again, because when I
16:50:29 stand at this podium that's what I do.
16:50:31 And there were no boats there.
16:50:34 I don't know where whether they operate add marina but
16:50:37 it was not in either the east or the west basin.
16:50:41 In years after that, they started putting in the
16:50:43 pleasure craft in the west basin, but that was long
16:50:47 after the 180 days that expired when there were none.
16:50:51 So please, council, up hold the Variance Review Board
16:50:55 decision because it was the right thing.
16:50:57 Thank you.
16:50:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
16:50:59 Next speaker.
16:51:07 >>> My name is Judy Hall.
16:51:08 I have been sworn in. I live at 22 Sandpiper Road.
16:51:12 I have lived on Sandpiper since 1973.
16:51:16 I believe last time I said '71.
16:51:19 That's the year we were married.
16:51:20 We moved on Sandpiper in 1973.
16:51:23 We were gone from '93 to 98 and when came back in 1998.
16:51:29 I don't know, Mr. Mechanik, that date but we didn't
16:51:37 know we would need to know these exact dates and years.
16:51:40 But between -- in the 70s everybody exited the
16:51:45 They took out the gas pumps.
16:51:47 They moved the little house --
16:51:51 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is that an objection, Mr. Mechanik?
16:51:54 Did you testify though that initially?
16:51:57 >>> Yes, I think I D.there were no boats there.
16:52:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, I don't know -- that was
16:52:04 discussion by someone as to everything being gone even
16:52:08 to the point that all this was moved to Dandy.
16:52:16 I don't know if she was the one but there were a lot of
16:52:18 people that came up and spoke that --
16:52:24 >>> I don't do this very often.
16:52:25 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe there was a reference to
16:52:27 page 34, council, in the transcript.
16:52:30 >>> Oh, good, I could read it?
16:52:32 I don't remember way said.
16:52:33 However, I know I was one of the incompetent people
16:52:37 that said they were gone for more than 180 days.
16:52:41 I can't give you the dates.
16:52:42 I lived on sandpiper and you would have had to live
16:52:44 there to know that.
16:52:45 Had I not lived there, I perhaps would have thought
16:52:48 that was a continuous marina.
16:52:54 But there were no boats there.
16:52:56 No boats.
16:52:57 And it was not just days.
16:53:00 It was not 180 days.
16:53:01 It was years.
16:53:03 That's it.
16:53:04 I don't know what else I said.
16:53:05 But whatever I said is -- I don't lie.
16:53:10 And I don't like liars.
16:53:11 So there you go.
16:53:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Was this offered into evidence at the
16:53:39 >> Yes.
16:53:40 My name is Joe Chillura, 4506 spoon craft circle Tampa
16:53:47 I live five minutes from the site in question.
16:53:50 And I was there for about a year and a half overseeing
16:53:54 construction of Mr. and Mrs. Hughes home during the
16:53:59 time that this industrial, so-called industrial
16:54:01 operation was occurring.
16:54:03 As a matter of fact, I encouraged Mr. Hughes to pursue
16:54:06 legal remedies.
16:54:08 What I would like to do is show you some slides of
16:54:12 what's currently there.
16:54:14 And --
16:54:19 It's in the record.
16:54:19 We have it in the record.
16:54:20 It in the record.
16:54:24 Both pictures are in the record.
16:54:25 I'm telling you, I read the record.
16:54:27 I reviewed them.
16:54:28 They are in the record.
16:54:31 >>> Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the fact that the
16:54:34 preservation of single-family neighborhoods is
16:54:37 tantamount to the comprehensive plan that I have been
16:54:40 intimately involved with, as a result of the 1985
16:54:43 growth management act.
16:54:45 And when I said that -- and a holding area for
16:54:49 industrial operations is what has occurred here, that
16:54:52 is not a definition of preservation of single-family
16:54:58 And the slides, I think, clearly show that there are,
16:55:05 in some cases, there was two barges, tug boats, and
16:55:08 essentially a holding area for the industrial
16:55:11 operations in and about the bay.
16:55:14 That is not an example of the use that I think that the
16:55:18 use of a marina is properly defined for.
16:55:24 And as I said before, the very premise of the plan, the
16:55:28 comprehensive plan, is the preservation of
16:55:30 single-family neighborhoods.
16:55:32 There are countless recitations of that in the comp
16:55:36 plan including Tampa's comprehensive plan.
16:55:38 And I wanted to reference a particular policy, policy
16:55:47 B-2.1, the Tampa comprehensive plan, future land use
16:55:53 That clearly speaks to what I'm talking about, and what
16:55:56 has occurred here.
16:55:58 Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say unless you have
16:56:09 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: The building that's on that
16:56:10 picture there, that looks like boat slips.
16:56:13 On that, in the back of that building.
16:56:16 Are there any barges there?
16:56:17 >>> This is the marina.
16:56:22 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: These a marina there.
16:56:24 >>> On the western side of the property.
16:56:26 And this is the basin.
16:56:28 Mr. Hughes -- Mrs. Hughes home is here.
16:56:32 And these are the barges, tug boats and so forth that
16:56:35 everybody occurring there, and even pilings that were
16:56:40 apparently approved by the Port Authority, and then
16:56:43 they were stopped as a result of Mr. Hughes'
16:56:46 >> Are there gas pumps where those barges are?
16:56:50 >>> I don't know if there's a gas pump there now.
16:56:53 >> Can somebody answer that for me?
16:56:54 >>> There is one down at the marina.
16:56:57 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can anyone answer that?
16:57:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't think it's in evidence, is
16:57:04 Are there gas pumps?
16:57:08 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On the western side.
16:57:12 Mr. Caetano, that was not raised by the VRB.
16:57:15 So the question is if that's relevant to something you
16:57:18 need to know then the VRB -- we can't be able to answer
16:57:21 that today.
16:57:23 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: For my own recollection, there are
16:57:26 no gas pumps on the Bayshore marina.
16:57:28 The city calls them a marina.
16:57:30 There's 35 or 36 slips there.
16:57:31 To my knowledge, there is no gas pumps at the marinas
16:57:36 on Harbor Island.
16:57:38 I'm not certain but I don't believe there is.
16:57:40 The city, when they redid the configuration -- I'm not
16:57:44 talking about, this I'm just asking.
16:57:45 The Marjorie Park marinas, there is a gas situation
16:57:52 that the city put in and is operational.
16:57:54 The only one that I know in this area.
16:58:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Chillura, commissioner,
16:58:11 I think it's a matter of public record, so I'm going to
16:58:17 just dance along the line here, as to when the Hughes
16:58:21 family bought that house.
16:58:24 >>> Well, I don't know.
16:58:27 House wasn't bought.
16:58:28 It was custom built there. Were two parcels of
16:58:30 property that Mr. and Mrs. Hughes purchased, had the
16:58:34 homes demolished --
16:58:36 >> Give me a ballpark, Joe.
16:58:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think 1990.
16:58:41 >> Five years ago.
16:58:43 >> Shea Hughes is Mr. Hughes' son.
16:58:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And do you have any personal
16:58:50 Because you probably started getting involved during
16:58:52 that period or a little after that, of whether or not
16:58:56 you observed the barges and shipbuilding stuff being
16:59:00 out there.
16:59:01 >>> Oh, yes.
16:59:03 When we started supervising the home, Mr. Hughes asked
16:59:06 me to supervise the home because he was having some
16:59:09 problems with the construction company, I noticed the
16:59:11 barges during that year that I was there, almost a
16:59:13 you're and a half, and, as a matter of fact, I told Mr.
16:59:19 Hughes that I didn't believe that that was an
16:59:21 acceptable use in a single-family neighborhood,
16:59:25 certainly adjacent use.
16:59:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, commissioner.
16:59:29 Thank you for your service.
16:59:32 >>> I'm Chuck Thatcher.
16:59:34 I'm married into the Huey family.
16:59:37 The ones that own the property.
16:59:40 Thank you.
16:59:41 Under discussion.
16:59:42 The marina, and part of the properties out there. I'm
16:59:47 currently the property manager of all the properties
16:59:50 that they own, not the food stores and all that up and
16:59:53 down the east coast of the United States, but right
16:59:55 there around the marina that we are talking about.
17:00:01 First of all, Mr. Miranda, you said something that's
17:00:03 really true.
17:00:04 I'm sorry if this is considered new evidence.
17:00:07 There's good people on both sides of this thing.
17:00:09 There's no question about that.
17:00:11 I'm not here to call anybody a liar, or like Judy hall
17:00:16 said, some kind of name or something.
17:00:17 Not at all.
17:00:19 But I came here on September 6th.
17:00:24 I came here had on September 6th, 1974.
17:00:29 About a you're after I was here, maybe 18 months, two
17:00:31 years at the very most, I bought a century boat with
17:00:37 one of those little inboard things, 24-foot century if
17:00:40 anybody knows what that is, a great little boat.
17:00:43 And I kept it in that marina, as well as behind my
17:00:47 home, from time to time, for years.
17:00:50 I'm talking about the marina --
17:00:59 >> (off microphone) I'm sorry to interrupt but --
17:01:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Would you go to the microphone so it's
17:01:03 picked up, please?
17:01:03 >> I don't believe what he's saying to you --
17:01:04 >> Mr. Mueller?
17:01:13 >> This is not new evidence.
17:01:14 >> I withdraw my objection.
17:01:15 >> When I said there's good people on both sides,
17:01:18 that's new evidence.
17:01:20 [ Laughter ]
17:01:24 >> I do not recall a time ever when there was even 180
17:01:31 Because when I kept my Sentry up there, and like I
17:01:33 explained before, sometimes I am kept it behind my home
17:01:39 and San Rafael, but sometimes I kept in the marina, the
17:01:43 one that's the subject right there. The point I'm
17:01:45 trying to make is, there was no time, there was always
17:01:48 a half dozen other boats there with me.
17:01:50 We weren't pushing that marina, if you know what I'm
17:01:53 trying to say.
17:01:54 We weren't pushing it in terms of, you know, getting
17:01:58 new clients, new boaters, and that type thing.
17:02:01 That is true.
17:02:03 But my boat was there with a half dozen others or three
17:02:07 or five or ten, that whole period of time from 1976,
17:02:11 approximately, through the 80s.
17:02:13 And then I sold that boat.
17:02:15 It was a Sentry.
17:02:17 Now, I live right south of the property at 65 sandpiper
17:02:22 which borders itself.
17:02:23 Think father-in-law asked me to take over the other
17:02:27 marina, too.
17:02:28 I'm sorry, this is new evidence, has nothing to do with
17:02:31 But he asked me to take over this marina.
17:02:33 And that's been for 10 or 11 years now.
17:02:39 And of course there's been boats there the whole time.
17:02:41 But there were boats there in the '70s.
17:02:44 Not many but mine was there with a half dozen others.
17:02:49 I know they are, too.
17:02:50 They really are.
17:02:51 But they don't see it on the other side of our
17:02:53 building, in the west part.
17:02:55 Thank you very much.
17:03:01 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Can I ask this gentleman that just
17:03:03 spoke something in his testimony on page 44?
17:03:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let her speak and then come back.
17:03:12 >>> I'm Gloria Montemare, sandpiper.
17:03:18 Yes, I have been sworn in.
17:03:19 I have been a sandpiper for 19 years and know not to
17:03:22 introduce any new evidence.
17:03:25 There are still rusty barges on the east side of the
17:03:28 That is the side bordering Hoover Boulevard and
17:03:31 sandpiper Boulevard.
17:03:32 That's the front that the public sees at Beach Park
17:03:34 that all of the residents see.
17:03:36 As I attested last time every night, at least two tug
17:03:41 boats come in, and generally there are blue
17:03:44 port-a-potties on top of the rusty barges every
17:03:49 That's all I have to say.
17:03:51 Thank you.
17:03:58 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: In your testimony on line 14 page
17:04:01 44 permitting the boat basin again and the last
17:04:04 sentence says this is replacing the 33 docks and 70
17:04:08 mooring piles that were removed sometime earlier.
17:04:11 That's in 1989.
17:04:14 When you removed those in 1989, how long were they
17:04:19 Page 44 --
17:04:33 >>> I believe Mr. Grandoff said on page 43 and started.
17:04:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That's Mr. Thatcher who just
17:04:40 testified who is in front of you.
17:04:42 He's on page 40.
17:04:45 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Who is Mike Huey?
17:04:48 >> Father-in-law.
17:04:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: 44 is Mr. Grandoff.
17:04:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
17:05:02 There are a number of folks that are not here that
17:05:03 spoke at the Variance Review Board.
17:05:08 Any other questions by council?
17:05:12 Councilman Dingfelder?
17:05:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On page 40 of Mr. Thatcher's
17:05:24 testimony in front of the Variance Review Board, he
17:05:26 goes on for about the full page, and a little bit of
17:05:31 page 41.
17:05:32 And in that he specifically said -- he specifically
17:05:37 testified, and he said he was under oath, he married
17:05:41 into the family in '74 and that he testified that he
17:05:45 had his boat there or other people had their boats
17:05:47 there throughout -- from that point forward and through
17:05:51 the '70s and '80 and '81.
17:05:55 So my question to legal is -- who is our legal staff on
17:06:03 this one?
17:06:04 Ms. Cole.
17:06:07 Sorry, Mr. Shelby.
17:06:08 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
17:06:09 Just so I can answer the first part, legal counsel,
17:06:14 because of this interesting bifurcated process, if you
17:06:16 want to ask a general zoning question I would be the
17:06:19 appropriate person to respond.
17:06:20 If it's procedurally, I would probably defer to Mr.
17:06:24 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Something that went before the VRB,
17:06:26 Mr. Mueller was the attorney at the time.
17:06:28 >>> That's correct.
17:06:30 So ask me the question.
17:06:32 If it's me I'll answer.
17:06:33 If not I'll call on somebody else.
17:06:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As was appropriately pointed out,
17:06:39 pursuant to our zoning code, 27 -- looks like 373, you
17:06:46 know, is whether the board decision was supported by
17:06:50 competent, substantial evidence in a court of due
17:06:53 process and whether essential requirements of law have
17:06:56 been observed.
17:06:58 I'm focusing on competent substantial evidence.
17:07:00 I'm looking at Mr. Thatcher's testimony about what he
17:07:03 personally observed and was aware of, and obviously
17:07:10 married into the family probably did pretty well since
17:07:14 So is that the type of competent, substantial evidence
17:07:19 that the variance board should have been looking at, or
17:07:23 that we should be looking at?
17:07:25 And, if not, did anybody call him to question?
17:07:29 Because I haven't had chance to review every page of
17:07:32 this transcript, but did anybody call into question
17:07:37 during this hearing the competency or substanciality,
17:07:42 if there's such a word, of Mr. Thatch