Help & information    View the list of Transcripts


TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, November 13, 2008
5:01 p.m. session

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

[ Sounding gavel ]
17:07:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Tampa City Council will now come to
17:07:17 order.
17:07:18 We'll have roll call.
17:07:22 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Here.
17:07:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Here.
17:07:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Here.
17:07:27 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Here.
17:07:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Here.
17:07:31 Okay.

17:07:31 We are now in session, if you all could hold your
17:07:34 visitation and comments down, we appreciate that very
17:07:36 much.
17:07:40 Yes, Mr. Caetano.
17:07:41 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, point of special
17:07:44 privilege.
17:07:46 Point of special privilege.
17:07:47 I would like to introduce a motion for
17:07:49 reconsideration.
17:07:52 >> Did we have roll call?
17:07:53 >> Yes.
17:07:56 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: TECO contract that was put off
17:07:57 for six months and MacKay Bay, I don't know if that
17:08:01 was in the same motion.
17:08:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
17:08:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Can I ask a question?
17:08:15 First let me see if he finished talking.
17:08:18 Did you finish?
17:08:24 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
17:08:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Given that we spent over two hours
17:08:28 discussing this the other night, could there be the
17:08:30 opportunity for discussion now?

17:08:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: let me raise the question from
17:08:39 council.
17:08:39 I thought we closed the public hearing.
17:08:41 I remember that, we closed the public hearing, and the
17:08:44 motion passed 4-2.
17:08:47 So that is my recollection at that point.
17:08:50 So I have I will ask counsel on that issue.
17:08:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What was the question?
17:08:57 I'm sorry.
17:08:58 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The question is, Mr. Caetano asked
17:09:00 for a point of special privilege and I had a question
17:09:03 about it.
17:09:04 And I said, can I ask a question?
17:09:11 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Question to the motion?
17:09:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The question is to allow him to
17:09:14 change his vote the other night.
17:09:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: His motion is a motion to reconsider
17:09:18 the vote of the other evening, the last --
17:09:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So my question would be, since it
17:09:27 was a public hearing, and since Ms. Miller wasn't
17:09:34 there, and I don't know if she's had a chance to
17:09:37 review the tape.

17:09:38 >>GWEN MILLER: Yes, I have, I reviewed the tape.
17:09:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The T question, I'm sorry?
17:09:47 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: My question was could we hear from
17:09:49 the public?
17:09:50 But I think the public --
17:09:51 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I think that's out
17:09:55 of order.
17:09:56 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
17:09:58 I have the floor.
17:09:59 I stressed that earlier.
17:10:01 Okay.
17:10:02 But any other council person?
17:10:08 Do you have your hand up?
17:10:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm sort of clueless on what's
17:10:12 going on and why.
17:10:13 As Ms. Saul-Sena indicated the other day, I thought we
17:10:16 were in a public hearing the other day.
17:10:19 Public hearing closed.
17:10:20 The motion was made.
17:10:21 It was done.
17:10:22 Public hearing is not in order right now.
17:10:25 You know, if you want to reconvene a public hearing

17:10:28 and have all those people down here as we should so
17:10:30 you can face them and look them in the eye and tell
17:10:33 them, then we can have a big discussion about why we
17:10:35 are reconsidering, and then do it the right way.
17:10:38 But it's very mysterious, Mr. Caetano, for anybody to
17:10:42 have a public hearing when everybody gets down here,
17:10:44 if we vote one way, and then you leave, those people
17:10:48 aren't here now to hear us deliberate.
17:10:50 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: What we normally --
17:10:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Let me finish.
17:10:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: He has the floor.
17:10:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Those people aren't here to hear us
17:11:00 deliberate and hear the reasoning and I'm sure there
17:11:02 might be some good reasoning you might have but they
17:11:04 have an opportunity to do that.
17:11:05 So if the motion is to, you know, the motion is to
17:11:08 reconvene another public hearing on a shorter date
17:11:13 sooner than six months so those people have an
17:11:15 opportunity to speak to it or at least listen to what
17:11:18 we have to say, that would be the fair process.
17:11:21 But this is no process A at all.
17:11:23 I think it would really make a mockery of the process.

17:11:26 That's just my opinion.
17:11:27 Regardless of how it comes out.
17:11:29 I have a feeling, I can count how it might come out.
17:11:32 But in terms of process, we don't want to have egg on
17:11:34 our face.
17:11:36 We hold public hearings and then we take secret votes
17:11:38 later.
17:11:39 It just doesn't seem right.
17:11:40 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, I take offense to
17:11:43 the secret vote.
17:11:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Wait a minute, I'll come to you.
17:11:46 Let me hear --
17:11:48 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: First of all, I don't get upset
17:11:52 with -- first of all it's not a secret vote.
17:11:54 It's here in the public.
17:11:56 From the public.
17:11:56 Second of all, I have received today, so somebody new
17:12:00 something because I'm bald but I'm not blind.
17:12:03 Somebody knew something because I got about 40 e-mails
17:12:06 today on this subject matter.
17:12:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I didn't know anything.
17:12:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll show you my e-mails if you

17:12:14 would like to see them.
17:12:15 That's number two.
17:12:16 Number three, under Roberts Rules of Order, and I'm
17:12:19 not an expert under Robert's Rules of Order and
17:12:21 neither is anyone else that I can think of right now,
17:12:23 he or anyone else in this council, and at the next
17:12:27 council meeting, has the right to ask for
17:12:30 reconsideration of the vote if you were on the
17:12:34 prevailing side.
17:12:35 Am I correct, Mr. Attorney?
17:12:38 >>> Yes, sir.
17:12:39 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: At the next regularly scheduled
17:12:42 meeting, not special meeting.
17:12:44 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Council meeting.
17:12:46 Right.
17:12:47 I can't speak for the maker.
17:12:49 I have not spoken to the maker about.
17:12:50 This is new to me.
17:12:52 But I can tell you that if I remember back, and it
17:12:56 happened before in this chamber, this was put into the
17:13:01 record.
17:13:01 The public has not been blind-sided.

17:13:05 Reading was denied on a 4-2 vote and guess what, I
17:13:08 knew how the vote was going to come out.
17:13:10 Because they said they know how this vote is going to
17:13:14 come out.
17:13:15 So I'm not naive.
17:13:19 So let's play by the rules.
17:13:22 Let's not throw the chicken to the fire because the
17:13:25 barbecue is not burning yet, and let's find out the
17:13:28 facts.
17:13:29 If he wants to change his vote, that's his
17:13:33 prerogative, not mine.
17:13:36 If I want to change my vote that's my prerogative, not
17:13:39 mine.
17:13:39 But we are going to play by Robert's Rules of Order
17:13:42 and that's has always been and if any attorney
17:13:45 disagrees please state your questions now because I
17:13:47 have a lot of questions that I am going to ask to the
17:13:49 scope, the unscope, everything.
17:13:52 The hearing was held.
17:13:53 Public is going to have an enormous opportunity to
17:13:55 speak.
17:13:57 If it passes today between first and second reading,

17:14:02 and all those who sent me an e-mail I'm sure are going
17:14:05 to be here, like they should be, I'll leave it at
17:14:08 that, Mr. Chairman.
17:14:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman.
17:14:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17:14:13 Charlie, you and I are in agreement.
17:14:15 I'm aware of Roberts rules, and I know that he can
17:14:18 make that motion under Roberts rules.
17:14:20 And Mr. Caetano, I apologize, it's not a secret vote.
17:14:23 All I'm saying is, when people come down for public
17:14:27 hearing for particular topics, they expect us to deal
17:14:32 with those topics and to be done with them -- I hear
17:14:45 you.
17:14:46 I just want to make sure.
17:14:48 I am talking to everybody, but they expect us to hear
17:14:50 those topics and be done with those topics that night.
17:14:53 That's why we have public hearings and that's why we
17:14:55 had agendas so people know what to expect.
17:14:57 That's my whole point, Charlie.
17:14:59 It's not a matter 6:00 we do it.
17:15:01 It's a matter of should we do it?
17:15:02 Is it the right procedure?

17:15:04 Is it the right process to do?
17:15:06 Okay.
17:15:06 I see, you know, self T.H.A.N. people down here.
17:15:09 They are obviously here for a particular issue that's
17:15:12 on the agenda tonight.
17:15:14 But they don't come down here for every single
17:15:17 meeting.
17:15:17 They look at the agenda to see what we are talking
17:15:19 about.
17:15:19 Those folks interested in energy came down here and
17:15:21 spent how many hours with us last Thursday to address
17:15:25 these issues, to hear our vote, went home and they
17:15:27 thought it was done.
17:15:28 And now we are bringing this up.
17:15:30 So, yes, can you make it that way?
17:15:34 No.
17:15:34 But should he do it? I would say no.
17:15:37 Why not wait six months?
17:15:38 Nothing is going to change between now and six months
17:15:41 except, Mr. Caetano, the deal might get better for the
17:15:44 city.
17:15:44 It can't get any worse, okay?

17:15:46 It not going to be a worse deal.
17:15:48 But it could be a better deal.
17:15:50 Because right now, they are in a posture where they
17:15:52 realize that they might need to work with the city to
17:15:55 improve the deal a little bit.
17:15:57 And that's what I thought was the intention of the
17:15:59 motion of at least four people.
17:16:01 Now, if we kick it back, okay, well, we get the same
17:16:06 deal, which frankly a lot of people who stood at that
17:16:09 podium thought it was a very mediocre deal, for 25
17:16:13 years.
17:16:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman.
17:16:16 >>GWEN MILLER: I call for the vote.
17:16:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, was that --
17:16:19 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Where does that take us
17:16:21 procedurally?
17:16:22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17:16:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, I heard somebody make a
17:16:25 motion to call the question.
17:16:27 To call the previous question.
17:16:29 But that wasn't seconded.
17:16:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm saying where does Mr. Caetano's

17:16:34 motion take us?
17:16:35 Are we then back into revote on that?
17:16:38 Do we reconvene a public hearing, a first public
17:16:42 hearing?
17:16:42 Where does it take us?
17:16:47 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Please.
17:16:48 Let me just say, we will conduct these meetings in a
17:16:51 very professional manner.
17:16:53 Again, I ask council to be recognized.
17:16:55 The chair recognizes you, and you will have an
17:16:58 opportunity to speak.
17:16:59 Please.
17:17:00 Support me and respect each other's opinion and view.
17:17:03 Okay?
17:17:03 You may not agree with it but it's important to me
17:17:05 that we respect everybody's opinion and view.
17:17:07 Now, the question asked by councilman Dingfelder
17:17:11 procedurally, I guess if this motion passes, where do
17:17:17 we stand with that?
17:17:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If the motion passes, what then is
17:17:22 created is the motion as it was originally stated is
17:17:26 back on the table in its original form.

17:17:30 Which would be the motion that was made to deny both
17:17:34 items and continue, direct the administration to Britt
17:17:38 back in April.
17:17:38 That would be the motion that was on the floor, after
17:17:40 a motion for reconsideration, should that pass.
17:17:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, councilman Caetano.
17:17:47 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Mr. Chairman, these negotiations
17:17:50 went on for three years.
17:17:51 We spent $95,000.
17:17:54 And there's no doubt TECO will file a lawsuit against
17:17:57 us.
17:17:59 It's going to cost us 300.
17:18:02 Mrs. Saul-Sena goes like this.
17:18:03 That's 300 to $400,000 it's going to cost us.
17:18:06 And we are going to be in court again.
17:18:08 And the only compelling information that I got out of
17:18:11 that meeting were that they were damaging the trees.
17:18:16 And TECO will work with us.
17:18:18 And if Mrs. Saul-Sena or whoever supported that motion
17:18:22 has some more compelling evidence on how we can bring
17:18:25 a new source of energy, put it on the table.
17:18:27 Let's not wait six months.

17:18:30 It's going to be six months of going back and forth
17:18:32 and more legal expense.
17:18:35 If Ms. Saul-Sena had thrown something on the table and
17:18:39 say we need renewable energy, whatever she was calling
17:18:42 it, bring it forth.
17:18:43 And she hasn't done that.
17:18:45 It just spinning our wheels.
17:18:50 Like we have been doing here for 20 years that I have
17:18:51 been in the City of Tampa.
17:18:53 Spinning our wheels.
17:18:53 That's why we have problems.
17:18:55 Okay?
17:18:57 >> Councilwoman Mary Mulhern.
17:19:00 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes.
17:19:02 From what I understand, what I remember, the franchise
17:19:07 agreement has been expired for over a year, and that
17:19:10 money that was spent, I agree with you that we spent a
17:19:15 lot of money on these negotiations.
17:19:19 And what we have to show for it is the same,
17:19:22 basically, close to exactly the same franchise
17:19:25 agreement we had when we started negotiating.
17:19:29 So, you know, we see the new agreement, a week ago

17:19:36 council -- and it's our job just to vote on this.
17:19:39 This is all we have -- I have to say that it's been
17:19:45 probably four years since the last scientist admitted
17:19:49 that global warming is real.
17:19:51 So we -- I feel comfortable in saying people who
17:19:58 aren't happy with this agreement, what we are
17:20:02 concerned about is not about trimming trees, it's
17:20:04 about the fact that 40% of the greenhouse gases come
17:20:07 from buildings.
17:20:09 So all those emissions that are going out, and
17:20:13 coal-fired plants are the worst kind of plants.
17:20:17 I was very disappointed last week because I thought
17:20:19 that TECO had intended to give us a presentation on
17:20:24 what they are doing as far as conservation and
17:20:27 renewable energy, and I don't know if there were time
17:20:30 constraints or what.
17:20:31 But I haven't heard anything in my year and a half on
17:20:35 council about what they are going to do for
17:20:37 sustainable energy.
17:20:38 And I have 62 e-mails from constituents asking me not
17:20:46 to approve this agreement.
17:20:48 I don't have one e-mail, no one has called me or said

17:20:52 one thing in favor of approving this, the current
17:20:58 franchise agreement.
17:21:00 So this is basically all we have.
17:21:02 I'd like to see -- I'm disappointed that there wasn't
17:21:06 more negotiated in order to agree to this agreement,
17:21:09 and I also think that, yes, it has been standard
17:21:12 practice for franchise agreements, for energy
17:21:17 companies to be 20 or 25 years from year to year.
17:21:20 Guess what, it's 2008.
17:21:22 And we can't do that.
17:21:25 Probably within a year, we are going to have new
17:21:27 federal standards that are going to force them to do
17:21:30 something, anyway.
17:21:30 So I find it very disappointing that we can't at least
17:21:35 here that there is some effort on the part of this
17:21:38 provider to do basically, you know, every scientist in
17:21:46 the world says we need to do.
17:21:50 So I am not going to approve it.
17:21:52 And I think the other thing is, I think we are at the
17:21:54 point that if we vote against denying it, if we
17:22:00 revote, it still has to come back for first reading,
17:22:04 and then second reading, so at least the public will

17:22:07 be able to come to that first reading.
17:22:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Saul-Sena.
17:22:11 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
17:22:12 This is probably the most important item that this
17:22:16 council will vote on and the most important item that
17:22:19 I will have voted on in 25 -- not 25.
17:22:25 This is going to shape our energy future.
17:22:27 It is too important for us to not give it full
17:22:33 consideration.
17:22:33 I thought we had acted definitively last week.
17:22:36 I think that we have to recognize the magnitude of
17:22:41 this issue, and we need to make sure that we engage
17:22:44 the entire community in the conversation.
17:22:49 Thus far the conversation has just been between Tampa
17:22:52 Electric Company and the administration.
17:22:54 And Mr. Caetano, the reasons they hired these
17:22:56 expensive lawyers, it's a very specialized area.
17:22:59 But we, City Council and the public, have had no role
17:23:03 in the conversation until now.
17:23:06 And this is too important not to have the community
17:23:10 get a good deal and play a significant role.
17:23:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: After councilman Miranda we'll take a

17:23:17 vote on the reconsideration.
17:23:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
17:23:20 You know, I'm a little perplexed and prepondered.
17:23:30 The attorney was here, the city attorney came to that
17:23:33 same mike and told us this is the scope of what you
17:23:36 have in front of you on that contract, and the only
17:23:39 scope that we had was the use of the right-of-way.
17:23:44 I would like to have the city attorney come up.
17:23:50 Mr. Council attorney, Marty, if you would like to Chip
17:23:53 in, in any way if you think I'm misleading in anything
17:23:57 that I say, please interrupt me and please correct me
17:24:00 because I like to do business at the table.
17:24:02 I don't even want a table cloth.
17:24:03 I don't like what's on the bottom.
17:24:10 When you look at a franchise agreement, what is it
17:24:12 about?
17:24:13 I want to ask you that question.
17:24:14 Is it about power?
17:24:16 Because power by the Public Service Commission, they
17:24:19 don't have to sell us power.
17:24:21 Am I correct?
17:24:22 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: If I understand your question

17:24:27 correctly, you are correct.
17:24:29 Chip Fletcher, city attorney.
17:24:30 This is regarding use of the right-of-way by Tampa
17:24:32 Electric Company.
17:24:33 It is a nonexclusive franchise agreement which
17:24:35 basically means we set the process by which someone
17:24:40 providing electric power comes to the city and uses
17:24:43 our right-of-way to provide that power.
17:24:45 As I indicated at the first reading last week, the
17:24:51 cities and counties have been preempted by state
17:24:53 government regarding issues related to the rates of
17:24:57 service including where that power comes from, and
17:25:01 things related to how that service is provided in
17:25:05 terms of service area, and the sources of power.
17:25:11 >> So we are talking about the right-of-way, source of
17:25:14 franchise in which they collect a franchise fee, which
17:25:17 is about 4.6%, that equals to about $25 million a
17:25:21 year.
17:25:23 And you also --
17:25:25 >>> That's correct.
17:25:26 >> You also mentioned at that time a resource to
17:25:28 energy, or energy, garbage, trash, energy, into the

17:25:33 selling, which is about $5 million a year.
17:25:35 And they don't have to buy that resource energy.
17:25:39 Am I correct?
17:25:42 On the way we voted we don't have to buy it.
17:25:45 We voted them down.
17:25:46 >> We have a current agreement that's continuing for a
17:25:49 number of years, but we would not get this good a
17:25:51 deal, which the numbers will actually go up from under
17:25:54 this new agreement when it comes into effect after
17:25:57 2011.
17:25:59 We would not get paid in the way that we are getting
17:26:01 paid under this agreement, which is beneficial to the
17:26:04 city in terms of how the avoided cost is calculated in
17:26:07 this agreement.
17:26:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And I did do a little checking, and
17:26:10 the franchise fee for 07 was 26,124,000.
17:26:15 The utility tax is 24 million.
17:26:17 They came out to, you know, nothing much, about a
17:26:20 billion dollars a year.
17:26:23 I mean, excuse me, $51 million a year when you add
17:26:26 different things, occupational license, stormwater
17:26:29 fee.

17:26:30 $51 million a year.
17:26:32 So we are not talking about much money.
17:26:34 To me 51 million is a lot of money but to others it
17:26:38 doesn't mean anything.
17:26:39 It just the contract is about one thing.
17:26:41 And there is no one that tries harder than most of the
17:26:45 good people in here and the ones that are watching on
17:26:48 television and some of us on council to reduce our
17:26:50 energy consumption, to reduce water use, and I TECO
17:26:55 will do the same thing.
17:26:56 I can't speak for TECO. I can speak for myself.
17:27:01 That's why some of us don't like when I bring my
17:27:03 monthly bill and turn it in that it goes down month to
17:27:06 month, year to year and I am going to do it every
17:27:09 single month until we change.
17:27:10 Leaders are not leaders until you have followers.
17:27:13 You are never going to have followers if you don't
17:27:14 change.
17:27:15 You can't ask the public to do something if you
17:27:16 yourself are not doing it.
17:27:18 Let me also say that one other thing that was brought
17:27:21 up, that TECO only had six linemen.

17:27:24 That's true.
17:27:25 They only have six linemen.
17:27:29 Six linemen to repair.
17:27:31 It's false.
17:27:32 It's true but it's false.
17:27:33 Because what they have, they have six linemen, and the
17:27:39 search and rescue.
17:27:41 So when there's a hurricane, and you have a search
17:27:43 team, with the fire department or of what emergency
17:27:46 department, they have six different individuals
17:27:50 assigned to each one of the search and rescue teams,
17:27:53 so that they can cut the wire, so whoever is back
17:27:56 there somewhere, if that needs to be done, so they can
17:27:59 rescue those people.
17:28:01 It's not that they have six pole linemen.
17:28:04 It would take 40 years to get the city back up if they
17:28:07 had six linemen to do that work.
17:28:10 You know, when the hurricane hit, Ike, they sent more
17:28:17 than six linemen.
17:28:20 How can you only have six linemen in the City of Tampa
17:28:22 or the service area?
17:28:24 But, anyway, I'm sorry I'm belaboring this.

17:28:28 I'll let it go open.
17:28:31 That's just me.
17:28:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder said you had a
17:28:34 question for the attorney.
17:28:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: As long as Mr. Fletcher got dragged
17:28:39 into this again.
17:28:40 Chip, I don't think any of us disagree with your
17:28:43 opinion.
17:28:43 It wouldn't be appropriate for to us disagree with
17:28:45 your opinion that we can't force TECO to address these
17:28:48 other issues that came up last week.
17:28:50 We can't force them to address the undergrounding, the
17:28:53 conservation, the sustainability issues.
17:28:55 But I think the message that came out of council last
17:28:58 week, okay, was that they could voluntarily, during
17:29:02 the six-month period, that they could voluntarily come
17:29:05 to the table with either changes to the franchise
17:29:08 agreement, but would address these issues, or a side
17:29:13 agreement that might address these issues.
17:29:16 I asked you that this morning, actually, just by
17:29:20 coincidence, because I didn't know this issue was
17:29:22 coming up tonight.

17:29:23 But isn't that true, that they could voluntarily do
17:29:26 this and come back with either a better agreement for
17:29:29 us to look at six months from now, or a side
17:29:35 agreement, or nothing at all?
17:29:40 >>> I think the proper answer to that question is TECO
17:29:42 could volunteer to do things through different
17:29:45 mechanisms.
17:29:46 I would personally not be comfortable with having them
17:29:49 in this agreement because I would be more comfortable,
17:29:54 I guess would be the way to put it, a separate
17:29:56 agreement that would stand or fail on its own, but we
17:30:01 would still have those same issues that I think I
17:30:04 mentioned last time related to preemption and review
17:30:06 by the Public Service Commission.
17:30:10 When we get into tying this approval to that approval,
17:30:14 if that's what I'm hearing, I think we should be
17:30:17 cautious there, because as I indicated last time, the
17:30:22 Supreme Court, issues at least related to
17:30:27 undergrounding which I indicate last time related to
17:30:30 the rate.
17:30:30 So I think we would need to be cautious as to how we
17:30:35 connect the two, I guess would be the way to put it.

17:30:38 But as also indicated at the workshop the
17:30:40 administration has initiated working forward on a
17:30:44 conservation agreement with TECO.
17:30:49 The administration is still working on that.
17:30:50 And I believe has talked with a number of the
17:30:54 activists as recently as today related to including
17:30:57 them in those discussions.
17:30:58 So I don't think that there's not interest in moving
17:31:01 forward with a conservation agreement, at least.
17:31:05 My understanding -- and I haven't been part of that
17:31:08 recent discussions, but I think it does need to be a
17:31:13 separate process.
17:31:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's fine, if it's a separate
17:31:18 process and separate agreement, that's all fine and
17:31:20 good, but there's still, as far as I can see, no
17:31:23 pressure whatsoever that would persuade us to do
17:31:25 something now instead of six months from now, so we
17:31:28 can see how that separate process is moving along.
17:31:31 Thank you for your answer.
17:31:31 >>MARY MULHERN: Mr. Fletcher, wait.
17:31:37 I had a question for you, because you explained pretty
17:31:40 clearly all of this to me earlier, before our meeting

17:31:43 last week, and I understand from your end respect your
17:31:49 opinion of course what we can and can't do in the
17:31:52 franchise agreement.
17:31:53 So I agree with Mr. Dingfelder that we are not asking
17:31:57 to put things in the franchise agreement that really
17:32:00 won't hold up.
17:32:01 We are asking for TECO to work with us.
17:32:08 And one thing that you told me that really struck me,
17:32:13 and which I think the reverse also has to be true, was
17:32:17 that an agreement isn't any good unless both parties
17:32:20 really agree to it.
17:32:21 And I think we are being asked tonight if we agree
17:32:25 with this contract.
17:32:26 And, you know, we have a lot of reasons why we don't.
17:32:30 And I don't understand why -- my question for you is
17:32:34 why would the city, as the City Council, as the city
17:32:41 should agree to something that we don't approve of?
17:32:44 And something that, you know, we could have agreed to
17:32:46 if we were going to almost two years ago?
17:32:49 So isn't it important, too, for the city to be going
17:32:54 into this willingly?
17:32:59 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Yes, I think the point that I was

17:33:01 trying to make when we spoke is that it important that
17:33:07 this franchise agreement, as we are calling it, be
17:33:12 something that's agreed to by the city and the utility
17:33:15 and not imposed in a regulatory fashion by the city.
17:33:20 I think that was the point I was attempting to make,
17:33:25 as we were discussing that.
17:33:27 And I do think that it is something that the city has
17:33:30 to be willing to agree to.
17:33:32 I think that's a fair statement.
17:33:35 But I think it's important that we keep in mind what
17:33:40 our defined legal scope is as a franchise agreement.
17:33:44 And I would say that we could not have approved the
17:33:47 franchise agreement two years ago, but this changes
17:33:51 between then.
17:33:52 And now and most of them deal with how the franchise
17:33:55 fee is calculated, and also some changes related to
17:33:58 the status of the agreement as an agreement versus an
17:34:02 ordinance, and issues related to enforcement.
17:34:05 But that I think is the key point, that we keep
17:34:09 focused that this is an agreement for use of the
17:34:13 right-of-way, it's a nonexclusive agreement, so
17:34:15 whatever terms you have in here, if someone else,

17:34:18 including someone who is a renewable energy provider,
17:34:21 wants to come in and generate power and use our
17:34:25 right-of-way, they have to follow the same rules as
17:34:27 TECO.
17:34:28 Everybody has to follow the same rules.
17:34:29 We can't discriminate between providers.
17:34:32 So that's why the focus of this agreement needs to be,
17:34:36 those standards for use of the right-of-way, any other
17:34:40 agreement between other issues related to conservation
17:34:42 I think would need to be a separate agreement so that
17:34:45 we are clear on what the right-of-way rules are, and
17:34:47 if we are going to partner with TECO on something else
17:34:50 related to, say, conservation, or carbon footprint
17:34:54 reduction or whatever other issues we want to put on
17:34:57 the table, I think that's fine, and indicated I think
17:35:00 the administration is moving in that direction.
17:35:02 I think it's important that they be separate.
17:35:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?
17:35:09 Do you have a question?
17:35:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
17:35:10 I have a question.
17:35:11 When the city was negotiating this, did they look at

17:35:13 the sole bottom line, the cost of the revenue that we
17:35:21 received from TECO?
17:35:22 Or did the city consider what's known as the triple
17:35:26 bottom line where you look at the impact on the
17:35:28 environment, people, and revenue?
17:35:30 Because in a decision of this magnitude, the
17:35:36 community, we are not a for-profit organization, we
17:35:38 are a community whose responsibility it is to get the
17:35:41 best deal for our citizens.
17:35:44 I think that the triple bottom line is the best way to
17:35:49 evaluate this deal.
17:35:50 So my question, Mr. Fletcher, did this city look at
17:35:54 this deal through the lens of the triple bottom line?
17:36:00 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Well, I don't know since I wasn't
17:36:02 involved in the entire process if I can speak to that
17:36:04 but I think probably the answer is, yes, I know the
17:36:07 issues related to tree trimming were negotiated very
17:36:10 hard, I know that the issues related to --
17:36:12 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Fossil fuels?
17:36:16 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Well, again, I don't want to
17:36:17 repeat myself but that's not something that's within
17:36:20 the scope of this agreement.

17:36:22 >> Right.
17:36:23 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: Where the power comes from is not
17:36:25 something that we have the ability to regulate.
17:36:27 So if that was within the scope of the concept of the
17:36:30 triple bottom line, the answer would be no.
17:36:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The tree trim -- is there anything
17:36:36 in this agreement that commits them to tag overhead
17:36:40 lines and contributing to the cost of putting them
17:36:42 underground?
17:36:43 >>> No, ma'am.
17:36:44 >>
17:36:44 >>: I didn't think so.
17:36:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me -- I want to make one statement
17:36:48 tonight for all of us, and that is this:
17:37:00 Did you know it was going to come up tonight?
17:37:02 I found out today when my aid told me I had 42
17:37:05 e-mails.
17:37:06 Now somebody knew.
17:37:10 Did I -- we had a closed door conversation about this
17:37:18 whole I shall?
17:37:19 I mean, somebody knew.
17:37:21 I got 42.

17:37:22 I think you said you got 62.
17:37:23 So you got 20 more people who sent you e-mails than I
17:37:26 did.
17:37:27 But the whole issue is, we debated this issue, we
17:37:32 talked about this issue, and at the end of the day,
17:37:37 the city attorney said that this is a good contract
17:37:41 for us, and we are not precluded from opening it back
17:37:54 up should new sources of energy become available; is
17:37:55 that accurate?
17:37:57 >>> Yes, although the source of power is reiterated.
17:38:00 There is a regulatory clause if the regime were to
17:38:03 change.
17:38:03 >> The other thing, it's my understanding as well, Mr.
17:38:09 Miranda, it's more than 51 million.
17:38:12 I understand there's 78 million on the table.
17:38:14 Are you aware of that?
17:38:15 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: I think if you include both
17:38:17 agreements --
17:38:18 Right, MacKay Bay.
17:38:20 7 to $-- $78 million.
17:38:23 And then to Councilwoman Saul-Sena, I think you said
17:38:28 bottom line triple, yes, I think that is considered

17:38:33 because you have opportunity to come back, renewable
17:38:35 source of energy come available, and they said that
17:38:38 over and over.
17:38:39 So with that, let's vote.
17:38:41 All in favor of the motion to reconsider, signify by
17:38:44 saying Aye.
17:38:47 Opposes?
17:38:51 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder, Saul-Sena
17:38:54 and Mulhern voting no.
17:38:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the original motion is now back on
17:38:58 the table.
17:38:59 Is that right?
17:39:00 Counsel?
17:39:01 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Yes, that's correct.
17:39:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So the motion that was made as I
17:39:04 understand it was that we did that the contract be
17:39:09 sent back to the mayor to further negotiate to April,
17:39:14 I believe it was, is that right? That was the motion.
17:39:18 So we need to vote on that motion.
17:39:19 The motion was to deny -- okay, counsel.
17:39:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The motion, and discussed at the time
17:39:25 of the making also included the issue of the MacKay

17:39:27 Bay agreement.
17:39:30 One and two are part of the motion.
17:39:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So both of those are part of the
17:39:33 motion.
17:39:33 >>MARY MULHERN: I have a question on this new old
17:39:38 motion to Mr. Shelby.
17:39:45 Is this considered, as we vote on this, is this our
17:39:48 first hearing, our first reading of the ordinance, or
17:39:51 the resolution?
17:39:53 >>MARTIN SHELBY: What you have before you right now is
17:39:55 a motion to deny both agreements.
17:40:00 What you are asking me is, if I understand you
17:40:03 correctly, assuming that that motion should fail, what
17:40:07 would happen?
17:40:07 Is that your question?
17:40:09 >>MARY MULHERN: No.
17:40:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What if it passes?
17:40:13 >>MARY MULHERN: If it passes, is that considered the
17:40:15 first hearing and then we'll have --
17:40:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: There was no reading of the
17:40:19 ordinance.
17:40:19 It was not passed on first reading.

17:40:21 There was no first reading.
17:40:23 It was a public hearing on the TECO franchise.
17:40:26 >>MARY MULHERN: So it still has to come back for
17:40:29 two --
17:40:30 >>MARTIN SHELBY: This is a legislative matter.
17:40:34 It is an ordinance.
17:40:35 It requires two readings.
17:40:37 The second reading at least ten days apart with the
17:40:40 second hearing being noticed as a public hearing.
17:40:42 >>MARY MULHERN: So this is not the first reading and
17:40:46 first hearing?
17:40:50 It's so difficult.
17:40:54 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: This is almost always when it
17:40:56 comes up a somewhat confusing process.
17:40:57 If the motion -- the motion reconsidered passing, you
17:41:02 are in and out in the same place procedurally as you
17:41:04 would have been last Thursday.
17:41:05 >> What is that?
17:41:10 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: That means you have the motion on
17:41:11 the table, which I believe Ms. Saul-Sena made last
17:41:15 week, Councilwoman Saul-Sena made last week, to send
17:41:20 the agreement back to the administration.

17:41:23 That's the motion that is now pending.
17:41:24 And you all need to act on that and dispose of that.
17:41:28 If that were to pass, you would be in the same place
17:41:30 you were at the end of that meeting.
17:41:32 If it were to fail, then a motion on the pending item,
17:41:38 which is the first reading, would be appropriate at
17:41:41 that point and it would be up to a member of the
17:41:43 council to make that motion for first reading at that
17:41:46 point, and to set it for second reading.
17:41:49 >>MARY MULHERN: Thanks.
17:41:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: The way it worded and put on the
17:41:55 table, if you vote yes, on this motion, that means you
17:41:58 vote to leave it the way it was for six months.
17:42:01 Am I correct?
17:42:02 Because it's backwards now.
17:42:06 >>> If I may clarify, the motion wasn't just to send
17:42:10 it back for six months, it was really just to send it
17:42:12 back.
17:42:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Bring it back.
17:42:15 >>> And that's what I understand.
17:42:16 I think Marty may have the actual motion before him.
17:42:19 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is it what's on the actual agenda,

17:42:21 Mr. Clerk?
17:42:22 I'm reading from the action descend agenda.
17:42:25 One and two are handled separately in terms of what
17:42:27 the motion is but they were made simultaneously.
17:42:29 So let me read it verbatim that nobody is unclear
17:42:32 about what the motion on the floor is.
17:42:34 Motion by council member Saul-Sena, seconded by
17:42:37 council member Dingfelder, as to item 1, that council
17:42:41 rejects said agreements, so the administration be
17:42:44 requested to renegotiate said agreement in view of
17:42:47 concerns expressed by council and the community and to
17:42:50 appear before council on April 2nd, 2009, to
17:42:54 present a revised proposal, motion carried.
17:42:58 With regard to number 2, made simultaneously, again by
17:43:01 council member Saul-Sena, seconded by council member
17:43:04 Dingfelder, that council rejects said agreement
17:43:07 favoring the administration be requested to
17:43:10 renegotiate said agreements as to concerns expressed
17:43:13 by council and to appear before council on April
17:43:15 2nd, 2009, to present the revised proposal.
17:43:18 Motion carried.
17:43:19 As you can see, they were made simultaneously.

17:43:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we are back to the original motion.
17:43:27 The original motion again as has been outlined is to
17:43:32 deny the contracts, come back in April.
17:43:37 All in favor of that motion signify --
17:43:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question on the motion.
17:43:45 We have a chance for a question on the motion.
17:43:49 We were just handed a piece of paper that's
17:43:52 Tallahassee attorneys that were retained by a group of
17:43:54 Tampa citizens, and it speaks directly to the point
17:43:58 that, Mr. Chairman, you were raising with Mr.
17:44:01 Fletcher.
17:44:01 He says the key reason there's no rush is that
17:44:05 pursuant to control in the Florida Supreme Court the
17:44:08 City of Tampa is entitled to continue receiving
17:44:10 franchise fees from Tampa Electric through a holdover
17:44:13 period during which the parties negotiate a new
17:44:15 arrangement, close quote.
17:44:18 That's from the Supreme Court decision of town of
17:44:20 Belleair versus Florida power which I read about two
17:44:23 weeks ago.
17:44:24 The suggestion that the city is vulnerable to lose ago
17:44:26 Lawton this issue is thus misplaced based upon the

17:44:30 Florida Supreme Court decision the city should expect
17:44:32 to prevail on that issue whether brought by TECO or
17:44:35 the city.
17:44:36 Bottom line is I don't want to us operate out of fear.
17:44:39 There's this notion of 50 million or 70 million.
17:44:41 That's a huge amount of money, Charlie.
17:44:43 Bee all agreed with that.
17:44:45 But we are not in jeopardy of losing that.
17:44:47 The town of Belleair versus Florida power states
17:44:49 specifically, you know, says that during the
17:44:52 negotiation period, which we are in good faith
17:44:54 negotiating, okay, it just so happened that the
17:44:57 administration negotiated for three years, and now
17:45:03 council has sort of jumped into that process in a
17:45:06 little unusual way.
17:45:07 Okay.
17:45:08 But the city is negotiating in good faith at this
17:45:10 time, until this motion is voted on.
17:45:12 There's no fear of us losing 50 million or 70 million
17:45:16 or $80 million or whatever it is.
17:45:17 It's not what this vote should be about.
17:45:19 This vote should be about respecting the 40 citizens

17:45:22 who were down here, this vote should be about
17:45:25 respecting the fact that we are -- if you move in this
17:45:29 path you are binding the city for the next 25 years on
17:45:32 energy issues which are about the most volatile
17:45:34 issues --
17:45:36 Council.
17:45:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That this country --
17:45:39 No, let me interrupt.
17:45:41 Question on the motion.
17:45:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I comment on the motion.
17:45:44 I deserve a comment on the motion.
17:45:46 The motion is on the floor. Anyway, the energy issue
17:45:48 is the most volatile issue that this country is
17:45:50 dealing with, and we are about to commit this city
17:45:52 to --
17:45:54 Let me -- let's move forward.
17:45:55 Listen, please.
17:45:58 You raised an issue of question on the motion.
17:46:01 That was not relative to the motion.
17:46:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Sure it is.
17:46:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It was not relative to the motion.
17:46:05 >> Well, that's your opinion.

17:46:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can you speak to that, counsel?
17:46:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We can wrestle with it.
17:46:13 I'm done talking.
17:46:14 What's your point?
17:46:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Specifically, council, with regard to
17:46:17 rule 4, parliamentary procedure, rule L states the
17:46:20 chair shall decide all questions of procedure and the
17:46:23 decision shall stand unless reversed by majority of
17:46:25 the entire council.
17:46:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
17:46:28 Thank you.
17:46:28 So that makes me right.
17:46:30 [ Laughter ]
17:46:34 Motion on the floor.
17:46:35 All in favor of the motion signify by saying Aye.
17:46:39 Opposes?
17:46:39 >>THE CLERK: The motion did not carry with Miranda,
17:46:46 Miller, Scott, and Caetano voting no.
17:46:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
17:46:52 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to make a motion to put it on
17:46:54 first reading?
17:46:55 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Now, council, what you have before

17:46:58 you, you have two items that are unresolved.
17:47:00 Number one is your ordinance, with regard to the TECO
17:47:03 franchise W.regard to the TECO franchise, requires two
17:47:07 readings.
17:47:09 If council chooses to go forward tonight, it would be
17:47:12 read by title only.
17:47:13 It would pass on first reading.
17:47:15 And then normally what happens we come back in two
17:47:17 weeks, the clerk would advertise and come back for its
17:47:19 normal second reading.
17:47:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Do you have the first reading?
17:47:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: If that's council's pleasure.
17:47:26 >> I'll read it.
17:47:27 >>> Council, you can take up number two after that,
17:47:31 however council wishes to proceed.
17:47:32 Number 2 is the MacKay Bay.
17:47:41 >> Since this was not on the agenda I do not have a
17:47:48 copy of the ordinance.
17:47:49 I can go and get one if you like.
17:47:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Bring that back later on in the
17:47:53 meeting.
17:47:53 Can we do that?

17:47:54 Okay.
17:47:55 So we are behind now.
17:47:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Shelby can go to the clerk's
17:48:00 office.
17:48:03 We will go while you are doing that.
17:48:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We need to move, council, we have been
17:48:07 on this item awhile.
17:48:08 What I am going to ask now is staff will come, we'll
17:48:10 take up item number 1.
17:48:16 Move to open the public hearing, Mr. Chairman.
17:48:21 1 through 5.
17:48:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Second.
17:48:24 (Motion carried).
17:48:25 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
17:48:29 I'll go ahead and address each one of these separately
17:48:31 because I believe there are different people that want
17:48:33 to speak on each one.
17:48:35 Briefly, this ordinance is related to the crematorium
17:48:38 regulations that were developed about a year and a
17:48:39 half ago and back before you.
17:48:42 For review.
17:48:46 Just a brief synopsis.

17:48:47 As you recall the crematorium use was eliminated from
17:48:50 the CG zoning district.
17:48:52 It was made accessory only to a funeral parlor in the
17:48:55 CI commercial intensive and IG commercial intensive
17:48:58 district.
17:48:58 And in the I had, it is permitted -- IH, chapter
17:49:05 27-140, they are limited to two combustion units, and
17:49:09 that particular use must be 500 feet from a national
17:49:13 or local historic district or any residential use.
17:49:17 Also, as an accessory use, it has the same distance
17:49:20 criteria of a 500-foot separation for historic --
17:49:24 national historic use and just for any residential
17:49:31 use.
17:49:31 We chose residential use because there are residential
17:49:33 uses in the commercial district so we want to be sure
17:49:36 to protect the residential uses.
17:49:37 We did hold a workshop.
17:49:39 There were a couple of members of the crematorium,
17:49:41 funeral parlor industry there, and they have no
17:49:44 objections to the regulations as well, at least at
17:49:47 that particular workshop.
17:49:48 I'm here for any questions if you have any.

17:49:59 >>> Ms. Cole hopped up here, waiting all this time for
17:50:05 chapter 27 changes but I want to let you know
17:50:07 officially as far as the process is concerned, these
17:50:09 recommendations were sent to the Planning Commission
17:50:11 for consideration for consistency with the
17:50:14 comprehensive plan.
17:50:15 Per motion by this council we did have a meeting in
17:50:18 front of the Planning Commission this past Monday, and
17:50:21 find all the proposed requests to the changes to
17:50:23 chapter 27 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
17:50:25 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a public hearing.
17:50:29 Anyone wishing to address council on item number 1,
17:50:31 come forward, State of Florida and address for the
17:50:33 record, please.
17:50:33 >> Fran Costantino, president of Ybor historic
17:50:38 association, 2551 east 11th Avenue.
17:50:42 We are agreeing to the change in the ordinance and do
17:50:46 appreciate Kathryn's hard work, but this is accepting
17:50:53 the lesser of two evils.
17:50:55 We wanted the ordinance to be stronger in force like
17:50:58 San Diego to be further away from residential.
17:51:00 So, well, do you want the electric chair or do you

17:51:07 want hanging?
17:51:08 So we agreed that -- we made it.
17:51:16 Just away from my historic district.
17:51:19 But just to keep in mind, council, that as we go
17:51:22 along, this is a first step.
17:51:23 But we certainly -- the zoning in Ybor City would
17:51:26 allow that many more to come in.
17:51:29 So the further away we can keep them away from our
17:51:31 residential, but especially historic district we like
17:51:35 it.
17:51:35 You want to thank council very much.
17:51:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
17:51:41 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill.
17:51:44 I want to tell you that T.H.A.N. does support this,
17:51:46 and it could be stronger, but what is being put to you
17:51:56 is better.
17:51:56 Thank you.
17:51:58 >> Move to close.
17:51:59 >> Second.
17:51:59 (Motion carried).
17:52:00 >>GWEN MILLER: Mr. Miranda, do you want to read the
17:52:02 ordinance number 1?

17:52:03 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, move an ordinance
17:52:06 with the city of Tampa, Florida for first reading, an
17:52:09 ordinance making comprehensive revisions to the City
17:52:11 of Tampa code of ordinance chapter 27 zoning, amending
17:52:15 section 27-77, official schedule of district
17:52:18 regulations, amending section 27-140 reserved,
17:52:23 amending section 27-143 accessory uses, repealing all
17:52:28 ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
17:52:32 therewith, providing for severability, providing an
17:52:33 effective date.
17:52:33 >> Second.
17:52:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded by councilman Dingfelder.
17:52:37 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
17:52:40 Opposed same sign.
17:52:42 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Saul-Sena and Mulhern
17:52:47 absent at vote.
17:52:48 December 4th, 9:30 a.m.
17:52:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I was trying to get other council
17:52:52 persons in here.
17:52:53 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
17:52:57 These are some minor changes, number 2, at the
17:53:01 suggestion of council and staff and also clarification

17:53:03 for the alcoholic beverage semiannual reporting
17:53:07 requirements.
17:53:08 If you recall, anybody with an "R" classification is
17:53:10 required to report twice a year, if they have more
17:53:13 sales of food or nonalcoholic beverages than they do
17:53:15 of alcohol, they were required under the old code to
17:53:19 file that within 15 days of the deadline.
17:53:21 When we revised that last year changed it to 30 days.
17:53:24 However it falls in January and July and there's a
17:53:28 31st day and it often causes problems in people's
17:53:31 files so we amended it total 31st day to make it
17:53:34 easy on people and a little clearer.
17:53:37 Also we clarified you don't necessarily have to submit
17:53:39 a paper copy, you can also submit electronically, and
17:53:42 we should by January have that version available,
17:53:45 which will save paper and hopefully save time.
17:53:48 Also, letters that we send are to be sent out
17:53:52 certificate of mail as opposed to certified mail so
17:53:54 they really were very minor changes to ease the
17:53:58 process.
17:54:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Planning Commission?
17:54:09 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.

17:54:11 They voted consistent finding on all the regulations
17:54:13 and came back.
17:54:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a public hearing.
17:54:16 Anyone wishing to address council?
17:54:24 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill again with
17:54:27 T.H.A.N.
17:54:28 We don't disagree.
17:54:29 We would only like to see some reporting for those
17:54:40 other alcoholic beverages that would be given which
17:54:44 are accessory to other uses, such as the cigar bars,
17:54:50 and the beauty shop, and those kinds of things, that
17:54:53 we would like to see that included as well.
17:54:56 Right now it's only restaurants where it's an
17:55:00 accessory to restaurants.
17:55:02 We had asked that you consider that, but it didn't get
17:55:07 considered, so right now we just want to bring to the
17:55:10 your attention that we feel it's important for them to
17:55:12 really show that they are doing what they said they
17:55:15 were going to do.
17:55:18 So that's my report on this particular one.
17:55:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
17:55:23 Anyone else?

17:55:24 >> Move to close.
17:55:26 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Before you close I would like to
17:55:27 ask staff.
17:55:30 Staff, what Ms. Vizzi asked for is modest, it's to
17:55:34 have people demonstrate that they are doing what they
17:55:37 said they were going to do.
17:55:39 Do we have a mechanism to accomplish that?
17:55:42 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That was our rewriting, the code in
17:55:45 particular.
17:55:46 Only reporting requirements are for -- 4-R
17:55:51 classifications and that's how it's set in code.
17:55:53 If you were to require it for accessory uses we would
17:55:56 have to actually revise the whole section to capture
17:55:58 those accessories.
17:56:00 I would hate to say it's just an easy fix because I
17:56:02 don't want to just throw out an ordinance and then
17:56:04 miss something.
17:56:05 I don't like doing that.
17:56:06 But plus from my experience if you are going to do
17:56:11 some kind of change like that especially as it might
17:56:14 affect businesses that we are not aware of, I would
17:56:16 suggest that there be a workshop on that before

17:56:18 language is developed to give people an opportunity to
17:56:20 come and speak to you, to address issues they may have
17:56:23 with that type of ordinance.
17:56:24 I would hate to draft something, bring it back just
17:56:27 like with the waterfront regulations.
17:56:29 County become sticky.
17:56:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is this something we can address
17:56:32 through our business licensing?
17:56:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: We don't actually license
17:56:37 businesses.
17:56:38 It is simply a tax receipt that is issued.
17:56:40 So it not a license.
17:56:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If we wanted to address -- and we
17:56:46 didn't want to hold this up tonight, we could go ahead
17:56:48 and pass this and request that you have a workshop on
17:56:51 this in the future.
17:56:52 To see if there's a mechanism that could you create.
17:56:54 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You're correct, you could pass this
17:57:03 tonight because it's just a minor fix that we need to
17:57:05 make anyway.
17:57:06 And if you are looking to some kind of workshop I
17:57:08 would suggest maybe February or March, maybe even

17:57:11 setting with a council workshop because there are a
17:57:14 lot of land use attorneys and different types of
17:57:16 businesses that probably would want to come and speak
17:57:18 to those issues.
17:57:19 That would give us enough time to hear all the issues
17:57:21 and then get it into the July cycle next year, if need
17:57:25 be.
17:57:28 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Since we are speaking about
17:57:30 different things regarding this change, unless a
17:57:35 petitioner asks for a certain hour, 10:00, whatever,
17:57:42 then they can stay open till what time?
17:57:46 >>CATHERINE COYLE: 3 a.m.
17:57:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: That's all I want to know.
17:57:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion to close
17:57:52 say Aye.
17:57:52 Opposes?
17:57:53 Okay.
17:57:54 Councilman Dingfelder.
17:57:57 Number 2.
17:58:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move the following ordinance on
17:58:05 first reading, an ordinance of the city of Tampa,
17:58:07 Florida making comprehensive revisions to city Tampa

17:58:10 of code of ordinances chapter 27 zoning amending
17:58:12 section 27-524, records, semiannual reports, violation
17:58:17 of "R" classification zoning requirements, repealing
17:58:20 all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
17:58:23 therewith, providing for severability, providing an
17:58:25 effective date.
17:58:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Councilwoman
17:58:32 Miller.
17:58:33 All in favor say Aye.
17:58:35 Opposed same sign.
17:58:36 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano absent at
17:58:38 vote.
17:58:38 Second reading and adoption will be on December
17:58:40 4th at 9:30 a.m.
17:58:42 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I would like to make a motion that
17:58:44 we set a workshop for March to discuss what we -- the
17:58:51 issue that was just raised about some sort of
17:58:54 reporting mechanism so that we can ensure that people
17:58:56 are doing the things that they said they are going to
17:59:00 do.
17:59:00 >> Second.
17:59:01 >>CATHERINE COYLE: When is the council workshop in

17:59:03 March?
17:59:04 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When is the council workshop in
17:59:05 March?
17:59:06 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Correct.
17:59:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I think it's the last Thursday,
17:59:09 meeting in March.
17:59:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: If I may add to that, you know,
17:59:13 everything is different.
17:59:14 In every neighborhood.
17:59:15 And when you go to 3:00 in the morning, is it really a
17:59:18 cigar bar or is it a bar?
17:59:20 And these are the things that bothered me for a long
17:59:23 time since we changed this some months back.
17:59:26 I just never have been in favor of that, never will be
17:59:28 in favor of that.
17:59:30 But I'm not going to ask for anything because I don't
17:59:32 think I'm going to get it.
17:59:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: You could certainly broaden the
17:59:37 motion as far as a council workshop on this idea, of
17:59:42 just having a generic alcohol permit workshop to talk
17:59:47 about these types of issues, even on semiannual
17:59:51 reporting requirements, accessory alcohol sales.

17:59:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, if the maker of the motion
17:59:57 will accept that I'll throw it in.
17:59:58 >> Yes.
18:00:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by Councilwoman
18:00:03 Mulhern.
18:00:03 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:00:05 Opposes?
18:00:06 Okay.
18:00:06 We can go back now to the franchise ordinance.
18:00:09 >>THE CLERK: Mr. Chairman, was there a date in march
18:00:14 mentioned for that?
18:00:16 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes.
18:00:16 When City Council has our workshop which is the fourth
18:00:19 Thursday.
18:00:19 >>GWEN MILLER: Ordinance for first reading, an
18:00:22 ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida granted to
18:00:24 Tampa Electric Company a nonexclusive franchise for
18:00:27 use of public streets, alleys, highways, waterways,
18:00:31 bridges, easements and other public ways of the City
18:00:34 of Tampa for the construction, maintenance and
18:00:35 operation of an electric system in the City of Tampa,
18:00:40 terms and conditions of nonexclusive rights and

18:00:43 privilege may be exercised, providing for
18:00:45 severability, providing an effective date here of.
18:00:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
18:00:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'll second that.
18:00:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Specifically to discuss the
18:00:57 right-of-way, Mr. Fletcher, listen.
18:00:59 Mr. Fletcher.
18:01:01 Mr. Fletcher, listen.
18:01:02 I'm not asking you.
18:01:03 I just want you to listen.
18:01:04 This is your homework assignment in, case this passes.
18:01:10 Wait a second.
18:01:13 We heard testimony from citizens last week that said,
18:01:17 if TECO keeps lights on during the day, has lights off
18:01:20 at night, they do things that are not in the best
18:01:24 interest of the community, that we don't have
18:01:27 specified mechanisms to sort of fine them or sort of
18:01:30 hold them accountable.
18:01:32 And this is one of the things if we are talking about
18:01:34 the quality of our public ways, it's a big concern.
18:01:37 Killing trees, leaving poles that are empty up there
18:01:40 for another ten years, maintaining the quality of the

18:01:45 public rights-of-way is important to us.
18:01:47 Don't answer now, but next week I want you to come
18:01:49 prepared to explain to us what is or isn't in the
18:01:52 ordinance that's before us that can make us hold Tampa
18:01:55 Electric Company to a certain quality standard that's
18:01:58 appropriate for our community.
18:02:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I would like to move to continue this
18:02:03 first reading to our next council meeting.
18:02:07 >>GWEN MILLER: There's a motion on the floor.
18:02:11 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's a motion to amend, I guess.
18:02:13 >>MARY MULHERN: It's a motion to continue.
18:02:15 I would like to hear from our attorney.
18:02:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You can speak if it's not adversary to
18:02:22 the main motion.
18:02:23 Go ahead.
18:02:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, under Robert's Rules of
18:02:30 Order a motion to continue would be akin to a motion
18:02:33 to postpone to a certain time, would definitely apply
18:02:39 to a pending question.
18:02:41 So in terms of whether a motion to continue is in
18:02:47 order pursuant to Roberts rules, it would be in order,
18:02:51 assuming that it is seconded and it is debatable, it

18:02:55 is also amendable, and it can be reconsidered.
18:02:58 But, council, I remind you that it is the role of the
18:03:03 chair to make the final determination as I previously
18:03:07 stated.
18:03:07 >>MARY MULHERN: My motion to continue is based on the
18:03:14 fact that we didn't know that this was going to be --
18:03:18 council didn't know this was going to come up.
18:03:20 No one from the public had notice.
18:03:23 They thought they came last week, and considering the
18:03:27 great public outpouring of opinion on this, and the
18:03:31 fact that we just got a letter that there's a group of
18:03:34 citizens that actually retained an attorney --
18:03:37 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Point of order on the motion to
18:03:39 continue.
18:03:39 There cannot be any discussion.
18:03:41 Under Roberts rules.
18:03:43 >>MARTIN SHELBY: On a motion to continue?
18:03:46 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Yes.
18:03:47 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe that's what this is.
18:03:50 Let me just double check, council.
18:03:53 Debate on the motion must be confined to its merits
18:03:55 only and cannot go into the main question except as

18:03:58 necessary for debate of the immediately pending
18:04:00 question.
18:04:02 >>MARY MULHERN: I think the merits have to do with the
18:04:04 fact that it's a public hearing.
18:04:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, let me just clarify this
18:04:07 again.
18:04:08 Mr. Chairman.
18:04:08 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes.
18:04:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, to refresh your
18:04:12 recollection, this is not a quasi-judicial matter.
18:04:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Right.
18:04:16 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Which under Tampa's rules require two
18:04:18 public hearings.
18:04:18 This was originally to be heard as a legislative
18:04:21 matter, and just a first reading, and setting a second
18:04:27 reading on public hearing as you normally do for
18:04:30 legislative matters.
18:04:30 s what council's discretion, not a requirement, it was
18:04:33 council's discretion that set this for a public
18:04:35 hearing.
18:04:35 There is no notice.
18:04:36 There is no requirement for the need for the public to

18:04:39 be noticed.
18:04:39 Legally as to the action before you tonight.
18:04:43 However, a reminder that should it pass tonight, it
18:04:46 will be advertised as required by law a notice for a
18:04:51 second reading and public hearing for adoption.
18:04:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman.
18:04:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: There is no mechanism to deny the
18:04:59 public the right to be here.
18:05:01 And 99.9% of the items that come here on second
18:05:05 reading is when they are all debated.
18:05:08 There is not one iota for any of the good people who
18:05:12 were here, Ohio talked to most of them and they told
18:05:15 me they are all conservative and we are going to match
18:05:17 our electric bill and this, that and the other, and I
18:05:20 haven't forgotten that stuff.
18:05:21 So what I'm saying is no one is denying anyone the
18:05:24 right to attend, to speak.
18:05:27 That's what the democracy is all about.
18:05:30 So this is -- I'm going to buy me a wig so they don't
18:05:36 know who I am when I leave the building.
18:05:38 This is embarrassing.
18:05:39 We debated this thing.

18:05:40 We tried to cut the power every which way we can and
18:05:42 there's only one way to say it just like it is.
18:05:46 So we are going to get sued.
18:05:48 You know, I have been sued before.
18:05:51 Me being the city, not I personally.
18:05:54 It wouldn't tap much from me.
18:05:57 But what I'm saying is, let the process begin.
18:06:00 Let it die and let it pass.
18:06:02 But three and a half years is a long time.
18:06:05 And, you know, it's getting to the point that it's
18:06:09 getting to be ridiculous on both sides.
18:06:11 And listen, I want to get this off the table.
18:06:16 Ms. Mulhern, I want to have the right to due process
18:06:20 that she's entitled to.
18:06:22 Let's vote on her motion.
18:06:27 It's going to come up 4-3.
18:06:29 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't think I'm on trial here.
18:06:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I know you're not on trial.
18:06:34 I'm saying you have a motion that will end up 4-3 on
18:06:39 this side.
18:06:39 You know it and I know it.
18:06:41 What are we doing here?

18:06:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: There was no second on your motion.
18:06:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Second.
18:06:51 >>MARY MULHERN: And I have to say that I tried to get
18:06:54 this clarified earlier in the meeting, whether there
18:06:56 would be a second hearing, and I thought I was told
18:06:59 there wasn't, that we would just pass it and we would
18:07:01 be done.
18:07:01 >>GWEN MILLER: No.
18:07:02 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Chairman, just so there's no
18:07:08 confusion, item 2, the McKay agreement, is by
18:07:11 resolution.
18:07:13 Should a motion be made on that and voted on tonight,
18:07:16 that would not come back.
18:07:17 That would then authorize the mayor and Tampa Electric
18:07:19 to execute that agreement with regard to number 2, the
18:07:23 McKay agreement.
18:07:24 >>MARY MULHERN: Thank you.
18:07:26 That's way asked earlier and you clarified it now.
18:07:28 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So your motion, a substitute motion, a
18:07:32 motion to continue.
18:07:34 >>MARY MULHERN: To our next regular council --
18:07:37 The motion on the floor, all in favor of continuing

18:07:39 the motion signify by saying Aye.
18:07:43 Opposes?
18:07:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: How did it come out?
18:07:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Actually you're wrong.
18:07:52 I voted with you this time.
18:07:53 Because I'm tired of it, too.
18:07:55 Let's move on.
18:07:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not trying to change anyone's
18:07:58 mind.
18:07:58 >>GWEN MILLER: I am not going to read it again.
18:08:00 >>THE CLERK: The motion did not carry.
18:08:04 >>GWEN MILLER: We have to do one at a time.
18:08:06 One at a time.
18:08:08 I read the agreement.
18:08:09 I'm not going to read it again.
18:08:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's moved and seconded.
18:08:13 All in favor of the motion as moved by Councilwoman
18:08:16 Miller, seconded by councilman Miranda, all in favor
18:08:19 of the motion signify by saying Aye.
18:08:22 Opposes, same sign.
18:08:26 >>THE CLERK: Motion for first reading carried with
18:08:32 Dingfelder, Saul-Sena, and Mulhern voting no.

18:08:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:08:37 >>THE CLERK: Second reading and adoption will be on
18:08:39 December 4th at 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise
18:08:42 directed.
18:08:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Chairman, I have a strong sense
18:08:48 that there are going to be a number of people who want
18:08:50 to speak on this.
18:08:52 And I just want to caution council that because we
18:08:55 have off for Thanksgiving, that we might want to
18:08:59 consider setting that for a special time that day.
18:09:03 My suggestion would be at 1:30.
18:09:08 Or that evening.
18:09:09 But I just want to point out that I do believe a great
18:09:11 number of people are going to want to speak on that.
18:09:14 And it would be more efficient in terms of a regular
18:09:16 schedule.
18:09:16 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That's going to be December 4th,
18:09:19 is that right?
18:09:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
18:09:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: At 1:30.
18:09:23 Let me just say, bring your lunch.
18:09:25 Bring your dinner.

18:09:26 Bring your dinner and bring your sleeping bag because
18:09:28 we already have a full agenda.
18:09:30 That's why I said this morning, up until the end of
18:09:32 the year, your schedule is tight.
18:09:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: "Our" schedule.
18:09:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Our schedule.
18:09:41 I stand corrected.
18:09:46 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Clerk, do you know what's going on
18:09:49 on December 4th?
18:09:50 Do we have anything scheduled at 1:30?
18:09:52 Do we have anything scheduled in the evening?
18:09:54 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I can look quickly.
18:09:55 I have it before me.
18:09:56 Mr. Clerk, I can hand it to you if you like.
18:09:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I don't want to go specific.
18:10:02 I know we have a full agenda for that day.
18:10:03 We already reviewed that.
18:10:08 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Hand it to me, I'll make a motion.
18:10:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Do we have a night meeting that
18:10:12 night?
18:10:14 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: That's what I'm looking at.
18:10:15 On the fourth we don't have a night meeting.

18:10:17 We have a couple of closures and appeal hearings at
18:10:19 1:30 so I would suggest that we do this -- I suggest
18:10:26 we do it at 1:30.
18:10:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right.
18:10:31 Got a second?
18:10:32 Moved and seconded that we have the hearing second
18:10:35 reading at 1:30.
18:10:36 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
18:10:38 Opposes?
18:10:39 Okay.
18:10:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is the most important thing
18:10:43 since 1887.
18:10:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
18:10:45 MacKay Bay.
18:10:48 >>GWEN MILLER: Move the resolution.
18:10:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Second for the resolution on MacKay
18:10:51 Bay.
18:10:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman Dingfelder.
18:10:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I realize there might be four votes
18:10:59 to pass this, but I think in light of the fact that we
18:11:04 did have the people here last time, I think this
18:11:07 one -- and I thought we all agreed that these two

18:11:10 should track together.
18:11:11 I think it would be fairer to hear them out.
18:11:15 Might not have an obligation to hear them out but it
18:11:18 would be fair to hear them out, carry this over, set
18:11:21 it for 1:30 on the 4th and do it then if that's
18:11:24 your will.
18:11:25 But they have been tracking together, and it would
18:11:28 seem it's premature to do it tonight.
18:11:30 That's all I have to say.
18:11:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not going to debate.
18:11:35 That what I am going to say is this is where you saw
18:11:38 something to somebody, and that somebody in this case
18:11:41 is TECO.
18:11:42 They have been buying it for a long time.
18:11:44 Do they really need it?
18:11:46 I don't know.
18:11:51 >> They need the carbon --
18:11:53 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me tell you about cows.
18:11:56 Do you know how many carbons cows produce?
18:11:59 Look it up and then I'll tell you.
18:12:01 Let me continue this here, that they buy something
18:12:05 from refuse to energy, and that's energy.

18:12:09 Do we have a buyer for that in case you don't sign
18:12:12 this agreement?
18:12:13 Can you not have an agreement with TECO and still sell
18:12:16 them energy, Mr. City attorney?
18:12:18 >>CHARLES FLETCHER: The yes or no answer to that
18:12:23 question is, yes, we can sell it under federal law,
18:12:25 but it is a complicated process to find another buyer
18:12:29 that would not use it for the price.
18:12:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: And whose lines?
18:12:35 >>> TECO's lines.
18:12:37 >> And who do you have to pay, sir?
18:12:39 >>> We would have to reach agreement with TECO.
18:12:41 >> And how do you think that's going to go?
18:12:44 I mean, let's be realistic.
18:12:46 >>> It would be a long negotiation.
18:12:48 Yes, sir.
18:12:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Fletcher, is there any urgency
18:12:54 to do it rather than December 4th when we do the
18:12:57 other second reading?
18:12:59 >>> No.
18:13:00 Since I think it's a good agreement for the city.
18:13:02 But it does not actually take effect until a time in

18:13:07 2011 when we have an agreement, and these have been
18:13:10 tracking together, so I don't have a strong opinion
18:13:13 whether we take it up here or take it up at second
18:13:15 reading.
18:13:16 We had put it on the agenda with first reading,
18:13:18 because quite frankly, we thought it was a good deal
18:13:22 and would like to get it completed.
18:13:24 But if it's your pleasure to schedule it for the
18:13:27 meeting, we are going to have second reading, I see no
18:13:31 problem with that.
18:13:38 >>THOMAS SCOTT: That was a motion to approve the
18:13:41 resolution.
18:13:43 And councilman Dingfelder is requesting -- you are
18:13:47 requesting to track with the other one.
18:13:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
18:13:51 I don't want to get into parliamentary procedure and
18:13:53 everything else.
18:13:54 I just think out of fairness we should do it on the
18:13:57 4th with the other one.
18:14:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You don't want to get into
18:14:03 parliamentary -- [ Laughter ]
18:14:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not opposed to putting it oh it

18:14:11 4th.
18:14:11 I'm really not.
18:14:12 I won't be here anyway.
18:14:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I agree with you on that.
18:14:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I withdraw my motion and put it on
18:14:23 the train.
18:14:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll make a substitute drawing to
18:14:27 put it on the 4th at 1:30.
18:14:29 >>> Second.
18:14:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded we put the MacKay
18:14:32 Bay agreement on the 4th at 1:30.
18:14:35 All in favor say Aye.
18:14:36 Opposes?
18:14:37 Okay.
18:14:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm exhausted, got to get home.
18:14:43 [ Laughter ]
18:14:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The next item, item 3, I believe we
18:14:48 are on.
18:14:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 4.
18:14:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: 3, yeah.
18:14:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:15:00 This is considered a comprehensive changes, although

18:15:02 there are only three.
18:15:05 Just to refresh your memory, the first change was to
18:15:07 clarify the garage setback.
18:15:14 It was difficult to administer the way it was
18:15:16 previously written.
18:15:17 But this very clearly specifies how one-car garage is
18:15:21 set back to retain visibility of an 18-foot setback
18:15:25 because you generally have space and then a two oh-car
18:15:30 garage is a ten-foot setback along the street because
18:15:32 the ten-foot setback meets the visibility criteria.
18:15:35 The second change is solid waste storage area
18:15:39 requirement.
18:15:40 Originally, they had the sidewalk requirement in
18:15:42 there, which council and solid waste agreed would go
18:15:46 away.
18:15:47 The only change in here is just specifying that if you
18:15:49 have an enclosure for the cart that we use that does
18:15:53 have to be four feet in height so they are properly
18:15:56 screened.
18:15:57 The third change was directed by council, to very
18:16:02 clearly state that front doors tore face street
18:16:04 rights-of-way as opposed to alleys.

18:16:06 There is an alternative.
18:16:08 Allowance, it says entrances may face interior court
18:16:11 plaza's or similar design elements with the approval
18:16:14 of an alternative design by the zoning administer.
18:16:19 That language is very much akin to how we deal with
18:16:21 overlay district design requirements.
18:16:23 We get those kind of requests all the time.
18:16:25 And you may recall and showed a couple pictures of
18:16:28 those court yard style apartments or town homes, where
18:16:31 the doors face interior, and there is a beautiful
18:16:34 courtyard in a lot of them.
18:16:36 We didn't want to restrict those.
18:16:38 And those are the changes in this regulation.
18:16:43 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
18:16:45 Cathy, I'm trying to dig through this package from the
18:16:48 Planning Commission.
18:16:49 And specifically I was looking for that 18-foot
18:16:52 setback.
18:16:54 In the ordinance.
18:16:57 >> You would be looking for the ordinance with the
18:16:58 title that includes section 27-137.3 and point 4.
18:17:05 The only one was -- it's a five-page document.

18:17:13 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What if we -- I'm still looking for
18:17:19 that.
18:17:23 What if we did -- it's kind of weird to me.
18:17:28 We require 18 feet on the single-car garage, and then
18:17:32 we allow 10 feet on the double car garage.
18:17:38 >>> That's from the required parking.
18:17:40 If you have a single family house you are required two
18:17:42 parking spaces.
18:17:43 If you have a two car garage those are your two
18:17:47 spaces.
18:17:47 You don't actually have to have them outside.
18:17:50 >> But effectively, by doing that, we end up with the
18:17:55 snout houses as some people refer to them with, the
18:17:58 garages being the dominant feature closer to the
18:18:01 street, with the big double garage.
18:18:04 Is that --
18:18:05 >>> No, this does not override the basic setback
18:18:08 requirement.
18:18:08 This is specifically for a garage.
18:18:09 If you have got a 25-foot front setback it's a 25-foot
18:18:13 front setback.
18:18:14 This is -- there's actually a diagram in the code that

18:18:17 goes along with it.
18:18:18 It is when a garage basically is either --
18:18:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She's on the overhead for the
18:18:26 technical folks.
18:18:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: (off microphone).
18:18:31 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: She's talking about a separate
18:18:33 garage.
18:18:35 >>CATHERINE COYLE: (off microphone).
18:18:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Ms. Coyle, you need to take the mike
18:18:41 if you don't mind.
18:18:42 >>> I'm sorry.
18:18:43 On a corner yard there is a seethe side street as
18:18:45 well.
18:18:46 Garage goes this way.
18:18:48 It would either be detached and faced this way or
18:18:50 attached.
18:18:51 There's another set of provisions, anything detached
18:18:57 has to be eight feet from the front.
18:18:59 You can't have it in front of your house.
18:19:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But just for purposes of the
18:19:04 street, wouldn't it be better for us just to have a
18:19:07 flat 18 feet?

18:19:09 Or is that just a policy decision?
18:19:11 I mean from a planning perspective, I mean, why should
18:19:14 that setback be intruded upon just because of a
18:19:17 garage, a double garage?
18:19:19 And especially because it's a double garage so you
18:19:21 have a larger -- closer to the street and that much
18:19:27 sidewalk.
18:19:28 We do hear a lot of situations where even though they
18:19:33 have a double garage nobody parks in front of it so
18:19:36 they end up parking crossing oaf the sidewalk.
18:19:38 I see that in Palma Ceia all the time.
18:19:42 You know, I'm sure you hear about it often.
18:19:47 I just don't understand our logic, why would we want
18:19:50 that little single garage to be further back as
18:19:53 compared to a double garage which would be closer?
18:19:55 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It really is because 18 feet is the
18:20:01 standard depth of a space.
18:20:02 And a single-family residence is required two spaces.
18:20:06 And I understand people sometimes do park outside of a
18:20:08 two-car garage but if they have two spaces that they
18:20:11 are providing, we can't require any more.
18:20:13 It certainly is your policy decision, if you want to

18:20:15 increase that setback, the original setback before it
18:20:18 was changed to 18 feet is 15 feet and it didn't matter
18:20:22 whether you have a one car or two car garage.
18:20:25 So almost all of them had a car hanging out if it was
18:20:29 out of a one-in tandem out of a one car garage.
18:20:33 We changed to the 18 --
18:20:35 >> For a single car garage.
18:20:37 I think it should be 18 for both a single and a double
18:20:40 car garage.
18:20:41 >> I hear you.
18:20:41 I think one of the reasons maybe it hasn't been
18:20:43 changed, you have a lot of 50-foot or lesser width
18:20:46 lots out there that can be developed.
18:20:48 So essentially also in overlay districts where you are
18:20:51 allowed maybe 40 feet or 35 feet in width.
18:20:57 Once you set things back farther and farther, you are
18:21:00 hitting the other line, eventually, you are also
18:21:01 creating more impervious area on the property as well
18:21:02 because it does have to be a hard surface that leads
18:21:06 into the garage.
18:21:06 It's purely a policy decision. If you want to
18:21:08 increase it you can certainly direct --

18:21:10 >> Well, two, things, one, they can always go for a
18:21:13 variance if they have a smaller lot.
18:21:15 Or PD.
18:21:17 Number two, on the pervious, they can always do the
18:21:23 pervious blocks instead of concrete.
18:21:28 >>CATHERINE COYLE: They company.
18:21:29 It's your decision at this point.
18:21:35 If you do want to change it you have to basically make
18:21:37 that direction, and then continue it.
18:21:39 We would have to bring it back to change.
18:21:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It's a legislative matter.
18:21:49 This isn't quasi-judicial.
18:21:50 I mean, our attorneys seem to have fled.
18:21:53 So I'll make the decision now.
18:21:56 [ Laughter ]
18:21:57 No, it's a legislative process.
18:22:00 I would agree with you on quasi-judicial because when
18:22:02 we make changes you don't want to pencil them in but
18:22:05 in case we are tweaking the code and if it says 10 and
18:22:08 we want to change it to 18 for the two-family --
18:22:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: That was my understanding.
18:22:15 I would defer to Julia.

18:22:17 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Ms. Cole is coming in. I want to be
18:22:19 sure she understand it is issues as well.
18:22:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Be the question is procedural.
18:22:24 If I make a change to this ordinance that we are in
18:22:27 because we are in a legislative process, not
18:22:30 quasi-judicial, instead of number 10 it would read 18
18:22:33 feet instead of 10 feet.
18:22:34 Cathy is saying normally she wouldn't want to do that
18:22:37 as we speak right here.
18:22:38 But I don't see why we wouldn't.
18:22:40 It not quasi-judicial.
18:22:42 I don't think it violates our rules.
18:22:43 >>JULIA COLE: Technically you make changes between
18:22:46 first and second reading.
18:22:49 The outside is the intent.
18:22:51 So title of the ordinance isn't the biggest thing to
18:22:58 worry about but what Ms. Coyle may be concerned with
18:23:01 is if there's some on the embassy relating to that
18:23:04 issue, and so that -- actually she's correct.
18:23:08 The diagram that I was telling you about is not
18:23:10 actually part of this ordinance, because this change
18:23:13 just clarifies how we administer the code, clarifies

18:23:17 the diagram.
18:23:17 I would actually have to bring the diagram in and add
18:23:20 it to the ordinance.
18:23:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Instead of belaboring it since it's
18:23:23 a little more complicated than I thought, when we are
18:23:27 done voting on this I'll just make a side motion to
18:23:30 look at it next cycle.
18:23:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a public hearing.
18:23:32 Anyone wishing to address council on this item, item
18:23:35 3.
18:23:35 Anyone wishing to address council on item 3?
18:23:38 Motion to close.
18:23:38 >> Second.
18:23:39 (Motion carried).
18:23:41 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move it?
18:23:45 >> Yes.
18:23:49 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have to say I'm moving this with
18:23:52 pleasure, and I want to cowl out Mr. Crumbley in the
18:23:58 audience who has been -- call out Mr. Crumbley in the
18:24:01 audience.
18:24:01 Move an ordinance of the city of Tampa, Florida making
18:24:03 comprehensive revisions to city testimony code of

18:24:06 ordinances chapter 27 zoning amending section 27-77,
18:24:11 official schedule of district regulations, amending
18:24:13 section 27-132, solid waste storage area, amending
18:24:17 section 27-137, single-family semi detached design
18:24:22 standards, amending section 27-137.3, single-family
18:24:26 attached design standards, amending section 27-137.4,
18:24:31 multifamily townhouse-style design standards,
18:24:33 repealing all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
18:24:36 conflict therewith, providing for severability,
18:24:40 providing an effective date.
18:24:41 >> Moved and seconded.
18:24:43 Seconded by councilman Miranda.
18:24:44 (Motion carried).
18:24:47 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Mulhern being absent
18:24:49 at vote.
18:24:50 Second reading and adoption will be on December
18:24:52 4th at 9:30 a.m.
18:24:53 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council, did you want to make --
18:24:56 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes, thank you.
18:24:58 Just to have Cathy address that double car garage in
18:25:03 the section cycle with recommendations of, you know,
18:25:05 just a general discussion when we workshop that.

18:25:08 >> Second.
18:25:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
18:25:12 (Motion carried)
18:25:13 Item number 4.
18:25:15 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:25:17 If you recall, these are the changes to the currently
18:25:20 adopted vendor regulations.
18:25:22 Just so you know, there are many people in the
18:25:25 audience that either represent vendors or are vendors,
18:25:28 and from I gathered when I spoke briefly with a few of
18:25:31 them outside that they represent an array of types.
18:25:35 Currently we have five types that are regulated,
18:25:37 annual vendors, which stay on the property year by
18:25:40 year.
18:25:41 We have special event vendors, which is specifically
18:25:43 given permits to operate during a city special event,
18:25:47 block party or street festival.
18:25:49 We have Ybor City vendors, which are specifically
18:25:52 within Ybor City historic district during a sanctioned
18:25:56 event.
18:25:56 And we have four entertainment vendors which are
18:25:59 allowed within three areas of the city around the

18:26:02 forum, Raymond James, and Legends Field.
18:26:04 And we also have temporary vendors which are allowed
18:26:08 on properties that are either zoned or used for
18:26:10 nonresidential purposes, and those are granted in
18:26:15 current code three times a year for 30 days at a time.
18:26:20 And those can be anything from fireworks to Christmas
18:26:25 trees, pumpkins, a guy setting up on a weekend to car
18:26:31 detailing, it can be any number of things.
18:26:33 Barbecue salesman, to set up for special function as
18:26:37 well.
18:26:38 Just to remind you, the code prior to 2007 vaguely
18:26:43 prohibited vendors in the city.
18:26:47 I say vaguely because it was interpreted to allow
18:26:51 vendors, we created a hybrid process to give these
18:26:55 permits or placards, it was an interpretation that was
18:26:58 done, to give these placards to vendors in the city.
18:27:01 The thought process was that if you have got
18:27:03 commercial property, you can have sales.
18:27:06 The way the code worked at that time was you really
18:27:10 were supposed to build a building on the site and
18:27:12 generate some kind of sales, start up a business.
18:27:15 There was under the previous administration this

18:27:17 hybrid process that was generated creating this
18:27:19 placard system which many of the people in the
18:27:21 audience received at that time.
18:27:23 The problem with that process was that the
18:27:25 enforceability really was an issue.
18:27:27 It was very difficult for code enforcement or for TPD
18:27:30 or for any other agency to site or remove these items.
18:27:35 Many of the vendors in the audience, I would assume,
18:27:37 were operating legally.
18:27:39 However, there were many complaints by people in
18:27:41 different neighborhoods for vendors that would just
18:27:43 show up and not operate properly.
18:27:48 So there was a version of the vendor regulation that
18:27:51 came about in 2004.
18:27:53 And a couple of you were members of council at that
18:27:55 time.
18:27:56 There wasn't the will necessarily to adopt that
18:27:59 regulation at that time. There was discussion whether
18:28:00 or not vendors should be allowed at all in the city,
18:28:02 whether we should leave it prohibited or allow them in
18:28:05 some fashion.
18:28:06 That ordinance stalled.

18:28:08 In 2007 we brought it back.
18:28:11 I brought it back to you, that 2004 version.
18:28:14 And I basically laid out that we need a decision,
18:28:17 either prohibit them or allow them because we had a
18:28:20 code enforcement, and policing problem with it.
18:28:26 However, that 2004 regulation, or 2004 regulation that
18:28:30 was adopted in 2007, I freely admitted in our last
18:28:34 workshop it was a very onerous requirement, did it
18:28:37 require specifically that our undeveloped properties
18:28:40 were not allowed to be used for vending, you had to
18:28:42 have bathroom facilities, very limited on how many
18:28:46 permits could be granted for certain types of vendors.
18:28:49 It was a very high barrier to entry for these smaller
18:28:53 businesses, these start-up businesses, and what we
18:28:56 brought before you this go around was a lessening of
18:28:59 the regulation to try to address many of the people to
18:29:02 come in on a daily basis.
18:29:04 We turn away many, many vendors from our office that
18:29:07 are just trying to start up the barbecue guy and some
18:29:10 of the Exxon mobile.
18:29:13 The one that came before you on appeal, the picture
18:29:18 truck that is set up on 22nd street that serve the

18:29:20 kids when they got out of high school, those types of
18:29:24 businesses that we turn away on a daily basis we are
18:29:28 trying to address with you in this change.
18:29:29 Specifically as we workshop them, the big changes
18:29:33 across the board where you can be on undeveloped
18:29:36 property and do you not have to provide bathroom
18:29:38 facilities, the change that Mr. Dingfelder directed
18:29:41 was that if there are bath bathrooms on-site, they
18:29:45 should be made available when the property owner is
18:29:48 there, if they can.
18:29:50 It's a basic statement.
18:29:52 It says one available.
18:29:57 Also, there was a very strong setback requirement on
18:30:00 the annual vendors of 150 feet from the right-of-way,
18:30:04 which is a very onerous requirement, and many of them
18:30:07 got turned away, because you had to be either on the
18:30:09 side of the building or 150 feet away.
18:30:13 At basically a zero setback there's no place to place
18:30:17 a vendor which eliminated many of the areas where you
18:30:21 allowed vendors to go on.
18:30:28 The other requirements specifically, special event
18:30:31 vendors have not been amended.

18:30:33 We haven't had any issues with those.
18:30:34 And the Ybor City vendors have not been amended.
18:30:36 We haven't had an issue with you those.
18:30:38 All the Guavaween comments that came through.
18:30:42 Specifically for the sports entertainment vendors, the
18:30:46 signage that was allowed, 10 square feet, we increased
18:30:50 it to 12 to match the county's regulations.
18:30:52 We eliminated the bathroom requirements.
18:30:54 We are allowing them on undeveloped properties, as I
18:30:58 said.
18:30:58 We also have a limitation of setting up two hours
18:31:01 before the event and leaving the site one hour after
18:31:03 the event.
18:31:05 And especially with food vendors.
18:31:07 We have had a very regimented enforcement process out
18:31:11 there coordinated between TPD, land development and
18:31:14 code enforcement and would he have been going every
18:31:16 single weekend when the games or event are going on
18:31:19 monitoring the different vendors.
18:31:22 And especially with food vendors they need to set up
18:31:25 prior to two hours to prepare the food.
18:31:27 So it just so happened a lot of them are setting up

18:31:29 earlier than two hours so we extended it to four hours
18:31:34 before the event and two hours after to make sure they
18:31:36 can completely clean the site.
18:31:38 The temporary vendors, we have the breaking point of a
18:31:44 25-acre site.
18:31:45 If you recall I brought up sites like Raymond James
18:31:47 and MOSI, the sites that are very large, 25 acres or
18:31:51 more in the city.
18:31:52 Those sites actually are allowed to have unlimited
18:31:55 temporary permits.
18:31:58 And then, council, I had 12 permits originally.
18:32:02 Council did limit that to 6 permits per year, 45 days
18:32:06 for each.
18:32:07 In the current code it's three permits per year at 30
18:32:10 days.
18:32:11 So this is a doubling of the allowed permit.
18:32:13 And it's an increase from 30 to 45 days in the
18:32:17 duration of the permit.
18:32:18 I'm speaking a little slowly and trying to make it
18:32:20 clear for people in the audience as well.
18:32:22 Also for the temporary vendors, we did also have a 10
18:32:26 square foot permit -- 10 square foot size limit on the

18:32:31 signage.
18:32:31 We actually amended that to allow people that had
18:32:35 tents, the large tents for pumpkins and so on, we are
18:32:36 treating those tents as buildings under the sign code
18:32:40 and they are able to get the signage that's equivalent
18:32:42 to a standard building under the sign code, which is
18:32:44 currently one and a quarter square foot per linear
18:32:48 footage, ten square feet, because it is on a temporary
18:32:52 basis.
18:32:52 So that should accommodate many of the sign needs for
18:32:55 that particular type of use.
18:33:00 Basically at the request of one of the vendors than we
18:33:03 did speak with before the regulation through the
18:33:06 process, there was a request that the hours change for
18:33:09 temporary vendors to 11:00 on Friday and Saturday.
18:33:12 Saturday and I did present that at the workshop.
18:33:14 Council did choose to leave it at 9:00.
18:33:17 Just to make that clear for the audience.
18:33:19 And there was a requirement that these types of
18:33:21 vendors stay 250 feet away from alike business, a
18:33:25 permanent business, and that requirement was stricken,
18:33:27 also.

18:33:27 It actually isn't terribly legal to enforce that type
18:33:35 of separation.
18:33:35 Those are the general changes.
18:33:38 I know that there are some additional changes
18:33:39 potentially that some of the members of the vendor
18:33:44 group may want.
18:33:46 I'm highly recommending that we get this passed now.
18:33:48 I do have an example of one that just came in for
18:33:51 temporary vendor.
18:33:52 We actually have to deny it under current code because
18:33:55 it is on a vacant parcel.
18:34:00 And that there are no bathroom facility.
18:34:01 So I wanted to bring it as an example of actually
18:34:06 denying them and having them come on appeal.
18:34:08 It's ridiculous for me especially for someone that's
18:34:10 going to be out there for a couple of weeks selling
18:34:12 something.
18:34:12 I would highly recommend that we do pass this so we
18:34:15 lower the barrier for entry, and if there are
18:34:17 additional changes in the future, that either the
18:34:19 members of the public are certainly able to privately
18:34:22 petition with an ordinance, or I can certainly work

18:34:26 with them in the future to figure out any additional
18:34:28 changes that are needed.
18:34:30 Thank you.
18:34:33 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Cathy, how does this affect the
18:34:36 clean zone that we set up for the Super Bowl?
18:34:38 >>> The clean zone is its own ordinance with its own
18:34:43 regulation.
18:34:44 Vendors do have to follow the special use process
18:34:47 contained within this regulation.
18:34:48 But there are separate distance requirements and other
18:34:51 things in that clean zone ordinance that override some
18:34:53 of our requirements.
18:34:56 They have their own security measures.
18:34:57 I believe they have their own bathroom facilities and
18:35:00 things.
18:35:00 So if anything, this ordinance that we have, I think
18:35:05 that lessens the requirements but makes it easier and
18:35:08 facilitates a better permitting process for any
18:35:12 vendor.
18:35:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: This is a public hearing.
18:35:15 Anyone wishing to speak to council may come forward.
18:35:17 Anyone wishing to address council on item 4 may come

18:35:20 forward.
18:35:20 Yes.
18:35:20 >>> Tom Pressman, U.S. highway 19 north, Clearwater,
18:35:26 Florida.
18:35:27 I'm here tonight as a representative for galaxy
18:35:30 fireworks.
18:35:31 And I guess I have kind of become an indirect
18:35:34 representative for quite a number of vendors who are
18:35:36 here this evening.
18:35:38 If you will all raise your hand, vendors.
18:35:43 There's an old saying that watching government make
18:35:46 laws is a lot like watching sausage being made.
18:35:49 It's ugly.
18:35:50 It's not appetizing.
18:35:51 It's pretty gross.
18:35:52 And that's unfortunately what happened here.
18:35:56 And this dates back to 2004.
18:35:57 We stood before you in 2004.
18:36:01 A number of you were here.
18:36:02 In fact I think I saw you in 'oh 04 as well there.
18:36:07 Were a lot of problems with it, a lot of issues and
18:36:09 council did not move forward with it.

18:36:11 Mr. Dingfelder, I think you were a freshman at the
18:36:14 time.
18:36:14 And we were communicating at the time that the vendors
18:36:16 community would be communicated and made aware of when
18:36:19 things were changing or happening.
18:36:22 In 2008 as Cathy indicated a lot of work on this, all
18:36:27 those problems, all those issues came through to the
18:36:30 2007, 2008, and the main problem tonight is that the
18:36:32 vendor community was never touched base with, never
18:36:35 communicated with, and most of these folks here
18:36:37 tonight were will go for the ordinance in the hallway.
18:36:40 We stumbled upon it a couple weeks ago, we met with
18:36:43 Kathryn, tried to make some changes, and she has been
18:36:46 responsive and there have been changes made, but the
18:36:48 fact is the main point, the vendor community had no
18:36:51 input, no feedback, and is one of the prime
18:36:54 stakeholders who was not involved in the process.
18:36:58 Kathryn is also right that the ordinance before you
18:37:00 tonight is basically a fix ordinance.
18:37:04 The vendor ordinances are just not real good.
18:37:06 They aren't working real good.
18:37:08 They are inoperable.

18:37:09 They cause legitimate people and business people to be
18:37:11 denied.
18:37:12 Yet at the same time if this passes, galaxy fireworks
18:37:16 and some of their sites would not be granted permits.
18:37:18 There are problems that are flowing through from '04
18:37:21 that are still part of this proposed ordinance.
18:37:24 What we would like to ask you tonight is three things.
18:37:27 First, we would like a directive from council to work
18:37:32 with the vendor industry -- and there's a lot of folks
18:37:35 here tonight, I think eight or ten folks here who are
18:37:38 vendors, to take the entire ordinance back from '04,
18:37:42 globally look at it, review it, discuss it, make
18:37:45 changes, and bring another version back to the
18:37:48 council.
18:37:49 The second element is that we do believe the ordinance
18:37:51 before you, this fixed ordinance does need to be
18:37:55 passed.
18:37:56 There are legally, as you know, a lot of problems.
18:38:00 This will fix some of them.
18:38:02 There will still be other problems.
18:38:04 And third, we would also like to look at enforcement.
18:38:10 Kathryn looked at enforcement.

18:38:11 Quite frankly there is no enforcement.
18:38:13 We are the folks, the folks here are the ones who pay
18:38:16 the permit fees, submit the papers, live by the rules,
18:38:20 we are the guys who are killed when some guy moves in
18:38:23 right next door, hasn't done a darn legal thing,
18:38:26 followed no restrictions.
18:38:28 So enforcement is a critical part.
18:38:31 I can go through some specific things but I don't know
18:38:33 FHP that's going to get us anywhere tonight.
18:38:35 I think I stated three points we believe need to be
18:38:39 done tonight.
18:38:40 We are not happy with what is before you.
18:38:41 But again, we think it's critical that stakeholders
18:38:45 are involved.
18:38:46 There has been, the last point, there has been a lot
18:38:48 of effort made to bring this ordinance to citizens and
18:38:53 citizen groups and that feedback tonight and
18:38:56 unfortunately vendor folks have not.
18:38:58 We appreciate your time and attention.
18:38:59 Thank you.
18:39:04 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I would like to ask one question of
18:39:06 Cathy or legal department F.status quo were to prevail

18:39:09 and no changes made, then we fall back into which
18:39:12 ordinance?
18:39:16 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The current ordinance.
18:39:17 >> And this prohibits what?
18:39:18 A lot more than this one.
18:39:19 >>> Correct.
18:39:21 >> What I am trying to do is meet the middle road.
18:39:24 But if I go back and don't do anything today, it
18:39:29 might, instead of helping these good people, may hurt
18:39:31 them even more.
18:39:32 Because the ones that are here today, I guarantee,
18:39:36 council members, are the one that is are doing it
18:39:37 right just like was addressed a second earlier.
18:39:40 But what's been happening is this -- you have an
18:39:42 individual who got a residential piece of property.
18:39:45 He puts a commercial venue in there, with a vendor.
18:39:48 Vendor doesn't know what the zoning is.
18:39:50 Now one or two in the property right next to
18:39:55 residential dwelling, and this happens -- it wouldn't
18:39:59 happen in a lot of neighborhoods but it's happening
18:40:01 all over district 6.
18:40:03 I shouldn't say all over.

18:40:04 All over parts of district 6.
18:40:06 Let me rephrase that.
18:40:08 And these are the things, there will be some smiles
18:40:11 back there, but these are the things that it's very
18:40:13 noticeable when you drive.
18:40:15 Through the city.
18:40:16 And I want to help.
18:40:17 But, at the same time, I don't want to tell you I'm
18:40:19 going to help you and don't do anything, and you fall
18:40:22 back on the ordinance that is even much more stringent
18:40:25 than this one is.
18:40:27 That's what I want to bring out.
18:40:30 >>CATHERINE COYLE: If I could clarify two points as
18:40:32 far as contacting the vendor industry.
18:40:36 If communication fell through the cracks in 2004 when
18:40:39 I picked it up in 2007, I certainly do apologize for
18:40:41 that.
18:40:42 I truly was reacting on the contact that I have daily
18:40:46 with people as we turn them away.
18:40:48 It was an informal and direct contact but it certainly
18:40:50 was dealing with our daily customers, 10, 15, 20 of
18:40:54 them coming in saying, sorry, you have to go away,

18:40:56 sorry, I can't give you a permit.
18:40:58 And second, as far as enforcement, if council recalls
18:41:00 just a couple months ago you did pass the vendor
18:41:05 citation.
18:41:06 Someone is out there operating without a placard,
18:41:08 without an approved permit, they will be issued a
18:41:10 civil citation which is a $75 fine for the first
18:41:13 offense and then goes up accordingly.
18:41:15 We do have an enforcement mechanism for these as well.
18:41:20 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
18:41:23 We can't hear you.
18:41:35 Speak into the microphone.
18:41:36 >> We are talking about the Raymond James stadium.
18:41:38 Last time I was called was the owner of the property,
18:41:42 who is John Ferrier here.
18:41:43 And my problem is that he's given permission on a
18:41:47 residential piece of property.
18:41:48 And we have been doing it for three years.
18:41:51 And he's given permission to do it.
18:41:53 And want to see if we can deal with that issue so we
18:41:56 can get back out.
18:42:00 >> State your name again for the record.

18:42:01 >> George Smith.
18:42:02 >> My name is Swopez.
18:42:06 >> This is the property.
18:42:11 We are here --
18:42:17 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to --
18:42:20 this is really not what we are discussing right now.
18:42:22 This is a different set of circumstances within the
18:42:24 circumstances.
18:42:25 It's very hard to express that.
18:42:29 You cannot have in the city, it's an ordinance, not
18:42:32 this ordinance, it's an ordinance that you must have
18:42:34 the land zoning, you can't have a bar, I can't,
18:42:39 tomorrow open up a bar on a lot next to my own house
18:42:43 because I want to do that.
18:42:45 You have got to have the zoning of the land subpoena
18:42:48 what goes with the building that's on that property,
18:42:50 or the right to have something on that property.
18:42:53 So it's a zoning issue that has to be -- and the
18:42:57 Planning Commission and the attorney can deal with
18:42:59 that.
18:43:00 They are better qualified to express it than I am.
18:43:02 But I believe that when you have a piece of property,

18:43:05 it is the zoning of the property that allows you or
18:43:08 does not allow to you do certain things within that
18:43:11 property.
18:43:13 And the legal department can help me out.
18:43:17 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
18:43:18 You're absolutely correct.
18:43:19 In order to address this particular issue, that's much
18:43:22 broader than what you have in front of you and that's
18:43:24 really looking at the residential zoning district and
18:43:27 providing an opportunity to receive and question these
18:43:29 permits within a residential zoning district.
18:43:32 And we can't streak this ordinance.
18:43:37 If that's something the city want to look into that
18:43:41 would have to be put off and have to be load at.
18:43:43 I think that if you did that, I mean, that's a pretty
18:43:47 serious policy question for you.
18:43:48 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Has staff met with them to address
18:43:53 their issue and their concern?
18:43:54 What I'm hearing, you have been on the residential
18:43:59 stadium, residential property, and doing Barb can you
18:44:02 for three years, and now you have been told you can't
18:44:04 do that.

18:44:05 So have you met with the zoning administrator here?
18:44:10 >>> No, Weaver not.
18:44:12 We were told we would not be granted a permit at all.
18:44:20 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:44:21 Issue is that the property is zoned residential
18:44:23 currently.
18:44:24 And Julia is correct.
18:44:26 The sole purpose of those residential districts is for
18:44:28 residential uses.
18:44:29 It is a much larger policy discussion.
18:44:31 Given the comments from Mr. Pressman and given the
18:44:33 comments I'm sure that are to come, I would almost
18:44:36 recommend that maybe that March workshop we bring up
18:44:38 ordinances following alcohol, and we discuss some of
18:44:41 these broader issues, because I can say as staff we
18:44:44 certainly discussed especially around these three
18:44:47 sports entertainment areas, the forum, Raymond James,
18:44:50 and Legends Field, of almost creating more attention
18:44:55 like a permanent clean zone area that deals and
18:44:58 addresses these issues by events that maybe even
18:45:02 though it's zoned residential that we capture this
18:45:05 somehow in a defined boundary, so these activity could

18:45:09 occur.
18:45:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we can bring this back in the March
18:45:11 workshop and look at that, is your recommendation.
18:45:13 >>> I would think so, and try to get it into the July
18:45:17 cycle to get this addressed.
18:45:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
18:45:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I know we have a lot of other things
18:45:22 to hear tonight but I know this gentleman has been
18:45:24 here twice.
18:45:25 And I think it would be worth -- I would like to hear
18:45:27 from councilman Miranda because that's your district,
18:45:31 at least -- is this something that you think is --
18:45:39 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me say this, and thank you, but
18:45:41 it's not what I think but what the law says.
18:45:43 Way think could be one thing but the law I think
18:45:45 prohibits that as it is today.
18:45:46 The law also prohibits you from having -- park cars in
18:45:52 your building and your area unless you have a
18:45:54 building.
18:45:55 And I would like to take that part out because people
18:45:57 that live around that area, you are in jail from two
18:46:00 or three hours before the event, to two or three hours

18:46:03 after the event, you can't get in and you can't get
18:46:05 out of your house unless you have a hell commenter.
18:46:08 And that doesn't work too well either.
18:46:12 But what I am saying is, I tried to change one, and
18:46:16 that's because I feel compelled that if you have a
18:46:18 house and you have two lots, one in which you live and
18:46:21 the other one which you garden in or whatever you want
18:46:23 to do there, and you can't get in and out of your
18:46:25 house and you can only park cars in your front yard,
18:46:29 ten cars, five cars, whatever, the lot is got to be
18:46:33 empty according to the law.
18:46:34 And again correct me if I am wrong if I am wrong,
18:46:36 legal.
18:46:37 Now I say why not use the other lot?
18:46:39 Let's you get the revenue for being in jail in your
18:46:41 own residence to pay.
18:46:47 But I'm not for.
18:46:48 This I can tell you right now, I am not going to
18:46:50 change this, because this will lead to a Domino
18:46:54 effect, and you are going to have it in every part of
18:46:57 the city, you are going to have vendors in residential
18:47:00 lots, doing everything.

18:47:02 And that would be a chaotic situation.
18:47:05 And I apologize to these gentlemen, but that's exactly
18:47:08 how I feel.
18:47:09 You will have a chaotic situation in the city, and you
18:47:12 won't have enough code enforcement officers to patrol
18:47:15 the streets if this happens.
18:47:17 You will have chaotic situation in the City of Tampa
18:47:21 with no control of what's going on throughout the
18:47:23 whole city.
18:47:25 That's just my opinion.
18:47:26 >>MARY MULHERN: So is it the parking and the vending
18:47:32 you think goes --
18:47:34 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: No, they don't go hand in hand.
18:47:36 I just brought it up to give an example of what's
18:47:37 going on.
18:47:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilman.
18:47:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I was just going to agree with you,
18:47:43 Charlie, looking at the ordinance we are about to
18:47:45 adopt, the critical part of the ordinance starts out
18:47:48 by saying all of the temporary annual, you know,
18:47:52 temporary and annual vendors, annual vendors shall be
18:47:55 allowed on the part of the property that has been

18:47:56 zoned or used for commercial nonresidential purposes.
18:47:59 I mean, that's the core of this whole thing.
18:48:03 I can a sure you if we budge from that, you know, we
18:48:05 are going to have 20 people running up to the
18:48:08 microphone saying, what are you doing?
18:48:10 Because it's crazy.
18:48:12 On a stadium basis, yeah, it might make some sense,
18:48:15 and we probably should look at developing a hybrid,
18:48:17 which Cathy can do this coming year.
18:48:20 But on a city-wide basis, it's insanity and he would
18:48:24 can't even consider it.
18:48:25 I think we are all in agreement on that.
18:48:26 But Cathy, I'm a little concerned about time.
18:48:29 Because if you start this in March, and then you go
18:48:32 into June and you transmit it, they have got a
18:48:35 football season that is their mainly livelihood in
18:48:40 starting in August.
18:48:42 So I just want to make sure that our timing is such
18:48:44 that if we have an intent to try to create this hybrid
18:48:50 that you are talking about that we can do it quick
18:48:51 enough so they can at least hit next year's season.
18:48:54 There's nothing we can do for you on this year's

18:48:56 season.
18:48:56 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
18:48:58 What we are up against is a deadline for the January
18:49:00 cycle which would be effective July 1st
18:49:03 tentatively.
18:49:04 Unfortunately, there's no work shown in December.
18:49:06 You can certainly make a motion for if you want to put
18:49:09 that the way, the way that I did is creating kind of a
18:49:13 hybrid permanent clean zone around those three
18:49:16 specific sports entertainment areas.
18:49:18 I can certainly look into that in December and
18:49:20 certainly bring something in the January cycle.
18:49:22 And then it's really up to you at that point through
18:49:25 the workshop process to --
18:49:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I think it would be sensitive to
18:49:29 this issue.
18:49:31 >>> It's the St. Pete Times Forum, Raymond James
18:49:36 stadium and Legends Field.
18:49:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I don't know that we need to do
18:49:42 anything downtown, because we don't have that
18:49:44 residential issue.
18:49:46 That I'm aware of.

18:49:50 Anyway, you look at it and see if it's applicant to
18:49:53 believe these other facilities.
18:49:55 But I think in regard to Raymond James I am Gulf of
18:49:57 Mexico to make a suggestion, I don't know if a motion
18:50:00 is appropriate, that we expedite it and get it into
18:50:02 the January cycle.
18:50:04 Otherwise --
18:50:05 >>> I would prefer a motion that actually conducts me
18:50:09 to the work.
18:50:09 >> Whenever the motion is appropriate.
18:50:11 >> And let me ask an additional question based on what
18:50:14 Mr. Miranda said about the parking.
18:50:15 I read the provision today on the special event
18:50:17 parking.
18:50:18 It's under section 27-246, that says specifically the
18:50:21 property has to be developed with a single-family
18:50:23 residential structure.
18:50:24 If the intent is to allow on a vacant lot I would
18:50:27 suggest that be placed in that motion as well, because
18:50:29 that's a line fix in the code.
18:50:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: One second, Mr. Chairman.
18:50:38 We are getting two things in here that are very

18:50:41 sensitive to a lot of people.
18:50:42 But let me say this.
18:50:44 Once you start giving hybrids in a residential lot to
18:50:49 do commercial business without the land being zoned,
18:50:52 in essence, you are zoning the property without a
18:50:54 zoning hearing.
18:50:57 And that's what bothers me the most.
18:50:59 And sooner or later, that property owner is going to
18:51:03 come back and just like these gentlemen came back for
18:51:05 three years, I have been doing business, and now I got
18:51:11 caught.
18:51:11 I speed some of the time, not all of the time.
18:51:18 That doesn't mean I'm immune and not getting a ticket.
18:51:22 So they got caught.
18:51:24 You should be grateful that you had three years that
18:51:26 you didn't get caught, is what I am trying to say.
18:51:29 But if you go this route and you give that right and
18:51:33 the Planning Commission gets involved ten years later,
18:51:35 they have a record that this council at this time, and
18:51:41 a future council is going to say, well, these guys
18:51:44 gave it, ladies and gentlemen gave it, we should
18:51:46 rezone the property.

18:51:47 And that's not the way that process works.
18:51:54 >>THOMAS SCOTT: So we will continue this public
18:51:57 hearing.
18:51:58 Councilman Dingfelder can make a motion to take a look
18:52:01 at it and bring it back.
18:52:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Why don't we let the rest of the
18:52:05 public--
18:52:06 >> That's what I say.
18:52:07 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Oh, continue.
18:52:08 I'm sorry.
18:52:09 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We are going to continue our public
18:52:10 hearing, and then he can come back and make a motion
18:52:14 to take a look at it.
18:52:15 >>> Thank you, City Council.
18:52:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
18:52:19 >>> My name is John Ferrier, the property owner where
18:52:26 I do the vending for the football games, and I think
18:52:30 what we are looking at is I understand, Mr. Miranda,
18:52:32 what you are saying about what's going to happen if
18:52:34 you do that and you allow everybody in the
18:52:36 neighborhood, it's going to turn into a flea market,
18:52:38 everybody is going to be out, everybody is going to be

18:52:42 vending.
18:52:43 When you look at the corner of Tampa Bay and you look
18:52:45 at Himes, there is approximately three copies that are
18:52:49 zoned -- properties that are zoned commercial, and
18:52:51 there's some residential properties that are right in
18:52:53 between them.
18:52:54 And I just don't think it's fair that you have a law
18:52:57 firm zoned for practicing law to have a residential
18:53:01 property right next to it and then you have a woman
18:53:04 who lives right here next door, and the only thing
18:53:07 dividing is a property line.
18:53:11 She can have a barbecue vendor but they can't.
18:53:13 And I just don't think that's fair.
18:53:15 So when councilman Dingfelder is talking about a
18:53:18 hybrid, I agree with what you are saying, Mr. Miranda.
18:53:21 But I think when you look at just the stadium, not
18:53:23 talking Channelside, if you just look at that area,
18:53:25 and you look at the situation, I think that's only
18:53:29 fair that when you have a situation, it's uncommon
18:53:31 that there's been some PDs and some rezonings in the
18:53:35 past from another council and now you have those
18:53:37 properties there that are zoned commercial.

18:53:40 And as residences, we own property too and we look
18:53:44 over and we see them allowed to have vendors, but he
18:53:47 can't come on my property and vend.
18:53:49 And I was just hoping that, you know, there is
18:53:51 something you guys can do about it.
18:53:54 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Let me answer two things since my
18:53:56 name was bra brought up.
18:53:58 First of all this council never rezoned that property
18:54:00 of the law firm.
18:54:01 That's number one.
18:54:02 And I am going to have the Planning Commission come in
18:54:04 and explain how that was done somewhere along the line
18:54:07 many years ago.
18:54:09 That's number one.
18:54:09 Number two, the corner that you brought up is one at
18:54:13 the intersection of Tampa Bay and Himes is a lot
18:54:16 different than the road between Columbus drive and
18:54:21 Tampa Bay Boulevard.
18:54:23 There is all residential on that side other than
18:54:25 property and the property that used to be the travel
18:54:28 agency that was there many, many years ago.
18:54:31 The property on the northeast corner of Tampa Bay,

18:54:38 used to park cars a hundred years ago, then they
18:54:41 changed, and they somehow got three restaurants, and
18:54:44 they started selling tickets, and the tickets allowed
18:54:48 you to go in there and drink and eat and the land was
18:54:51 not zoned for that.
18:54:53 They got shut down.
18:54:55 Am I correct?
18:54:57 >>> That's correct.
18:54:58 >> So we are dealing with these problems and
18:55:00 struggling with these problems.
18:55:02 If we continue to go down this route we are going to
18:55:04 have a city-wide problem instead of a neighborhood
18:55:06 problem, in a short district.
18:55:09 We are going to make this a problem that we will not
18:55:11 be able to control.
18:55:13 And that's all residential, from Himes all the way as
18:55:19 far as you can go.
18:55:20 It's all residential and should remain residential, in
18:55:24 my view.
18:55:24 That doesn't mean I'm right.
18:55:26 That means that that's what I think.
18:55:28 It should remain residential.

18:55:29 The properties that you spoke about, in the southeast
18:55:34 corner of that intersection of Tampa Bay, it was zoned
18:55:36 originally by a previous council for a bank.
18:55:42 That never materialized.
18:55:44 So that property is still vacant.
18:55:47 In fact, on the other side, there's still two
18:55:52 residents next to channel 28.
18:55:55 Now, we can go on, but the public here has got a
18:55:58 million things that they want to hear to, and we are
18:56:01 talking about something that's not really even on this
18:56:03 agenda.
18:56:03 And I would like to give you your right, but the city
18:56:10 has agreed to try to put this in January, and I have
18:56:14 no problem with that with hearing that issue at that
18:56:16 time.
18:56:16 So that's where we are at, Mr. Chairman.
18:56:20 >>> In closing, I just would encourage you at the end
18:56:24 of the hearing that you include us in that.
18:56:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
18:56:27 Next speaker.
18:56:30 >>> I'm Wolford Johnson, 465 Longfellow Avenue.
18:56:35 I'm here to talk specifically about the vendors, the

18:56:39 temporary vendors.
18:56:41 Because at the workshop that you had, and before that
18:56:51 Ms. Coyle had a meeting in this room, an informational
18:56:54 meeting, et cetera, so there's been ample
18:56:57 notification, I guess, because certain people did get
18:57:00 it.
18:57:00 I know Mr. Pressman was there at that informational
18:57:04 meeting and that was the week prior to coming to you
18:57:06 for the workshop.
18:57:10 There's a couple of areas in here that I would just
18:57:12 like to highlight and say, hey, this is where there
18:57:17 are problems for the neighborhood.
18:57:18 One is on the signage.
18:57:19 It was my understanding, I think Mr. Dingfelder made
18:57:26 the change, at your workshop it was decided the
18:57:28 signage for temporary vendors should be the same as it
18:57:31 is for other vendors.
18:57:32 Otherwise it doesn't make sense for our permanent
18:57:34 vendor, or annual vendor to have a certain size sign
18:57:37 and get with the temporary vendor.
18:57:40 You are giving them three, four, five, six times as
18:57:43 much signage.

18:57:44 And we look at one specific instance of situations,
18:57:49 actually on the corner of Columbus and Dale Mabry,
18:57:53 that fireworks tent that goes in there on public
18:57:56 property, incidentally, they have the big banners
18:58:01 there. And they don't really add to the
18:58:05 attractiveness of the area and they are going to be
18:58:09 there through a couple of Bucs games and the other
18:58:13 games.
18:58:13 It's something I think you need to look at very
18:58:15 closely and stick with the signage that was I thought
18:58:20 agreed to when you had your workshop.
18:58:27 That's really it from the standpoint of the hours of
18:58:31 operation, I strongly recommend that you stay with
18:58:34 that, and stick with that from the standpoint of a
18:58:37 9:00 end to that.
18:58:40 It's just better for the neighborhood and better for
18:58:42 the city.
18:58:42 You have got to remember that under state statute 791,
18:58:46 it is illegal for any citizen to explode fireworks
18:58:52 anywhere within the city neighborhoods.
18:58:55 It's my understanding that TPD received over 400
18:58:58 complaints regarding fireworks on the 4th of July

18:59:03 so it's a rather significant problem.
18:59:05 And I hope that you will go ahead and pass this and
18:59:07 move it on to second reading.
18:59:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
18:59:12 >>> Good afternoon.
18:59:14 My name is Hakeem Akhail and the reason I'm here is
18:59:22 because I am caught up in the dilemma myself.
18:59:23 Back in the year, I think, 2004, I was advised that I
18:59:28 need to come in compliance of what I was trying to do.
18:59:31 And I did that.
18:59:33 And now by this new city ordinance, I had code
18:59:38 enforcement come out and say I was no longer in
18:59:41 compliance.
18:59:41 So I went back down to land development and they say,
18:59:44 well, we don't have a problem, you know, with you, we
18:59:47 don't have nothing against you.
18:59:48 But the code say because there is a new vendor
18:59:53 ordinance, and I'm saying I'm not a vendor, I was at
18:59:55 the same location for 25 years, and doing the same
18:59:59 thing for 25 years.
19:00:00 So my problem is now that I need some kind of
19:00:04 special -- what I put in, because I am not a temporary

19:00:11 vendor.
19:00:11 After 25 years I couldn't be classified.
19:00:14 That and I own commercial property, and I have the fa.
19:00:18 So I really see that I am being violated by code
19:00:21 enforcement that doesn't really understand what I have
19:00:24 went through as a vendor, as a merchant, because when
19:00:28 I went to land development, they told me that what I
19:00:35 have, I have to be able to withstand, I forgot the
19:00:38 exact number, 350 degrees, I mean wind or whatever, so
19:00:41 the company sent a letter, a recommendation, and had a
19:00:46 general contractor, and he put his stamp of approval.
19:00:49 So I turn everything in.
19:00:51 So one day code enforcement came and said this is
19:00:53 what.
19:00:53 So now bring it down here.
19:00:57 But prior to that I had no information that I was in
19:00:59 violation for 25 years.
19:01:00 So basically that's what I was doing at the same
19:01:02 location.
19:01:03 So I'm asking the City Council to take under
19:01:05 consideration of my long jeopardy in that location,
19:01:08 and property that's zoned commercial, that this new

19:01:13 city ordinance that I would be exempt from that.
19:01:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Have you talked to staff?
19:01:18 Have you all talked with him?
19:01:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Would you come up?
19:01:24 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development. There was a
19:01:25 report to City Council I think about two weeks ago on
19:01:28 this particular issue.
19:01:29 There is a history of violation on this property
19:01:31 related to this particular vendor, as we call him.
19:01:35 He did try, I think back in 2004, he was directed to
19:01:39 go -- you have two tracts, essentially.
19:01:41 Thunder code you can either apply as an annual vendor
19:01:45 and renew every year or try to pull a building permit
19:01:49 to construct a permanent structure.
19:01:50 It has to meet the wind load, I believe 120 miles per
19:01:53 hour.
19:01:54 There were permits that were applied for, I believe in
19:01:57 2004.
19:01:58 Don't quote me on that because I don't have the memo
19:02:01 in front of me. The permits expire.
19:02:03 They were never finalized.
19:02:05 That structure does not meet our building code

19:02:07 requirements. There was no permit issued for that.
19:02:09 There is no grandfathering of vendors.
19:02:11 Vendors were as I said prohibited under the old code.
19:02:15 Any permit that is we did issue under that hybrid
19:02:18 process expired April 1st, 2008.
19:02:21 It was a temporary use.
19:02:23 Any new vendor coming in has to file the new
19:02:25 regulation.
19:02:26 He has the ability to apply under an annual vendor
19:02:28 permit.
19:02:29 Under the new code that's proposed tonight, at least
19:02:32 from what I recall he's more than likely approved but
19:02:35 I wouldn't be able to is a that for sure without
19:02:37 reviewing it.
19:02:38 So it's two tracts.
19:02:40 You can either go in as a commercial entity, construct
19:02:44 a building or a structure per building code and be
19:02:49 whatever that use is and get permits to use it or come
19:02:51 in as an annual vendor, not have to construct
19:02:54 anything, built to the building code.
19:02:56 You have to meet the general structural requirements
19:02:59 of the annual vendor requirements.

19:03:01 And then you simply renew every year.
19:03:03 Those are the two tracks that you have.
19:03:06 >> So have you met with him to explain that?
19:03:10 >> He met with my staff and I believe they went over
19:03:12 that with him.
19:03:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
19:03:16 >>> When I met with the staff, the T clarification,
19:03:20 based upon what the ordinance said, that will
19:03:22 automatically exclude me because she mentioned the
19:03:24 word cost.
19:03:29 What she says tonight was just something that we can
19:03:31 work with, and I have no problem with that.
19:03:35 I don't want to talk with staff.
19:03:36 I already talked with them and I don't feel that we
19:03:38 can really come to some conclusion.
19:03:40 If I had the assets to talk with her, I would do
19:03:45 whatever it takes to do because like I said I been
19:03:47 there 25 years.
19:03:48 So other than I like what I am doing, the community
19:03:52 supports what I am doing, I have been there for 25
19:03:54 years.
19:03:56 And I would definitely like her and I to meet and do

19:04:00 whatever needs to be done because it's a very simple
19:04:02 operation.
19:04:03 It's commercial property, and everything they say that
19:04:05 I need, I have.
19:04:07 Just the permit to do that.
19:04:09 And what I'm not given, what she said, the first time
19:04:12 I hear you because again in 2004 you are not -- if it
19:04:17 wasn't like that, then why wasn't I notified?
19:04:19 Why would it take four years almost to hear about it?
19:04:23 >>GWEN MILLER: You need to meet with Ms. Coyle and
19:04:28 give you direction on which way you need to go.
19:04:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have been getting complaints
19:04:33 about that particular location for 20 years.
19:04:36 It's not simple.
19:04:39 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Question.
19:04:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
19:04:45 Mrs. Saul-Sena was speaking.
19:04:46 Did you hear what she just said?
19:04:47 >> I have been receiving complaints.
19:04:49 This is not a dialogue.
19:04:50 I just wanted to share with you that I have been
19:04:52 severing complaints for 20 years about your operation.

19:04:57 So I know that you have fans.
19:05:00 But you also have people in the neighborhood who don't
19:05:02 think that it comports with the quality that the
19:05:06 neighborhood should have in terms of the structure.
19:05:08 >>> Well, I appreciate that, and that's being honest.
19:05:11 But again, you have to understand the longevity of 25
19:05:17 years and still educated eight children and been a
19:05:20 good pillar in the community.
19:05:21 So with more people, I believe is more supportive for
19:05:24 me being there than those who might criticize me.
19:05:27 >>THOMAS SCOTT: What I suggest is you get with Ms.
19:05:29 Coyle and she will give you the proper directions.
19:05:32 >>> No problem.
19:05:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: On that particular issue, and I was
19:05:37 listening in the back.
19:05:38 Excuse me.
19:05:39 The problem is, I heard the either/or.
19:05:46 So he either build a permanent something or other
19:05:50 which I think you described as pretty difficult to
19:05:52 comply with, wind loads and that sort of thing, or
19:05:57 he's a temporary vendor, which means that he can't
19:05:59 operate 365 days a year.

19:06:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No.
19:06:05 >>GWEN MILLER: Annual.
19:06:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Annual vendor and qualify.
19:06:08 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: He can qualify.
19:06:12 >>CHAIRMAN: Every year apply.
19:06:13 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
19:06:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I apologize, I misunderstood.
19:06:17 >>> There's a criteria for annual vendors, typically
19:06:21 some kind of cart system or umbrella system but
19:06:24 alternatives designs are permit sewed that would be
19:06:26 something that I would review.
19:06:27 >> So it's administratively approved.
19:06:31 Okay.
19:06:32 >>> My name is Susan Lyon.
19:06:34 I was not going to speak tonight.
19:06:36 But with all due respect to the gentleman who just
19:06:40 spoke, that he's been there for 25 years.
19:06:43 I have been working to try to get rid of him for 25
19:06:46 years.
19:06:48 I'm getting old and tired.
19:06:50 This man has jumped through every hoop, pulled every
19:06:55 stunt that can be pulled.

19:06:56 The neighbors were crying at T.H.A.N. last night.
19:07:02 We ate the code enforcement man for lunch and he was
19:07:06 one of the big things.
19:07:06 We spent two hours last night trying to figure out how
19:07:09 code enforcement can get rid of this vendor.
19:07:13 He has been a drag on that community.
19:07:16 We have done everything.
19:07:18 The reason we fight these vendors laws, and we are so
19:07:22 opposed to the people like that, that don't abide by
19:07:26 the rules.
19:07:27 They come up here and ask you all to do things.
19:07:30 You pass the laws.
19:07:33 They complain.
19:07:34 Drive Cathy craze.
19:07:36 So you change the rules.
19:07:38 All the rest of us have to live by rules.
19:07:40 Now, I'm sorry, but it's getting kind of tiring to
19:07:44 come up here and beg you all to live by their own
19:07:48 rules.
19:07:49 And somebody comes up here and cries.
19:07:52 Charlie said this guy was lucky because he had three
19:07:54 years working on a residential property.

19:07:58 Why didn't he rezone the property?
19:08:02 If they want a restaurant there, rezone it.
19:08:04 I'm surprised that people in this town are not livid
19:08:11 with a guy that puts up a little tent, runs a
19:08:15 business.
19:08:15 He does it on the busiest days.
19:08:17 He gets all the cream of the crop.
19:08:19 Guy who runs the business has to live by the rules.
19:08:21 He has to have a bathroom, he has to have no code
19:08:28 violations, the whole bit.
19:08:30 And some little guy comes along and says, oh, I'm a
19:08:34 nice also guy, I'm setting up a tent.
19:08:36 And nobody makes him move.
19:08:37 And code enforcement last night, well, we didn't know
19:08:43 that.
19:08:43 Well, somebody better find out, because this city
19:08:46 looks like a dump.
19:08:48 Thank you very much.
19:08:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
19:08:50 Anyone else?
19:08:51 Next speaker.
19:08:57 >> I'm Don Dixon, P and P fireworks.

19:09:01 I'm going to let Todd do my talking.
19:09:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: He can't speak now.
19:09:05 >> With great liberty if I may --
19:09:09 No.
19:09:09 Council rules prohibit that.
19:09:10 >> Misconstrued terribly.
19:09:13 >> Can't speak now.
19:09:14 That's council's rules.
19:09:19 >> Community organizer, I just want to say that the
19:09:23 City Council and concerns that the lady that just
19:09:26 left, addressed, that corner has been more than just a
19:09:34 business corner.
19:09:35 That corner been where a lot of people in this
19:09:38 community have gathered to try to give inspiration to
19:09:43 talk about politics, to register people to vote, to
19:09:48 doing a lot of good in this community.
19:09:50 A lot of people sitting on this council right now have
19:09:51 been promoted to come from that corner.
19:09:55 To become involved and to look at activism.
19:09:59 And I think to take a man from the corner, 25 years,
19:10:03 he hasn't had no felonies, a man who raised eight
19:10:07 children, to now make that a major issue in America's

19:10:11 next great city, to where we are going to have a full
19:10:15 City Council, and try for 25 years.
19:10:19 I just imagine that
19:10:25 Now this council sit here and one temporary City
19:10:31 Councilman named Frank Reddick came here, after 25
19:10:35 years, closed him down, and guess what's going on
19:10:39 right now, mess, people got killed there.
19:10:43 Now what happened?
19:10:47 So even though the temporary City Councilman led the
19:10:51 charge in getting it closed, it's doing the community
19:10:54 no good.
19:11:00 If he needs to get the lot cleaned up, whatever he
19:11:02 need to do to come in code, miss Cathy, let's come to
19:11:06 code and tray to maintain some decor and dignity.
19:11:10 And Ms. Lyons, I just wanted to say, hey, look, I been
19:11:19 asking you 25 years, and now I'm mad that you been
19:11:24 winning.
19:11:28 Let's meet.
19:11:28 Here are our concerns.
19:11:29 Let's try to get it out before it got to this point.
19:11:32 I just think it would be a tragedy if we don't try to
19:11:35 do something to fix it.

19:11:36 And for him to be allowed to operate from 2004 to now
19:11:41 and nobody from staff sent I am him a letter saying
19:11:43 you are in violation, code enforcement come there like
19:11:50 they are arresting a drug dealer or something, Mann
19:11:52 laundry, to close the man down.
19:11:54 It's just not fair.
19:11:55 Thank you.
19:11:56 >>GWEN MILLER: Let me correct you on that.
19:12:00 When I first got on council I started working to close
19:12:02 these and I'm the one that negotiated that to get it
19:12:05 closed, and the staff come down and let the people
19:12:10 know we were going to close it.
19:12:12 So it wasn't Frank Reddick.
19:12:14 >> Whoever it was, it was open -- let me say this.
19:12:17 >>GWEN MILLER: Had to keep calling the police.
19:12:21 You have to have a record.
19:12:22 >> My point of the matter, if you talk about laws to
19:12:31 do that, why does it take, you know, we are
19:12:34 complaining about not doing that.
19:12:36 >>GWEN MILLER: he will be there.
19:12:41 We are going to work with Catherine Coyle and he will
19:12:44 be an annual vendor.

19:12:46 He will be there.
19:12:47 >>> I appreciate that.
19:12:48 >>GWEN MILLER:
19:12:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I think Ms. Coyle said he has to meet
19:12:51 whatever the ordinance requirements are.
19:12:53 That's for anybody, they have to meet with the
19:12:54 administrator and then meet whatever requirements of
19:12:57 the ordinance are.
19:12:58 Yeah.
19:13:01 Anyone else?
19:13:02 Motion to close.
19:13:03 >>GWEN MILLER: So moved.
19:13:04 >> Second.
19:13:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Before we do, I don't want to
19:13:08 preclude Todd's gentleman from speaking himself.
19:13:14 I mean if he wanted to speak himself he can.
19:13:16 But we don't have a rule that would dump your time
19:13:19 off.
19:13:23 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion to close
19:13:24 signify by saying Aye.
19:13:26 Opposes?
19:13:27 (Motion carried).

19:13:27 Item number 4.
19:13:30 Councilwoman Mulhern.
19:13:34 >>MARY MULHERN: I move an ordinance being presented
19:13:36 for first reading consideration, an ordinance of the
19:13:38 city of Tampa, Florida making comprehensive revisions
19:13:41 to the City of Tampa code of ordinances chapter 27
19:13:44 zoning amending section 27-77 official schedule,
19:13:49 district regulation, amending section 27-177 historic
19:13:53 district established, amending section 27-272,
19:13:57 regulations governing individual special uses,
19:14:00 amending section 27-545, definitions, repealing all
19:14:04 ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict
19:14:07 therewith, providing for severability, providing an
19:14:10 effective date.
19:14:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second.
19:14:13 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
19:14:14 (Motion carried).
19:14:16 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Miranda and Caetano
19:14:21 absent at vote.
19:14:23 December 4th at 9:30 a.m. is second reading.
19:14:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I am going to make a motion
19:14:29 pursuant to Cathy's request that we expedite this

19:14:31 issue of the hybrid zonings around the various
19:14:35 stadiums to bring it to council in an earlier
19:14:39 workshop, so we can get it into the January cycle.
19:14:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there a second?
19:14:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY: May I ask when that is specifically,
19:14:48 council?
19:14:48 I have the calendar in front of me.
19:14:51 >>GWEN MILLER: The workshop is the fourth Thursday.
19:14:53 >> CATHY COYLE: Specifically the hybrid approach to
19:14:58 the hybrid clean zones around the three stadiums or
19:15:01 forum was to be put in the January cycle.
19:15:04 It would follow that normal course.
19:15:05 I would come to workshop with you probably in April
19:15:08 for that.
19:15:08 But I was going to draft it and just get it into the
19:15:11 cycle.
19:15:11 I thought that was a simple motion just to place it
19:15:13 in.
19:15:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My only goal is that it gets done
19:15:18 before the summer, that we adopt it before the summer.
19:15:21 So however you can practically pull that off, I would
19:15:26 like to just be flexible and come back to us, you

19:15:28 know, whenever appropriate.
19:15:32 >>> The second issue was specifically for the rest of
19:15:33 the people in the audience because there was a request
19:15:35 to generically talk about the vendor ordinance, was
19:15:39 placing this on the March cycle after the March
19:15:43 workshop at 1:30.
19:15:45 These people are on notice that at 1:30 p.m. March
19:15:48 whatever that date is, there's a workshop.
19:15:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's fine.
19:15:54 Let's deal with that separately now.
19:15:59 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have ooh question on the motion,
19:16:00 clarification.
19:16:00 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The motion first is to get the hybrid
19:16:05 all around the stadium for the January cycle.
19:16:09 Is there a second for that motion?
19:16:10 >>MARY MULHERN: Second if I can have a question.
19:16:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Second for discussion.
19:16:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Seconded for discussion.
19:16:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Somebody raised the issue.
19:16:20 I think it was Mr. Johnson that it's inappropriate for
19:16:24 temporary vendors to have signs that are larger than
19:16:27 what's normally allowed in our sign code.

19:16:30 Is what's being discussed right now the hybrid thing?
19:16:32 Does it address the size of signs on temporary
19:16:35 vendors?
19:16:36 >>> The hybrid approach we were discussing for the
19:16:41 next cycle?
19:16:42 >> Yes.
19:16:42 >>> That really addresses the vendors on residential
19:16:45 lots in those areas specifically around Raymond James,
19:16:51 the forum and Legends Field.
19:16:53 What he's discussing is the ordinance before you
19:16:55 tonight.
19:16:55 I.
19:16:56 >> You mean the one we just voted on?
19:16:58 >>> I don't believe you voted on it yet.
19:17:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Yes.
19:17:02 >>> Did you?
19:17:03 >> We approved vendors just now.
19:17:06 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Is that larger --
19:17:08 >>> It follows the standard sign code, correct.
19:17:13 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Anyway, I don't support the hybrid,
19:17:15 now that you have clarified it.
19:17:19 >>MARY MULHERN: Okay, my question on the motion is,

19:17:23 Mr. Dingfelder, I think you brought up a very good
19:17:25 point which I was thinking that this may be something
19:17:27 that has to do with Raymond James stadium and not so
19:17:32 much or maybe not at all with the lightning, and I
19:17:36 don't know about Legends Field.
19:17:39 I'm not sure we need to do that.
19:17:45 So I thought we were asking to expedite the Raymond
19:17:48 James --
19:17:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was my main focus.
19:17:52 >>MARY MULHERN: Sole I second your motion.
19:17:54 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:17:55 Only thing I can say on that particular issue,
19:17:57 depending on how this comes back to you, and be
19:18:00 careful if it going to be for the purposes of a sports
19:18:04 stadium, I don't want to get in a position where we
19:18:06 are allowing just one stadium and not the other
19:18:08 stadium.
19:18:08 Our recommendation, happy to bring it forward.
19:18:12 If you don't want to move forward with it then we can
19:18:14 look at that language.
19:18:16 >> A sports stadium in a residential neighborhood,
19:18:22 just like there are in cities all over the country,

19:18:28 for instance --
19:18:28 >>
19:18:31 >>> I think if we don't have a specific stadium.
19:18:34 >> And that was my point.
19:18:35 I don't really know if Legends Field -- you know, I
19:18:39 know it's in West Tampa, but -- or Drew Park, I guess.
19:18:43 But it's not so much -- there isn't as much
19:18:45 residential there. I don't know if there's any
19:18:47 directly around it.
19:18:50 >>> In terms of residential properties in sports
19:18:53 stadiums.
19:18:55 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
19:18:56 floor.
19:18:57 When you speak about stadiums and -- you have to
19:19:04 talk -- you are not speaking about one stadium, you
19:19:07 are speaking about all the stadiums and all the
19:19:09 stadiums aren't in residential districts.
19:19:10 When Lou at Plant High School, when you look at
19:19:13 Coleman, when you look at Robinson, when you look at
19:19:16 Jefferson, when you look at -- that's what we are
19:19:18 getting into, exactly what I feared.
19:19:20 You are going to have the same effect, and one that

19:19:22 will then be the hybrid for the next one and the next
19:19:25 one and the next one and the next one.
19:19:27 And we are going to be in a situation here where it
19:19:29 will be uncontrollable if this was to pass.
19:19:33 You cannot continue put the pressure on the
19:19:37 neighborhood.
19:19:38 What's happening in district 6 in that part of
19:19:40 district 6 is a monumental problem for the
19:19:44 neighborhood, much larger than anything I've ever
19:19:47 witnessed.
19:19:48 And we are going to see that happen all around the
19:19:51 neighborhood that has empty lots, that are not zoned
19:19:54 properly, that they will pop up because it's only
19:19:57 normal.
19:20:00 You are giving the people -- to do it, and they will
19:20:06 do it but I still think it not right.
19:20:08 And what I am trying to point is you have to be very
19:20:10 careful because you hear some individuals that are
19:20:12 having a hard time, and I understand that.
19:20:15 We are going to create something that's going to be a
19:20:18 hard thing to live with for many, many, many more
19:20:21 individuals.

19:20:22 And it's going to create a chaotic situation in this
19:20:25 city.
19:20:25 Thank you.
19:20:29 >>MARY MULHERN: We could refine the motion even more
19:20:32 and say professional sports stadiums.
19:20:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was the intent of my motion.
19:20:39 Listen, we are not adopting anything.
19:20:41 I think we have a problem over there, for us to just
19:20:47 put our heads in the sand and say that -- I'm just
19:20:53 saying that wave to make some progress, and maybe the
19:20:57 progress is to have staff look at it and come back to
19:21:00 us in December or January to see what conclusions they
19:21:04 come up with, if we don't like their conclusions then
19:21:06 we turn it down then.
19:21:07 But if we cut them off at the pass now, we don't know
19:21:10 what we are cutting them off at, Charlie.
19:21:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Well, for three years, five years,
19:21:17 two months, one month, they have been against what the
19:21:19 law says.
19:21:20 I cannot support a motion to help someone who
19:21:23 knowingly knows what the law was and violated the law.
19:21:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: And that's not --

19:21:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I made my own thing.
19:21:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'm not just doing this for them.
19:21:34 It's my understanding that there are other
19:21:35 circumstances along that same street where people are
19:21:38 either in violation of potentially in violation,
19:21:41 because -- and if it was just related to this one
19:21:44 property, I'd say, sir, rezone your property, and that
19:21:48 would be the solution.
19:21:49 But apparently we have more than just that one lot at
19:21:52 issue.
19:21:52 Cathy?
19:21:55 Is this just an isolated issue related to that one
19:21:57 parcel and that's why we are going to create a hybrid?
19:22:00 Or are we talking about multiple parcels that we need
19:22:03 to address and deal with?
19:22:05 >> Actually, Cathy Coyle, land development for the
19:22:10 record.
19:22:10 This particular issue, I became aware of it in the
19:22:13 last couple of days.
19:22:15 We actually talked about this issue for probably about
19:22:18 six months, because of other issues that have arisen.
19:22:21 It's a very strange situation.

19:22:23 And really what you have is a land use issue, a future
19:22:26 land use issue.
19:22:27 You have residential 10 land use on a four-lane
19:22:30 divided arterial highway across from a very large
19:22:33 sports arena.
19:22:35 It's a land issue.
19:22:36 A land use issue.
19:22:38 And so by creating this clean zone like you do
19:22:41 whenever we have a large event like this, it's a way
19:22:44 of doing it in the code, by granting kind of like --
19:22:47 it's a hybrid, kind of like a special exception.
19:22:50 There's a way to do it.
19:22:52 But I was thinking limited solely in those areas where
19:22:55 we do have continuing --
19:22:58 >> But it's not just to address this.
19:23:00 This gentleman, regardless of whether or not we are
19:23:03 sympathetic to them, that's not where my motion is
19:23:05 coming from.
19:23:06 >> It's merely a policy decision.
19:23:07 If council doesn't want it.
19:23:10 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: My point is let's wait and see what
19:23:12 you come up with in December or January so we know

19:23:15 what we are voting on.
19:23:16 Because right now I don't know what we are -- I don't
19:23:18 know what we are deciding.
19:23:19 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Ms. Coyle hasn't answered the
19:23:22 question.
19:23:23 How many properties are in that situation?
19:23:24 >> On residential 10?
19:23:27 You know, I can't give you the exact number.
19:23:30 >> Well, how many properties are there, residentials
19:23:32 that are using it for commercial in this area?
19:23:35 >> Residential land use?
19:23:36 Well, if you recall, I think it was the palm bank.
19:23:40 It was bank of St. Pete at one point.
19:23:42 The drive-through bank.
19:23:43 That's a residential 10 land use.
19:23:46 That one and several other offices have been rezoned
19:23:49 or given special uses to operate on residential 10
19:23:52 land use out of commercial properties.
19:23:53 >> But that's commercial property.
19:23:55 >>> As it's zoned, correct.
19:23:58 Granted by council.
19:23:59 >> How many pieces of land are residential that are

19:24:01 being used for commercial property today?
19:24:03 >>> I can't answer that without actually going back
19:24:05 and looking.
19:24:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mrs. Coyle, do you think a better
19:24:11 approach, because you said it's a land use issue, is
19:24:13 doing a little area study for that particular strip
19:24:17 land?
19:24:17 >>CATHERINE COYLE: It's certainly probably the better
19:24:22 solution.
19:24:25 I always go as an advocate with the underlying land
19:24:28 use because that is the proper way to do it when you
19:24:30 are dealing with uses of property.
19:24:31 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Dingfelder, because this is a
19:24:34 land use problem and not as it's been addressed, the
19:24:37 issue that's raised, would you consider a substitute
19:24:39 motion to ask the zoning department, or land
19:24:45 development department to look at the underlying land
19:24:47 use, and doing an area study, perhaps?
19:24:52 >>CATHERINE COYLE: The issue is certainly not a
19:24:53 short-term solution.
19:24:55 Doing an area wide, large area, large scale plan
19:24:58 amendment can take over a year potentially.

19:25:00 The study may take us a few months on top of that as
19:25:03 well.
19:25:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: It looks like I'm swimming upstream
19:25:09 at this point but it looks like I'll say to the
19:25:11 gentleman on the side there that you need -- you can't
19:25:14 rely on this as a quick fix, obviously.
19:25:16 So you are going to need to rezone the property in
19:25:20 something else.
19:25:21 So then you can comply with this, with this code that
19:25:24 we just adopted tonight on temporary vendors.
19:25:26 But in the meantime, Ms. Saul-Sena, I'll within draw
19:25:29 my motion.
19:25:29 You can make your motion.
19:25:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Thank you.
19:25:32 I just think that's the best way touch go about it is
19:25:34 to request that land development do an area study to
19:25:38 look at the land use on this stretch of --
19:25:43 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:25:44 Really for that, for a land use study, that would be a
19:25:47 request being made to the Planning Commission because
19:25:49 they are responsible for comprehensive plan.
19:25:52 >> Oh, it used to be city staff.

19:25:55 >>JULIA COLE: Because I asked Cathy.
19:26:00 Planning Commission would be the land use study.
19:26:02 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: All right, can council make a
19:26:04 motion to ask the Planning Commission to do that?
19:26:07 So that's my motion.
19:26:09 Mr. Garcia.
19:26:11 The request by council is to look at this section of
19:26:14 Himes, with the idea to look at the underlying land
19:26:19 use which is now --
19:26:26 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mixed up.
19:26:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Inconsistent and doing a land study
19:26:29 for Himes between Columbus drive to the south and
19:26:34 Martin Luther King to the north.
19:26:35 >> Yes.
19:26:43 Martin Luther King to the north?
19:26:44 The curb cut I can tell you right now from Columbus --
19:26:49 very quickly, you might want to change it because it's
19:26:51 different.
19:26:52 When you go north of Himes, to MLK, can the character
19:26:59 is much different than it is from Tampa Bay to
19:27:01 Columbus drive.
19:27:02 They are two different --

19:27:07 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We are talking about Himes.
19:27:08 >>TONY GARCIA: Yes, I am, too.
19:27:10 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: From Columbus drive to Tampa Bay.
19:27:13 >>TONY GARCIA: You med said MLK which is totally
19:27:17 different.
19:27:17 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I know.
19:27:19 >>TONY GARCIA: Okay.
19:27:20 So you are making a motion?
19:27:21 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Making a motion to ask the Planning
19:27:23 Commission to do an area study on the east side of
19:27:29 Himes from Columbus drive to Tampa Bay Boulevard.
19:27:34 >>TONY GARCIA: Can that be made with the idea that we
19:27:38 can possibly do that after an option, Mrs. Saul-Sena,
19:27:45 which I think will be in the latter part of January,
19:27:47 early January?
19:27:48 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Certainly.
19:27:49 >>> So anytime after that would be appropriate?
19:27:51 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Certainly.
19:27:52 >>> I just want to clarify the time frame.
19:27:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Absolutely.
19:27:54 >>> Thank you very much.
19:27:55 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.

19:27:57 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:27:59 Opposed, Nay.
19:28:00 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I am going to support the motion
19:28:01 but I am going to be very careful when it comes back
19:28:03 because we are going to start a chain reaction here
19:28:06 where the neighborhood cannot sustain any more damage
19:28:09 than what it's already received.
19:28:11 And I am going to put that on the record.
19:28:13 And I guarantee you that when it comes back, you are
19:28:16 going to see a lot of different folks in this
19:28:18 audience.
19:28:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Are you ready for item number 5, Ms.
19:28:25 Coyle?
19:28:26 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
19:28:27 I was wondering about the second motion to have just a
19:28:29 general vendor discussion, March -- I can't remember
19:28:34 the date.
19:28:36 >>GWEN MILLER: You made that motion?
19:28:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: What's our work shown?
19:28:39 Honor has that calendar?
19:28:40 >>> This is for the members of the audience from the
19:28:45 vendor industry.

19:28:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Dwindle tweaking of the vendor
19:28:52 code.
19:29:07 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I believe council member Saul-Sena
19:29:09 set a motion for March workshop which is the
19:29:11 26th -- excuse me, the workshop is the 26th of
19:29:14 March but didn't set a time so my suggestion would be
19:29:17 --
19:29:18 >> And that's what this commotion is.
19:29:20 >> Make it 9 a.m., please.
19:29:22 So those members of the audience, that would be
19:29:24 9 a.m., March 26th.
19:29:26 To have a general vendor discussion.
19:29:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have a motion and second.
19:29:31 All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:29:32 Opposed, Nay.
19:29:35 >>JULIA COLE: Legal department.
19:29:36 This is an ordinance to update on an annual basis as
19:29:43 required by law.
19:29:46 Are we ready for item 5?
19:29:56 Would you speak to item 5?
19:29:57 >> Do you have to say anything else?
19:29:59 >> Is there anyone in the public that would Pinellas

19:30:00 County to be speak on item number 5?
19:30:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
19:30:07 Or --
19:30:09 >>GWEN MILLER: Motion and second to close.
19:30:10 (Motion carried)
19:30:11 Mr. Miranda, would you read that, please?
19:30:13 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for first
19:30:18 reading, an ordinance amending the Tampa comprehensive
19:30:20 plan, capital improvements element, by updating the
19:30:23 schedule of projects for fiscal year 2009 through
19:30:26 fiscal year 2014 providing for repeal of all
19:30:29 ordinances in conflict, providing for severability,
19:30:31 providing an effective date.
19:30:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: We have a motion and second.
19:30:35 >>GWEN MILLER: We have a motion and second.
19:30:37 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Scott, Saul-Sena and
19:30:41 Caetano being absent.
19:30:42 Second reading and adoption will be on December
19:30:45 4th at 9:30 a.m.
19:30:46 >>GWEN MILLER: Now we go to our 6:00 public hearings.
19:30:58 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: An hour and a half late.
19:31:26 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Did you want to clean up the agenda?

19:31:27 Oh, I'm sorry.
19:31:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: For those of you who have been
19:31:43 waiting we appreciate your patience.
19:31:44 There's a lot going on in the city, and we are doing
19:31:46 our best.
19:31:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
19:31:51 Quickly go through the remaining items on your agenda
19:31:54 this evening.
19:31:55 Item number 6 being requesting a continuance to
19:31:59 January 29th.
19:32:01 At 6 o'clock p.m.
19:32:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
19:32:04 >> Second.
19:32:05 (Motion carried).
19:32:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Should we take public --
19:32:10 >>GWEN MILLER: No, continued.
19:32:11 It's already continued.
19:32:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: You need to make sure that nobody
19:32:19 objects.
19:32:20 That's our policy.
19:32:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Number 6.
19:32:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just make sure nobody objects.

19:32:29 >>GWEN MILLER: Anybody here to speak on item number 6?
19:32:31 You can speak on the continuance.
19:32:34 Okay, continue.
19:32:37 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 7 cannot be heard this
19:32:39 evening.
19:32:39 We ask that be removed from the agenda.
19:32:42 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open it.
19:32:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Was misnoticed.
19:32:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to strike.
19:32:48 >> Second.
19:32:49 (Motion carried).
19:32:49 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number sh.
19:33:00 That item was also a misnotice but set that for
19:33:03 January 29th.
19:33:04 >> So moved.
19:33:05 >> Second.
19:33:05 (Motion carried).
19:33:06 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item number 15, there was a letter
19:33:11 from Barbara Lynch of the right-of-way division
19:33:15 requesting a continuance to January 29th at 6
19:33:17 o'clock p.m.
19:33:18 >>GWEN MILLER: Need to open that.

19:33:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
19:33:24 >> Second.
19:33:24 (Motion carried).
19:33:25 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone that would like to speak on the
19:33:26 continuance?
19:33:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to continue to January 29 at 6
19:33:30 o'clock p.m.
19:33:31 >> Second.
19:33:31 (Motion carried).
19:33:32 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Lastly item number 16 which is the
19:33:36 rezoning that travels with the vacating you just
19:33:39 continued, we would like to request a continuance for
19:33:41 that also.
19:33:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open the public hearing.
19:33:48 >> Second.
19:33:49 (Motion carried).
19:33:50 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone want to speak on the
19:33:51 continuance?
19:33:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to continue January 29th
19:33:54 of 2009, 6 o'clock p.m.
19:33:57 >> All in favor of the motion say Aye.
19:33:59 Opposed, Nay.

19:34:02 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Lastly, Council, I would like to
19:34:04 introduce Samantha Fenger, who is going to be doing a
19:34:04 rezoning this evening, she's one of our new rezoning
19:34:07 planners.
19:34:08 She was administrating the VRB for the last year.
19:34:11 So we are transitioning her into rezoning this
19:34:13 evening.
19:34:13 We hope you will welcome her.
19:34:15 >>GWEN MILLER: Anyone in the public that's going to
19:34:18 speak on these items, would you please stand and raise
19:34:20 your right hand.
19:34:25 (Oath administered by Clerk).
19:34:32 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Council, I ask that any written
19:34:33 material that has been available for public inspection
19:34:36 in council's office relative to tonight's hearings are
19:34:39 received and filed into the record.
19:34:40 Mr. Clerk, do you have items to file, please, by
19:34:43 motion?
19:34:44 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So moved.
19:34:47 >> Second.
19:34:47 (Motion carried).
19:34:49 >> A reminder if there have been any ex parte

19:34:54 communications please disclose the sum and substance
19:34:56 with whom it occurred prior to your taking action, and
19:34:59 lastly, please make sure you have been sworn.
19:35:02 There was also a sheet out thereto, council, do you
19:35:07 wish me to state the policy tonight?
19:35:09 I'm putting a sign up there to remind you.
19:35:11 Thank you.
19:35:11 >>GWEN MILLER: We need to open item 8.
19:35:14 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: So moved.
19:35:16 >> Second.
19:35:16 (Motion carried).
19:35:17 >> Item number 8 on your agenda V 08-63 is located at
19:35:24 the southwest corner of Bayshore Boulevard and Bay to
19:35:29 Bay, from RM 35 residential multifamily to PD for
19:35:34 residential multifamily.
19:35:36 There is one waiver associated with the request this
19:35:38 evening, and that is to reduce the required drive
19:35:41 aisle from 26 feet to 24 feet.
19:35:46 Petitioner is requesting to rezone the property
19:35:47 located at the corner of Bayshore Boulevard and Bay to
19:35:50 Bay from residential multifamily 35 to planned
19:35:53 development.

19:35:54 They are proposing the construction of 31 dwelling
19:35:57 units.
19:35:57 The building is comprised of several elements of
19:35:59 varying Heights, to a maximum of 155 feet.
19:36:04 PD setbacks are as follows.
19:36:05 Front yard on Bayshore 75 feet, front yard on Isabella
19:36:10 Avenue 25 feet.
19:36:12 Corner yard on Bay to Bay Boulevard 15 feet, and side
19:36:15 yard, south side yard 20 feet.
19:36:17 The proposed design retains two large oak trees along
19:36:20 Bayshore Boulevard, maintains patriot's corner
19:36:23 including the water fountain and existing sidewalk,
19:36:25 and provides a landscape corridor of over 14,000
19:36:29 square feet, along Bayshore Boulevard.
19:36:31 In addition, the design retains all right-of-way trees
19:36:34 with the exception of one, which will be replaced
19:36:38 along Isabel Avenue.
19:36:40 The building elevation illustrated design was a theme,
19:36:44 residential amenities will be located along the
19:36:47 western portion, rear of the building, on top of the
19:36:49 parking dock 27 feet total 60 spaces are required, 60
19:36:55 spaces are being provided.

19:36:56 Ingress and egress will be off of Bay to Bay and
19:37:01 Isabella Avenue, both with access to the internal
19:37:03 parking structure.
19:37:06 The petitioner is requesting a council determination
19:37:10 this evening for a sidewalk along Isabella.
19:37:13 There's along amount of right-of-way trees along
19:37:16 Isabella, all being retained making it impossible to
19:37:18 actually provide sidewalk connection on that portion
19:37:21 of the property.
19:37:23 If it is council's desire this evening to grant that,
19:37:26 that they find that it is incompatible to put that
19:37:29 there, then he would be able to pay fee in lieu for
19:37:33 that linear sidewalk along that portion of the site
19:37:38 and we would add a note between first and second
19:37:41 reading.
19:37:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Is there a -- I'm sorry.
19:37:47 Are you chair?
19:37:47 Madam Chair, if I could.
19:37:49 Is there a sidewalk along as you go further south on
19:37:53 Bayshore to those apartments?
19:37:58 Isabella, I mean.
19:38:00 In other words, is there a connecting sidewalk that

19:38:04 stops, or --
19:38:11 >>> I don't know that.
19:38:12 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Maybe petitioner will let us know
19:38:15 that.
19:38:16 >>> Saying there's no sidewalk.
19:38:17 >> I don't think there would be a sidewalk there.
19:38:19 But as it goes into that apartment complex.
19:38:21 >>> We can look at a couple of pictures.
19:38:24 I think I have it there.
19:38:31 I think you are familiar with this corner.
19:38:33 We were here about a year ago on a similar zoning
19:38:36 petition.
19:38:44 There are several PD uses, RM 75, RM-24, RO 1, office
19:38:50 building directly to the west, office building to the
19:38:52 north, and there is an office building to the
19:38:56 northwest of the site.
19:38:58 There is multifamily residential, single-family
19:39:01 attached residential west of the property, and to the
19:39:06 south of the property.
19:39:07 This is one of the last vacant multifamily pieces
19:39:13 along Bayshore.
19:39:14 Here is an aerial of the site.

19:39:18 I think there has been some confusion from some calls
19:39:21 that I received that the city owns this property.
19:39:22 The city does not own this property.
19:39:29 This is a picture of the subject property looking
19:39:43 south on Bayshore.
19:39:49 This is a picture looking west from the pedestrian
19:39:53 side of Bayshore, a cross Bayshore Boulevard.
19:39:55 This is looking north.
19:39:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: When you are showing pictures,
19:40:02 would you mind telling us the relative height?
19:40:06 Go back one or two.
19:40:21 >>> The architectural features probably about 35 feet.
19:40:28 This is looking west toward the Crosstown expressway
19:40:31 on Bay to Bay.
19:40:35 >> The building behind it is, what, two stories?
19:40:39 The one is located in the bottom.
19:41:02 That is approximately five stories.
19:41:08 This is the multifamily directly to the south.
19:41:11 This is the buffer between the subject property and
19:41:14 the multifamily property to the south.
19:41:18 This is along Isabella.
19:41:22 This is a view down Isabella.

19:41:25 Does not appear that there is a sidewalk on either
19:41:27 side of the road.
19:41:29 And this is the parking lot immediately to the west
19:41:33 that services the office building to the west of the
19:41:36 property itself.
19:41:39 Staff did find the request consistent with the City of
19:41:54 Tampa code of ordinances.
19:41:57 We are requesting again the council determination as
19:42:00 far as the sidewalk, location on Isabella, parks and
19:42:04 recreation is requesting that an easement be recorded
19:42:06 prior to building permits being issued.
19:42:09 For the retention of patriot's with the sidewalk and
19:42:15 they would just need to record an easement that the
19:42:18 public has access to that property there.
19:42:20 Transportation also needed the determination related
19:42:24 to the sidewalk, and if that determination is made
19:42:28 they requested a note be added for the payment in fee
19:42:31 in lieu, and lastly there was a minor technical error
19:42:34 on the parking calculation.
19:42:36 The number of spaces was correct.
19:42:40 We just need that modification.
19:42:45 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I have a question.

19:42:46 Where is the front door located?
19:42:50 Feel teal feel the front door?
19:42:52 It would be on Bay to Bay.
19:42:53 There will be a lobby area on Bay to Bay that will
19:42:55 have a drop-off.
19:42:57 It kind of shows it goes up underneath the building.
19:43:04 And have access into the parking structure or drop
19:43:07 off.
19:43:07 >> My other question is, based on our rules, which
19:43:14 suggest the building be compatible with the
19:43:16 surrounding land uses, given the fact that the land
19:43:20 use is basically two stories with the exception of
19:43:26 favor stories, the additional 35 feet --
19:43:34 >>> The current zoning on the property would allow 125
19:43:36 feet in height.
19:43:38 There is a 30-foot variance in height.
19:43:40 >> And why did you think that would be compatible?
19:43:44 >>> Because I feel the triple set back is only
19:43:48 required to be at 25 feet, and they are providing 75
19:43:51 feet off of Bayshore, over 14,000 square feet, which
19:43:55 is approximately three residential lots.
19:43:59 It provided a significant setback, providing a grand

19:44:05 lawn on the Bayshore area that would make it
19:44:08 compatible.
19:44:09 At the pedestrian scale when you have 75 feet distance
19:44:11 to where the building begins, it's a totally different
19:44:14 feel, and I don't -- did not feel that the additional
19:44:18 30 feet in height is that great compared to what is
19:44:22 being achieved at the ground level along the corridor.
19:44:30 >>MARY MULHERN: I had a question on the same subject,
19:44:32 because as you point out, even the gradation to the
19:44:37 lower level, that's on Bayshore, which is the only
19:44:41 street that doesn't have -- there is nothing across
19:44:45 the street.
19:44:46 There's no houses across the street or building across
19:44:49 the street on Bayshore.
19:44:51 So it may be a nice visual if you are walking or
19:44:57 driving on Bayshore.
19:44:57 But the actual surrounding building, they all have the
19:45:02 maximum height, it looks like.
19:45:05 On Isabella and Bay to Bay.
19:45:07 >> If I may respond, we all work through Bayshore
19:45:11 corridor together, through that study, and staff came
19:45:14 back and made a presentation that the average setback

19:45:16 off of Bayshore is 60 feet.
19:45:18 This is an additional 15 feet above that.
19:45:22 Doing a lot of field work with Catherine Coyle as we
19:45:27 prepared for the corridor and making it a regional
19:45:29 attracter, making Bayshore regional an attracter and
19:45:33 walking the majority of Bayshore, there is a very
19:45:35 different feel when you are standing next to the
19:45:39 Alagon that is almost up the street versus when you
19:45:42 think about 75-foot setback.
19:45:45 So when you Sarasota stand there as a pedestrian you
19:45:49 have that next to you versus a building only 25 feet
19:45:51 from you, I don't know that you really feel the
19:45:54 additional 30 feet in height.
19:45:56 And I think that's why the finding of compatibility
19:45:59 was there.
19:46:03 >> Any on the questions by council members?
19:46:13 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
19:46:15 I have been sworn.
19:46:20 A few more comments -- excuse me, I have a cold.
19:46:24 A few more comments beyond what Ms. Feeley has already
19:46:29 stated to you this evening regarding some future land
19:46:31 use aspect.

19:46:32 The site is located on Tampa intersection of Bay to
19:46:36 Bay Boulevard and Bayshore Boulevard.
19:46:38 Bayshore Boulevard is considered to be a major
19:46:42 arterial.
19:46:43 Bay to Bay is considered a collector.
19:46:49 Land use categories as relates to land use, for their
19:46:59 own land use categories.
19:47:03 This is 30.
19:47:05 This is residential 35.
19:47:06 Everything south of Bay to Bay Boulevard, right here,
19:47:11 this is residential -- (off microphone)
19:47:23 This applicant has been here proposing a project
19:47:31 that's similar in nature and what he's requesting this
19:47:33 evening has come down in height each time.
19:47:38 Based on what we are seeing over here, what the
19:47:40 existing uses are in the area and what the existing
19:47:42 potential is.
19:47:43 By right, under the RM 35 category, most of the uses
19:47:46 here east of the Crosstown expressway south of Bay to
19:47:51 Bay all have that height potential that Ms. Feeley
19:47:55 already alluded to.
19:47:56 Considering that the applicant has asked me for a

19:47:58 waiver and tried for approximately 35 feet in
19:48:02 trade-off asking if they are granting or for giving
19:48:05 the city an additional 66% of open space along
19:48:08 Bayshore, contributes to the aesthetic features along
19:48:13 Bayshore Boulevard and contributes to the aesthetic
19:48:15 features.
19:48:19 Actually stated to you also that it basically equates
19:48:25 to three residential lots on the front part over here,
19:48:27 which represents a great segment of what's already
19:48:30 currently being used by the community as patriot's
19:48:34 park on that corner.
19:48:35 Based on this request, land use, and the surrounding
19:48:40 uses along Bayshore road to this particular set,
19:48:45 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
19:48:47 also consistent.
19:48:53 >>MARY MULHERN: When you talked about the -- is that
19:49:00 the property north of this?
19:49:02 You already gave us.
19:49:03 So what is it just south on Bayshore just south of --
19:49:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Townhouses.
19:49:10 >>MARY MULHERN: That's those two-story ones?
19:49:15 >>TONY GARCIA: (off microphone).

19:49:16 >>MARY MULHERN: Just south.
19:49:19 I'm talking about whatever that is just south.
19:49:23 >> Stovall.
19:49:24 >> The town homes or two stories?
19:49:27 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Kind of one and a half.
19:49:28 >>MARY MULHERN: I know you already said that.
19:49:32 I need a reminder.
19:49:33 Thank you.
19:49:35 >>> Another point that I do want to make.
19:49:47 Thanks for coming up and jogging my memory.
19:49:49 What it needs to be also, this is probably one of the
19:49:52 last parcels of land on Bayshore Boulevard from Bay to
19:49:55 Bay.
19:49:56 South all the way down to Gandy.
19:49:59 That has any kind of significant, substantial for any
19:50:01 kind of residential high-rise development in the
19:50:03 future.
19:50:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions?
19:50:17 >> Petitioner?
19:50:19 >> William Robinson, 3014 West Palm air Avenue suite
19:50:25 300 Tampa, Florida.
19:50:27 One year ago, council adopted a new comp plan

19:50:34 amendment designating Bayshore as a scenic corridor,
19:50:37 and a region attracter.
19:50:42 This PD design intends to both comply with the spirit
19:50:50 and intent of that designation.
19:51:22 I'm passing it out because it's exactly what I sent
19:51:25 out to the neighborhood as far as notification.
19:51:29 I sent -- instead of the normal just the one sheet, is
19:51:34 all you are required to send, I thought it would be a
19:51:39 little advantageous to be able to write a short letter
19:51:42 explaining what the petition is, and then providing
19:51:46 current site plans, and also a site data sheet to try
19:51:53 to give the neighbors within the 250-foot area a real
19:51:59 understanding of what is being proposed and not just a
19:52:02 single sheet of paper, and have to call and ask
19:52:06 questions.
19:52:07 Quickly, the short letters of self-explanatory.
19:52:12 By the way, I received no responses from anybody in
19:52:16 opposition.
19:52:17 I received two emails in support, one from Vicki
19:52:23 Pollyea and one from Ron who owns a townhouse in the
19:52:26 property to the south.
19:52:28 I have those in the file.

19:52:35 I would like to submit those.
19:52:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you want us to read them, the
19:52:44 clerk can pass it to us.
19:52:56 >> The site plan we are proposing provides, as Ms.
19:53:00 Feeley spoke, a setback of 75-foot along Bayshore,
19:53:06 which is three times the required setback.
19:53:09 You will see on the one sheet it says it's entitled RM
19:53:14 35.
19:53:17 At this time we have a site plan approval which we can
19:53:19 build today.
19:53:23 The setback on pay shore is at 25 feet.
19:53:26 The setback on the south adjacent to the multifamily
19:53:30 townhouse is only seven feet.
19:53:34 And it's 25-foot in the rear on Isabella, and 15-foot
19:53:39 along Bay to Bay.
19:53:44 The first one is the PD, shows visually the 75-foot
19:53:49 setback which creates this 14,000 square foot I call
19:53:56 it greenscape corridor, which all of this is an
19:54:02 acknowledgment of the corridor and regional attracter
19:54:07 that was adopted in the comp plan one year ago today.
19:54:10 We also preserved all the significant trees on the
19:54:12 site.

19:54:13 In addition, on Bayshore, we plant three 8-inch oaks.
19:54:18 The only requirement under chapter 13 are two inch
19:54:21 oaks.
19:54:22 We planted three 8-inch oaks on the Bayshore.
19:54:24 We felt it was appropriate to give the maturest trees
19:54:31 you can get there as opposed to putting skinny two
19:54:34 inch trees scattered around.
19:54:36 Again, we preserve all the significant trees on the
19:54:40 site, whereas on the site plan it's approved, it
19:54:45 removes all the major trees that you see in this
19:54:50 elevation.
19:54:55 The PD provides 61% more open space when compared to
19:54:59 the RM 35 plan.
19:55:01 You can see that visually between the two colored site
19:55:07 plans that you see, and also that data on the last
19:55:11 sheet of the handout that I gave you.
19:55:17 All of this contributes to the experience of a linear
19:55:20 on Bayshore Boulevard that I walk almost every day in
19:55:27 Tampa with my wife.
19:55:28 And all the people obviously that are using it for
19:55:33 biking and roller blading and the like.
19:55:37 That is why I think Ms. Feeley alluded to.

19:55:41 This that's why it is significant, that the setbacks
19:55:44 from the pedestrian scale is what is important, in the
19:55:48 additional 30, 3035th feet we are asking for on
19:55:51 the top of the building is something that would be
19:55:53 virtually imperceptible by moth standards and by the
19:55:59 opinion of most planners that I have ever spoken to,
19:56:02 and architects that I have spoken to and consulted
19:56:05 with.
19:56:08 I wanted to just bring up one small -- in the comp
19:56:17 plan amendment that was adopted by council, how is
19:56:31 implementation supposed to take place?
19:56:33 If implementation can be accomplished in community
19:56:57 organizations, developers, or the city, on this one I
19:57:03 would have to -- to be a developer, that I don't like
19:57:08 to turn too much, I prefer stakeholder, because as a
19:57:12 property owner on Bayshore, I'm a stakeholder, and I'm
19:57:15 a stack holder as well in the City of Tampa generally.
19:57:18 But in the documents adopted by council is basically
19:57:27 some pathway or at least some direction of how this
19:57:31 core odor can be implemented.
19:57:33 And I spoke to Cathy Coyle about this when we were in
19:57:37 the hearing process.

19:57:38 I said, Cathy, how do you plan to implement the scenic
19:57:43 corridor?
19:57:45 We are all aware that there's already existing zoning
19:57:47 rights.
19:57:48 You can't just remove people's zoning rights and say,
19:57:51 I want -- I'm going to take 100-foot of your frontage
19:57:56 in exchange for nothing.
19:57:57 She said to me quite frankly it's going to be done
19:58:00 only project by project.
19:58:01 So I submit to you that this is one of those projects
19:58:03 that we are coming forth with you with an application
19:58:08 that is sympathetic to the designation, and what we
19:58:12 are asking for in exchange, for the green space, is
19:58:16 really some additional use of air space.
19:58:22 Again, I would refer to a staff report, is a
19:58:26 comprehensive finding of a finding of fact that the
19:58:28 petitioner is consistent with the applicable codes,
19:58:31 and specifically article 13, site plan zoning
19:58:35 district, and together with sections 27-321, 27
19:58:40 through 24, and 27 through 26, the final one PD
19:58:46 districts generally.
19:58:52 In addition, this structure will be pursuing LEED

19:58:57 certification.
19:58:58 We believe we can get silver or gold, and we are going
19:59:03 to be getting a lot of points out of the site itself.
19:59:06 Due to the green space we are going to be offering and
19:59:09 the preservation of trees.
19:59:10 We have bike racks in the parking garage.
19:59:14 All those grant you credits towards LEED certification
19:59:17 along with all the other reusable, sustainable
19:59:23 elements as far as -- and appliances, energy star
19:59:31 appliances and the like.
19:59:33 We feel certain we'll have at least silver and
19:59:36 possibly gold certification.
19:59:39 LEED certification.
19:59:47 I would like to close briefly by requesting that you
19:59:50 consider the trade-off that we are proposing between
19:59:55 green space and please consider this as something that
20:00:06 there's a win-win all the way around the residents who
20:00:12 use this area, still a large setback and a large green
20:00:16 area experience, the people who live on this site also
20:00:21 get the benefit of the green space created, and buyers
20:00:27 these days are sophisticated, they like green space,
20:00:30 they understand green space, and with that I would

20:00:35 humbly request your approval.
20:00:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a couple questions, Mr.
20:00:39 Robinson.
20:00:40 I lose track.
20:00:42 This is the second time or third time.
20:00:44 >>> Third time.
20:00:45 >> Third time is a charm, right?
20:00:47 >>> Hopefully.
20:00:49 >> Refresh my memory.
20:00:52 And you might have just said it but refresh my memory
20:00:55 about why you feel specifically, narrowly, why you
20:00:59 feel this project is better than the last one you
20:01:01 brought in to us, not beyond 35 -- not the RM 35
20:01:06 because you don't need to bring that to us but the
20:01:07 last PD you brought to us.
20:01:09 >>> First the last PD we brought to you, we were
20:01:12 asking for 190 feet.
20:01:19 We refigured a lot of the apartments, and worked the
20:01:23 parking around them and reduced that request from
20:01:27 basically a 70-foot -- down to a 35 feet.
20:01:32 So we cut the height request in half.
20:01:35 But we took the same 75-foot setback and same amount

20:01:40 of 31 units, so there's no additional traffic impact
20:01:44 or anything else.
20:01:45 That's the main thing.
20:01:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: That was the main thing.
20:01:49 A couple of clarification was all due respect to Ms.
20:01:52 Feeley.
20:01:54 In the patches building for lack of a better term,
20:01:56 probably has a real name, I don't know what it's
20:01:58 called.
20:01:59 >>> Bayshore buildings.
20:02:02 >> The Bayshore buildings?
20:02:03 Okay.
20:02:03 I think that's taller than five stories.
20:02:06 >>> There's a portion that I think is six.
20:02:07 >> It felt more like eight or nine.
20:02:10 >>> Actually, the Stovall is the tallest building to
20:02:13 the south.
20:02:13 >> That was my next question, is how tall is the
20:02:16 Stovall because you built it.
20:02:18 >>>: 227 feet.
20:02:19 >> Did you do that with a PD through this council, 10,
20:02:23 15 years ago?

20:02:23 >>> Yes.
20:02:31 >>> That is was zoned RM 50 we started it.
20:02:34 >> It a smaller lot, too, isn't it?
20:02:37 >>> Well, it deep.
20:02:38 Very deep.
20:02:38 >> Long and narrow?
20:02:40 >>> Right.
20:02:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: This is a related question.
20:02:52 I just want to make it clear on the record.
20:02:54 And it's not a big deal.
20:02:56 But many people have approached me and said the same
20:02:58 thing we heard earlier.
20:03:00 I thought the city owned that lot.
20:03:02 Well, we have known all along that you own the lot but
20:03:06 I guess you have a lease with the city, a dollar a
20:03:08 year or something like that?
20:03:09 >>> There's a lease.
20:03:11 There's an existing lease with 60-day termination by
20:03:15 either party.
20:03:15 >> Okay.
20:03:16 Through your attorney, prior attorney Mr. Grandoff, I
20:03:19 suggested perhaps you might be interested in selling

20:03:21 that to the city like two years ago.
20:03:24 You and I didn't converse directly on that issue, I
20:03:26 don't think.
20:03:27 But Mr. Grandoff relayed back to me that you weren't
20:03:30 interested in selling it.
20:03:32 And the only reason I mention it I think the best use
20:03:35 of that property so the city could buy it and it could
20:03:38 continue to be a public use.
20:03:39 But through Mr. Grandoff, he said you weren't
20:03:41 interested in that.
20:03:42 Is that still the case?
20:03:43 >>> Yes, sir.
20:03:45 I did try to, if you recall, I brought forth to the
20:03:49 city a very imaginative plan, I thought.
20:03:52 >> I remember.
20:03:53 That I don't want to get into that because that's not
20:03:55 on the table today.
20:03:58 Thank you.
20:04:00 >>MARY MULHERN: I remember with you are were here the
20:04:02 last time and the building that you composed was
20:04:04 really beautiful and you had renderings, and I'm
20:04:09 trying to -- I can't remember.

20:04:11 You don't have any renderings of the new one.
20:04:16 >>> Well, on the plan submitted to the city, we had
20:04:19 elevations.
20:04:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Not previous elevations.
20:04:24 I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman.
20:04:25 I just want to be clear that when council, and it's
20:04:28 been discussed trance essentially but I don't want to
20:04:31 get too far further into the field, that what you have
20:04:34 before you is this particular petition, and regardless
20:04:36 of what has been done in the past, this particular
20:04:39 petition has to be looked at --
20:04:43 >>MARY MULHERN: I understand that.
20:04:45 I didn't see a visual up there.
20:04:52 >>> It's the elevations.
20:04:57 >> Just had big blobs.
20:04:59 >>> Oh, these.
20:05:00 Yes, you can't really tell.
20:05:02 They are not in perspective.
20:05:04 So --
20:05:06 >>> Well, architectural drawings.
20:05:08 >>MARY MULHERN: It looks like it's going to be all
20:05:12 glass.

20:05:12 >>> Yes, but --
20:05:20 >>MARY MULHERN: We can't tell.
20:05:27 And then when I look at the plan, it looks like it's
20:05:30 very interesting shape.
20:05:35 It looks very familiar.
20:05:36 So I thought that that building was very attractive,
20:05:39 and I'm hoping that --
20:05:43 >>> It's the same design.
20:05:44 >> It is?
20:05:45 >>> Just we reduced the type and we made some other
20:05:50 proportions to create, in respect to the reduction
20:05:57 height because when you stretch buildings, and then
20:06:00 reduce without any other adjustments, it makes them
20:06:05 look -- when we made a few other adjustments to
20:06:09 account for reduction in height.
20:06:14 >>MARY MULHERN: (off microphone)
20:06:25 Whatever you do on Bayshore, maybe that would get them
20:06:56 to --
20:07:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Don't take it out.
20:07:04 >>MARY MULHERN: Don't take it out.
20:07:05 It reminded me in the city that we have a linear park
20:07:07 that goes for four miles, and there's only a drinking

20:07:10 fountain downtown.
20:07:12 So you have to cross four lanes of traffic to get a
20:07:15 drink.
20:07:17 >>> There's no doubt that the Bay to Bay intersection
20:07:19 needs some help.
20:07:20 But certainly I would work with anybody in the Parks
20:07:23 Department, and reconfiguring the drinking fountain
20:07:29 situation.
20:07:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council?
20:07:32 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone) the design of the
20:07:46 shape of the building is very attractive F.that's on
20:07:48 the PD, does that have to be what's built?
20:07:54 >>> We are representing this will be built.
20:07:56 >> Just want reassurance from our staff.
20:07:59 Thank you.
20:08:01 >>> That's what we intend to build.
20:08:07 >>> I would concur the only other statement is there
20:08:09 are substantial change criteria with what can be done
20:08:13 administratively after a PD is approved.
20:08:16 Any reduction in perimeter setback is considered a
20:08:19 substantial change.
20:08:20 So the setbacks shown today are the setbacks that will

20:08:23 have to be followed on this, or else you will be -- he
20:08:26 will be back before you for rezoning again.
20:08:29 The perimeter setbacks.
20:08:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
20:08:34 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone wish issuing to address council
20:08:42 may come forward.
20:08:43 Anyone wishing to address council?
20:08:45 Please come forward.
20:08:45 Anyone wishes to address council?
20:08:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Better hurry before the chairman
20:08:52 changes his mind.
20:08:55 >>> I'm not sure what the correct protocol is because
20:09:03 I have never come to council before.
20:09:05 >> Each person gets three minutes.
20:09:07 >> State your name and dress for the record, please.
20:09:09 >> Terry Thompson, Santiago, historic town homes next
20:09:15 door to the said property.
20:09:16 We have a lot of concern about property.
20:09:20 I'm a new homeowner there.
20:09:21 So this is my first opportunity to raise those
20:09:24 concerns.
20:09:26 While we think that the new plan is aesthetically a

20:09:29 lot more pleasing than the current plan or the
20:09:31 previous plan, we are concerned because it does not
20:09:35 really -- the area or the setback they are referring
20:09:38 to does not replace -- I don't think they are going to
20:09:45 want to have people on their setback barbecuing and
20:09:48 having picnics and the kinds of things that are being
20:09:50 done in the park today, and having picnic tables for
20:09:53 families to come and gather in the park.
20:09:55 So whereas there is a lot of information provided on
20:09:58 how we allow parking on the grass it does not serve
20:10:05 the same purpose.
20:10:06 There's a tremendous activity, and there's no
20:10:09 replacement that.
20:10:11 So we have some concerns about that.
20:10:13 We also have concerns about our property.
20:10:18 There are pictures, we are talking about surfacing,
20:10:23 resurfacing our roads, and our driveways, parking in
20:10:28 our area is very, very minimal.
20:10:31 We are very concerned about when to start
20:10:33 construction, what the impact is on our building, and
20:10:37 in upgrading our facility, because we have done a
20:10:40 tremendous amount of work in the last year to upgrade

20:10:42 our facility, to bring the values of our property up,
20:10:46 especially in this depressed environment.
20:10:50 The other thing I'm concerned about is parking.
20:10:52 Not parking but access.
20:10:56 There is Isabella and Santiago are not paved roads.
20:11:01 I mean, they don't even look like -- when you suddenly
20:11:07 have the traffic, that they are talking about adding
20:11:10 to that neighborhood, being dumped onto Isabella, we
20:11:14 are going to have a major problem with congestion and
20:11:17 traffic in that area.
20:11:18 There is no stoplight that takes you from Santiago to
20:11:23 MacDill.
20:11:23 You are really taking your life into your hands when
20:11:26 you try to cross the street on MacDill as it is
20:11:28 today.
20:11:29 They are also talking about access on Bay to Bay and I
20:11:31 don't know if any of you of tried to access Bayshore
20:11:34 from Bay to Bay, but it's almost impossible.
20:11:38 So if you have people in this circle where the
20:11:41 driveway is going to be, that is right on to Bay to
20:11:45 Bay, it's going to be impossible to get onto Bay to
20:11:47 Bay and they are going to cause more traffic than you

20:11:50 are already seeing on Bay to Bay.
20:11:52 So there's some serious issues with the traffic on all
20:11:54 of the roads around that they are talking about
20:11:57 putting in.
20:11:58 And we haven't yet heard how they are going to address
20:12:07 those concerns.
20:12:07 So we are looking at two floors of garages where right
20:12:11 now we have a bay view, looking out of our windows
20:12:13 facing towards the park.
20:12:15 And we have some concerns about exhaust fans, the
20:12:21 fumes coming out of the garages, onto our property.
20:12:24 We have a lot of concerns about that.
20:12:25 We have concerns about generator noise from the
20:12:28 property, in the generator, and we really as residents
20:12:36 understand progress.
20:12:36 We are not wanting to hold back progress and not stop
20:12:40 the gentleman from being able to build on his property
20:12:42 but we have some serious concerns about impact on our
20:12:45 neighborhood which is very much a residential families
20:12:48 with children playing area.
20:12:49 >> Thank you.
20:12:50 That's your three minutes.

20:12:51 Thank you.
20:12:51 Actually three and a half minutes.
20:12:53 >> I'm also a resident of Santiago and Bayshore right
20:12:57 next to where the proposed building is.
20:12:59 My daughter owns the unit next to me.
20:13:00 I own the first unit.
20:13:03 And we have all the concerns that she's discussed so
20:13:05 far.
20:13:06 But there are other concerns that are currently
20:13:07 existing with the building by this developer, one of
20:13:10 which is a very big concern for me and that would be
20:13:13 the generator.
20:13:14 The generator right now kicks in, puts out a lot of
20:13:17 diesel fumes and smoke.
20:13:22 And it's just a nuisance to the neighborhood.
20:13:25 Our area, we have units, our units are two-story units
20:13:30 on one side of the building.
20:13:32 Behind us there is another townhouse throughout the
20:13:35 two small two story building.
20:13:37 We are very close to these streets.
20:13:39 We are very low so we are going to be below the unit
20:13:44 where the proposed building is at this time.

20:13:46 We haven't seen any -- I'm sorry.
20:13:49 We haven't seen what the actual drainage proposal is,
20:13:56 where they are expecting to put their trash units,
20:13:58 because we are talking about 31 families for the
20:14:01 crash.
20:14:01 Is that going to be in my backyard where our children
20:14:03 are playing?
20:14:04 Are we talking about the generator being in the yard?
20:14:09 Are we talking about from the parking perspective as
20:14:11 it is?
20:14:12 I have a very difficult time which the county supports
20:14:17 all of our schools.
20:14:18 It's nearly dangerous for me to take my children to
20:14:20 walk to school.
20:14:21 We still do it on those Wednesdays but it's really,
20:14:24 really difficult.
20:14:24 I have to keep them right there with me.
20:14:26 And my kids are not young.
20:14:27 My kids are eight and eleven years old.
20:14:29 These children have to be held by the hand just to
20:14:31 keep them -- Bay to Bay an out on MacDill.
20:14:36 We have no way of crossing from Santiago across

20:14:39 MacDill.
20:14:39 We can't -- it would be -- the other issues that we
20:14:46 are seeing of course is the parking garage next to us,
20:14:49 is of course our view is impaired but now we are
20:14:52 talking about a lot of exhaust fumes, talking about
20:14:54 viewing the back ends much vehicles.
20:14:56 We are talking about -- I'm sorry.
20:15:03 And all of the landscape and all of our trees that are
20:15:07 there. We have two along the fence there. We of
20:15:11 course put in the fences between the park and our
20:15:13 units at this time.
20:15:14 There has been no discussion about what will happen
20:15:16 with the fencing that's there.
20:15:21 And than the landscape that Mrs. Town send discussed
20:15:25 earlier, we have spent a tremendous amount of time and
20:15:28 money upgrading our units to make them presentable for
20:15:31 the Bayshore area, when several of us moved in two or
20:15:34 three years ago, they were less than attractive.
20:15:37 We have gone to a lot of trouble to make them very
20:15:38 appealing to the eye and to redo all of our
20:15:42 landscaping in the area.
20:15:43 We have put in a number of rules that keep our

20:15:47 residents from being inappropriate in the
20:15:51 neighborhood, and we found that by doing so, first of
20:15:55 all we changed over probably three or four of our
20:15:58 residents, but that we are finding that it's a whole
20:16:00 lot nicer neighborhood, and when we add a huge tall
20:16:05 building, now we don't know.
20:16:07 Yes, there are going to be -- it's a luxury building.
20:16:10 However, how is that going to affect us?
20:16:14 Really the generator parking lot, the garbage usual
20:16:16 you, the drainage, these are all serious concerns for
20:16:19 us right now because with we worked very hard to keep
20:16:22 that neighborhood nice.
20:16:29 >>> 2917 Santiago street.
20:16:32 I haven't been sworn in.
20:16:34 Do I need to be before I speak?
20:16:36 >> Anyone else who has not been sworn?
20:16:38 Anyone else?
20:16:40 Will you stand, please, and raise your right hand?
20:16:44 (Oath administered by Clerk)
20:16:45 >>> I just want to say something very quickly.
20:16:51 I do appreciate the plans that the developers made
20:16:54 out.

20:16:55 And very, very nice in print.
20:16:59 But it's a very small space.
20:17:00 If any of you have been there to jog or to park, it is
20:17:03 tinier than it is in the pictures.
20:17:06 And I just think it best left as a park for the
20:17:10 people.
20:17:11 For public use.
20:17:12 I think there might be too much traffic in the area.
20:17:15 That's all I wanted to say.
20:17:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Next speaker.
20:17:26 >>> I'm a board member of the Bayshore Gardens
20:17:28 association.
20:17:28 I'm here on behalf of Vicki.
20:17:30 She could not be with us tonight.
20:17:33 She is ill.
20:17:34 But she asked me to read this e-mail.
20:17:36 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Could you state your name for the
20:17:37 record, please?
20:17:38 >>> Kristin grant.
20:17:41 This is the third attempt at getting a PD for this
20:17:43 piece of land which is for 31 units, 25 feet setback
20:17:48 along Bayshore and 7 feet along Bay to Bay.

20:17:53 We have the building permit to build the high-rise
20:17:54 that fits into the RM 35 zoning.
20:17:56 We look at each proposal individually and try to make
20:17:59 the best decision for our neighborhood.
20:18:00 We do not want more high-rises on Bayshore.
20:18:03 However, this property is zoned for a high-rise and we
20:18:06 need to work within the rights of the land owner.
20:18:09 He's proposing the same number of units, 31, but as a
20:18:12 compromise he is asking for an increase in height to
20:18:15 155 feet.
20:18:16 He is also proposing an increase in setback along
20:18:18 Bayshore from 25 feet to 75 feet along Bay to Bay,
20:18:22 from 7 feet to 20 feet.
20:18:24 This new proposal footprint is 36% of the site versus
20:18:27 the already committed building which covers 60% of the
20:18:31 site and requires removal of the grand trees on the
20:18:34 lot.
20:18:34 I personally feel this is a good compromise.
20:18:37 He is giving a setback on Bayshore and Bay to Bay that
20:18:43 is discussed with the Bayshore.
20:18:46 It is a trade-off of green space.
20:18:49 I do not think the height will be noticed but a

20:18:52 20-foot setback on Bayshore will cause a significant
20:18:55 reduction in scenic views and green space that we come
20:18:58 to think of as Bayshore.
20:19:00 I do have transportation concerns including any impact
20:19:02 on the intersection of Bay to Bay and Isabella.
20:19:05 I feel that intersection already needs improvement.
20:19:07 Also one of the egresses on Bay to Bay is near
20:19:10 Bayshore and should be right turn only for safety
20:19:13 reasons.
20:19:14 Left turn from the property that close to traffic
20:19:16 coming and going from Bayshore is asking for trouble.
20:19:19 Now is the time for improvements to the intersection.
20:19:22 We presented this information to our neighbors and
20:19:24 asked them to share with you their feelings.
20:19:27 The Board of Directors did take a vote on this and
20:19:29 unanimously supported this PD with our concurrence
20:19:33 regarding the traffic on Bay to Bay and the
20:19:35 intersection of Isabella and Bay to Bay.
20:19:38 Again Vicki apologies for not being here because of
20:19:40 her illness.
20:19:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
20:19:44 Next speaker.

20:20:02 >> American lien weekly, Bayshore.
20:20:06 I do want to emphasize that the only vote that was
20:20:08 taken from Bayshore Gardens was from the Board of
20:20:11 Directors.
20:20:13 The neighborhood did not vote on this.
20:20:14 It was strictly the Board of Directors.
20:20:17 There's a lot here so I am going read fast and I am
20:20:19 going to skip around but it's all in front of you.
20:20:22 Under the comprehensive plan, 120 feet is classified
20:20:26 as a high-rise.
20:20:27 The average height of high-rises on Bayshore Boulevard
20:20:30 is 108 feet.
20:20:32 The zoned height of 120 exceeds that.
20:20:37 11 PDs remain on Bayshore.
20:20:40 There are 26 properties not site plan controls that
20:20:42 could be developed as high-rises.
20:20:44 This is to be number 12.
20:20:47 The next will be number 13 and so on.
20:20:49 Do we want to continue to grant PDs and have a Domino
20:20:53 effect until we get to the point that future councils
20:20:55 are going to be able to deny more height PD requests?
20:20:58 When the PD becomes the norm and the zoning parameters

20:21:01 the exception.
20:21:02 Compatibility, all structures adjacent to this PD
20:21:07 request are two stories with the exception of a
20:21:09 35-foot office building.
20:21:11 At the current permitted zone height, this tower would
20:21:15 be 85 feet higher than all of the adjacent structures.
20:21:18 The proposed PD would make it 120 feet higher than all
20:21:21 of the adjacent structures.
20:21:24 The more compatible higher and higher and higher.
20:21:31 Consistent -- I'm sorry.
20:21:32 Consistently, in all past presentations of the
20:21:36 alternative footprints have been submitted.
20:21:40 High-rise tower southbound very attractive.
20:21:43 RM 35 is always unattractive.
20:21:45 It is always dated you but building the RM 25 will go
20:21:49 forward if the PD is not granted.
20:21:51 Traffic issue.
20:21:53 This is another very serious concern voiced by the
20:21:55 public.
20:21:56 Additional volume is not the main concern.
20:21:58 The entry and exit from the already overburdened Bay
20:22:01 to Bay will cause backup on Bayshore and Bay to Bay.

20:22:05 There is an alarming potential for causing many
20:22:07 accidents when turning into the complex, having to
20:22:09 cross two lanes of on coming traffic traveling east on
20:22:13 Bay to Bay.
20:22:14 There are many other frightening scenarios and
20:22:17 maneuvers that will have to than counted by --
20:22:20 encountered by those trying to get around them.
20:22:23 Because the zoning permit 31 units no traffic study is
20:22:26 required.
20:22:27 The danger is not in increased density but rather in
20:22:30 the configuration of the entry and the exit.
20:22:33 Zoning is part of planned development, PDs are not.
20:22:37 A city comprehensive plan is in place so that future
20:22:39 development can go forward in an organized and
20:22:41 functional manner.
20:22:43 Citivest is now contending that the zone height
20:22:46 specifications are not appropriate to doing justice to
20:22:48 Bayshore Gardens scenic corridor.
20:22:51 This appreciation for the scenic corridor was not
20:22:55 present in the Citivest represented by Mr. John
20:22:57 Grandoff voiced their opposition to the designation
20:22:59 before the Hillsborough County commission and before

20:23:01 City Council on June 28th.
20:23:04 When Citivest purchased the property they were well
20:23:06 aware of the zoning height limitation.
20:23:10 The architect for Citivest always presented innovative
20:23:13 and attractive designs.
20:23:15 I am confident if they were given the directive by
20:23:17 Citivest to come up with a design that complimented
20:23:20 the location as well as respect to the zoning height,
20:23:23 we would all be very pleased with the results.
20:23:25 I am for the rights of property owners and developers
20:23:28 to make the most of their investment and for their
20:23:30 property rights to be assured.
20:23:32 I also believe that mutual respect is due to
20:23:37 comprehensive plan and zoning limitations.
20:23:38 (Bell sounds).
20:23:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you
20:23:43 >>> Steve herein, 2520 Palm Drive, which is just north
20:23:54 thereof on the infamous dead man's curve where we have
20:23:56 the water piling up again.
20:23:58 I'm also vice-president of the neighborhood
20:23:59 association.
20:24:00 I want to clarify a little bit about what the vote was

20:24:03 from the Board of Directors.
20:24:06 I don't classify it as a vote necessarily of approval,
20:24:09 but a vote of the least of two bad choices.
20:24:13 We were here a year, year and a half ago on the
20:24:16 patches building, and there was a similar proposal
20:24:19 asking for a height variance and a similar threat, if
20:24:23 you don't grant it I am going to build this big ugly
20:24:25 monstrosity, it would be there any how.
20:24:28 So far the monstrosity is not there and I'm not seeing
20:24:31 people clamoring for condos right now in Tampa so we
20:24:34 are not sure what's going to happen.
20:24:36 Problem is that we are frustrated as a neighborhood
20:24:39 association, we are trapped by what were obviously
20:24:41 poor zoning decisions, long before any of you were
20:24:43 involved in the government side of things, and the
20:24:47 decision was that the lesser of two bad alternatives.
20:24:52 The concerns of the neighborhood about traffic are
20:24:54 great concerns, not only in the initial area.
20:24:57 I agree with the comments about Bay to Bay, having
20:25:00 tried to get out onto Bay to Bay off of Isabella
20:25:04 anywhere after 3:00 in the afternoon.
20:25:06 It's miserable.

20:25:07 I'm not speaking in my individual capacity.
20:25:10 I can't imagine another 60 cars trying to get in on
20:25:13 the opposite side of the street, off of Bay to Bay.
20:25:17 Isabella, in terms of its development south of Bay to
20:25:19 Bay, frankly, until I started looking into this
20:25:22 project, I didn't even know the road went across down
20:25:24 that far.
20:25:25 It's so rural and so small.
20:25:27 So the council says if they are going to approve this
20:25:30 PD you need to have something done about the traffic
20:25:34 pattern and traffic flow in that area or there's going
20:25:36 to be a much more miserable traffic experience and I
20:25:39 think a lot of dangerous traffic incidents because of
20:25:41 the proximity to Bayshore.
20:25:44 Again, with all due respect to Vicki, she's a
20:25:47 wonderful person.
20:25:48 I wish she could be here tonight.
20:25:50 She's a compromiser and someone who tries to work for
20:25:54 what she sees in the best interest of the
20:25:56 neighborhood.
20:25:57 The board took the position with that in mind, but it
20:26:00 was not one that we were happy to take.

20:26:02 Thank you.
20:26:05 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Just a question, you are on the board?
20:26:08 >>> Yes, I'm the vice-president of the neighborhood
20:26:10 association and member of the board.
20:26:12 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I guess the question I have, it was a
20:26:15 unanimous vote to support it with the issues that you
20:26:17 raised.
20:26:18 Is that correct?
20:26:19 >>> Yes.
20:26:19 >> Okay.
20:26:20 >>> Yes.
20:26:29 >>> My name is Sue Lyon.
20:26:31 I'm always here petitioning for help for the Bayshore.
20:26:40 The last high-rise that was built was the Alagon.
20:26:44 Every day, the people in that area are plagued with
20:26:49 problems with the Alagon.
20:26:52 It's a very difficult situation.
20:26:55 It's a large building in a residential area.
20:26:59 It was zoned than way before -- Linda wasn't on the
20:27:05 board yet but we lived with it.
20:27:07 We went through, excuse me T expression, two years of
20:27:10 hell.

20:27:11 For them to build it.
20:27:12 It was a different builder.
20:27:14 It was different things.
20:27:15 But if you go put construction people enough to build
20:27:22 a building like this, those residences, you are
20:27:26 concerned about 35 feet on the top of it.
20:27:28 You are going to have two years of construction in a
20:27:32 neighborhood that has no place for the construction
20:27:35 people to park.
20:27:38 It is pure hell when they are there.
20:27:40 For them, the guy has to take his tools to go work.
20:27:45 So he wants to park as close as he can.
20:27:48 So he's going to park on these people's yards, because
20:27:51 that's the only place.
20:27:52 When you ask about Isabella having a sidewalk, no,
20:27:56 Isabella doesn't have a sidewalk.
20:27:58 It's just a little bitty tiny road.
20:28:02 It not even a real road.
20:28:04 It's left over from that area that was out in the
20:28:06 country.
20:28:07 It is not feasible to add any more than we have to.
20:28:14 He has a perfect right to build what it's zoned for.

20:28:23 And the poor man has been here three times trying to
20:28:25 do something.
20:28:26 I don't know why he doesn't give up and do the 120
20:28:29 feet and say that's it.
20:28:31 Because the neighborhood is going to be plagued with
20:28:34 problems.
20:28:36 The traffic at that particular corner is obscene.
20:28:40 It's dangerous.
20:28:43 And I appreciate your help.
20:28:45 Thank you.
20:28:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else?
20:28:56 Questions for staff?
20:29:02 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I have some questions, some for
20:29:04 petitioner and some for staff.
20:29:14 A couple of things.
20:29:15 Looking at the site plan, and this is sort of
20:29:18 reflecting some of the immediate neighbors' concerns.
20:29:21 I didn't catch their names, I apologize.
20:29:23 The site plan shows the trash.
20:29:27 And I hope that the neighbors have the site plan.
20:29:30 You don't.
20:29:30 Well, maybe somebody can lend -- if somebody is not

20:29:35 using an extra copy.
20:29:36 I'm saying there's five pages here if somebody could
20:29:38 lend that to the neighbors.
20:29:41 Anyway, the site plan is shown in the garbage
20:29:43 dumpster, really, you know, pretty close to their
20:29:48 properties.
20:29:50 And I'm wondering, you know, I know that solid waste
20:29:54 probably gets into these issues about what the best
20:29:56 place is for these sort of things.
20:29:57 And often solid waste doesn't take into consideration
20:30:00 what's best for the immediate neighbors.
20:30:03 But has that been wrestled with and were there
20:30:07 alternatives that might have been further away?
20:30:17 >>> Probably further substantially away than what they
20:30:21 have to be.
20:30:22 They can be at 7 feet.
20:30:24 But what you have got, you have got a 32-inch and a
20:30:28 33-inch tree.
20:30:30 And the 20-foot protective radius around both of
20:30:32 those.
20:30:33 So retaining those trees, that's why that was moved up
20:30:36 there.

20:30:46 12 feet from the property line.
20:30:49 To the corner of that.
20:30:53 And that is the solid waste, which will be screened
20:30:57 with masonry walls and landscaping.
20:31:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: But you don't know if there's been
20:31:06 dialogue about alternative locations?
20:31:08 >>> It's my understanding through the DRC and through
20:31:12 the permitting process that given solid waste and
20:31:16 about location for the trees, the solid waste, and --
20:31:21 >> I'm clearing not suggesting we get any closer to
20:31:23 the trees.
20:31:24 I'm suggesting the Bay to Bay side instead of the
20:31:27 Santiago side.
20:31:30 What are we showing in terms of a wall or a fence on
20:31:33 the Santiago side, on the south side?
20:31:36 For the entire length?
20:31:39 >>> Multifamily and multifamily, so there is no
20:31:42 required buffering.
20:31:44 >> It's a PD.
20:31:45 I'm not showing --
20:31:47 >>> Not showing anything additional.
20:31:48 There is an existing fence there.

20:31:49 >> What kind of fence?
20:31:51 Whose fence is it?
20:31:52 >> I believe it's the fence that belongs to the town
20:31:55 home.
20:31:55 I can show you.
20:32:00 Appears to be a six foot masonry -- I'm sorry, six
20:32:04 foot wood fence with a combination of some chain link
20:32:07 and some shrubs that are planted intermittently with
20:32:11 of course those trees that are there. Let me see if I
20:32:14 can move in for you.
20:32:20 I don't know if you know this.
20:32:31 You know, a lot of times 155 feet is not necessarily
20:32:34 155 feet.
20:32:36 What is being proposed above the surface of 155 feet
20:32:41 in terms of elevator boxes or air conditioning systems
20:32:46 or what have you?
20:32:47 >>> As far as mechanical equipment?
20:32:50 I am not sure what mechanical equipment is being
20:32:52 proposed.
20:32:54 There is a lot of encroachment of 20%.
20:32:57 >> 20% of the total height?
20:32:59 >>> No, 20% of the roof area.

20:33:09 >>> A couple points of clarification.
20:33:11 This can be a little hard to do on there.
20:33:15 You know, the whole building is not 155 feet.
20:33:19 There are elements of the building, the one main
20:33:21 element of the building, that is the 155 feet.
20:33:28 I don't know if I am going to be able to achieve this
20:33:30 very well.
20:33:31 The town homes that are here, that first step of the
20:33:35 building would be 27 feet.
20:33:39 And the south would be 144 feet.
20:33:42 Can okay?
20:33:43 And then it would step out, the roof of this would
20:33:48 also be 27 feet.
20:33:49 So all of this that wraps the building all the way
20:33:52 around to this point here would be at 27 feet.
20:33:55 And then you would have that centerpiece that would be
20:33:58 at 155 feet.
20:33:59 >> Do the Santiago neighbors get a garage facing them?
20:34:05 Pursuant to this design?
20:34:07 >>> Yes.
20:34:09 I believe so.
20:34:10 For that portion of the building from this point back.

20:34:13 >> And if they do, at what levels?
20:34:17 And what is the treatment, the exterior treatment?
20:34:20 And what do we know, whatever is called the
20:34:27 opaqueness?
20:34:28 >> It is required to be 20% opaque.
20:34:30 There's been no waiver requested for that, so that is
20:34:33 going to have to meet the 80% opaque.
20:34:37 It would mean there should be screening for the car
20:34:39 lights.
20:34:41 That should not be going into their property.
20:34:43 But I can let Mr. Robinson speak to that further.
20:34:45 I did want to clarify that given that this property is
20:34:47 zoned for 31 units, and all that is being requested
20:34:52 tonight is 31 units, there was no traffic analysis
20:34:54 that is required because this property by right gets
20:34:58 the 31 units regardless of whether it's rezoned to PD
20:35:01 this evening or not.
20:35:02 >> That's why I didn't ask you about traffic.
20:35:07 I had a couple other questions.
20:35:08 Oh, and the trees.
20:35:10 Everybody referred to the trees.
20:35:11 Somebody said grand tree.

20:35:12 I don't know that these are grand trees.
20:35:14 Are they?
20:35:15 >>> Yeah.
20:35:16 >> Which ones?
20:35:17 >>> The one --
20:35:22 >> The 22-inch, is that a grand tree?
20:35:25 >>> I believe there's two in front.
20:35:31 26-inch and the 29-inch.
20:35:32 >> So we are saving those two.
20:35:34 But how about the ones being removed?
20:35:36 There's a 22.
20:35:38 So the ones being removed are protected but not grand?
20:35:41 >>> There's only, I believe, one tree being removed.
20:35:45 That's a right-of-way tree.
20:35:46 >> I'm looking at the plan showing one, two, three
20:35:52 trees being removed.
20:35:54 21, 22, and 22-inch trees.
20:35:57 Okay.
20:36:01 And this might be for Melanie.
20:36:05 Ms. Calloway?
20:36:06 There was discussion about the status of Isabella and
20:36:13 it is kind of a seamy little road.

20:36:17 I know 31 trips is 31 trips, or 31 units is 31 units
20:36:21 is not huge.
20:36:23 But is there any notion that the developer two of
20:36:28 improve Isabella in any way?
20:36:30 >>> Melanie Calloway, transportation, I have been
20:36:33 sworn.
20:36:37 They are not required to provide any type of
20:36:38 improvement because their impact on the roadways is
20:36:40 not significant enough to be able to require any
20:36:42 improvement for this project.
20:36:42 >> So the road is adequate to handle it?
20:36:49 >>> Yes.
20:36:50 Adequate capacity to be able to handle the trips.
20:36:55 >> And do the folks in the Santiago apartments, the
20:36:58 units there, is their only way out on Isabella?
20:37:01 >>> Yes.
20:37:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena and
20:37:08 Councilwoman Mulhern.
20:37:12 >> I had a couple of follow-ups.
20:37:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Let me get to them because they have
20:37:17 been waiting so I'll come back to you.
20:37:20 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Transportation.

20:37:21 Intersection of Bay to Bay and, well, all the
20:37:25 intersections around there are very, very challenging.
20:37:28 Are there any improvements that are part of this
20:37:32 proposal like doing a right out or anything like that?
20:37:39 On Isabella to Bay to Bay?
20:37:46 >>> Your question is, is the driveway on Bay to Bay a
20:37:46 right-in right-out only?
20:37:52 To my knowledge I don't think it is.
20:37:54 It's a one way in and one way out.
20:37:56 They can't make that turn, traveling left on Bay to
20:37:59 Bay into the project.
20:38:03 The actual residence driveway is off of Isabella.
20:38:10 That's where the residents --
20:38:12 >> So everybody going in, if they are going south on
20:38:15 Bayshore, will go up Bay to Bay and make a left?
20:38:18 >>> If they live there.
20:38:22 >>> The resident driveway is really on Isabella.
20:38:27 There's one on Isabella and one on Bay to Bay.
20:38:30 One on Isabella is actually the one for the resident.
20:38:33 The other one is just for visitors.
20:38:35 >> So in other words you haven't figured out whether
20:38:36 this is going to back up.

20:38:38 It just seems like it's going to back up, but we can't
20:38:42 address that, right?
20:38:43 So the other question would be, in order to construct
20:38:49 it, Ms. Lyons brought up the idea of a maintenance
20:38:53 plan during construction to figure out where the
20:38:56 workers are going to park off-site, because that was a
20:38:58 dreadful problem during the last construction.
20:39:01 >>> Right-of-way permitting department?
20:39:05 They are the one that is determine the maintenance of
20:39:08 traffic, M.O.T., and are they going to need Bay to Bay
20:39:16 for actual construction when they put in the
20:39:17 foundation.
20:39:18 They will determine where they are to park and all the
20:39:21 construction, that is done by our right-of-way
20:39:24 section.
20:39:25 >>
20:39:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: If the public or council is
20:39:29 concerned about problems during this, what is their
20:39:31 recourse?
20:39:33 >>> You would have to contact the transportation.
20:39:37 >> Manager.
20:39:38 >> And what do we do?

20:39:40 We just finished a six month fiasco on channel
20:39:44 street -- eleventh street in the Channel District.
20:39:48 >>> Eleventh street, but also how eleventh street
20:39:53 looks at this point.
20:39:54 >> Because this is such -- this is such a critical
20:40:00 intersection of Bay to Bay and Bayshore and Isabel is
20:40:03 like alleyway of a street.
20:40:05 Do you think this is possible?
20:40:07 >>> It is possible.
20:40:08 It's not, you know, middle of nowhere, you have more
20:40:15 than enough land obviously.
20:40:17 But there's construction downtown every day, and, you
20:40:20 know, downtown.
20:40:24 There's congestion all over the city.
20:40:27 Construction happens every day.
20:40:28 We have to work it with the best we can in the limited
20:40:31 amount of right-of-way that we have available.
20:40:36 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Lastly for staff.
20:40:38 Where are the air conditioners going to be placed and
20:40:40 how is that noise going to be baffled?
20:40:49 >>> The air conditioners are roof mounted.
20:40:51 There would be a cooling unit.

20:40:56 >>MARY MULHERN: Yes, I was wondering -- I think I just
20:40:59 have questions for Mr. Robinson.
20:41:01 And I just have a comment for transportation.
20:41:07 All of these neighbors talking about this is for
20:41:09 Melanie and whoever else is involved in
20:41:13 transportation.
20:41:14 This is -- that Bay to Bay MacDill, Isabella,
20:41:20 Bayshore, is terrible.
20:41:21 Right now, as it is.
20:41:22 And the people who live right by there reminded me of
20:41:27 that because I use that a lot.
20:41:28 And there are schools, churches, synagogues, daycare,
20:41:35 shops, restaurants.
20:41:35 So I think that we need to address that problem.
20:41:41 Whether you are building there or not.
20:41:43 And I think, Ms. Calloway convinced me that I don't
20:41:49 think it's going to be a big -- the Bay to Bay
20:41:53 visitors entrance shouldn't be a big problem.
20:41:56 But it may be a problem with the Isabella -- Linda
20:42:03 said it's going to be a left turn, going to be a right
20:42:05 turn on Bay to Bay and then a lot done to Isabella.
20:42:09 So I think we do need to look at that.

20:42:13 And one of my questions for you is how many units are
20:42:15 there at the Alagon?
20:42:17 >> I think there was 60 units?
20:42:25 >> Six oh?
20:42:28 >> 60 units.
20:42:31 I think around 60.
20:42:32 >> So this will probably be half as many cars?
20:42:39 >>> William Robinson.
20:42:41 Let me try to address a few of these.
20:42:43 >> You probably should just answer my questions,
20:42:47 because you are going to have a chance for rebuttal
20:42:50 anyway.
20:42:51 So you think it's around 60.
20:42:54 >> For the Alagon?
20:42:56 My guess is around 60 units.
20:42:58 >> So would you say it's about twice as big, the
20:43:02 project as far as -- I don't know if it makes a big
20:43:07 difference in construction.
20:43:08 >>> They also had townhouses right up on Bayshore
20:43:11 Boulevard, too.
20:43:13 There's another 60 in the tower and about five or six
20:43:17 townhouses on pay shore.

20:43:18 >> I think we have to take this construction stuff
20:43:21 seriously, because I've only been here since people
20:43:25 have been living there and we have still been having
20:43:28 complaints about service vehicles and all this.
20:43:29 And I think that's been worked out.
20:43:31 But we do need to take that into consideration.
20:43:34 But I know your property very well.
20:43:37 There's a lot of time they are waving signs and
20:43:40 parking my cars on Bayshore and it seems to me like
20:43:45 you might have an opportunity for staging because you
20:43:50 won't hopefully be doing it in landscaping before the
20:43:52 building --
20:43:53 >> Appreciate that.
20:43:56 >> Bayshore, there's a lot of space there.
20:43:59 >> One of my comments is going to be we are going to
20:44:02 use the 14,000 square feet corridor to park staging
20:44:06 vehicles for workmen, in addition to which, I plan to
20:44:10 use a golf cart, and Jimmy people back and forth
20:44:15 across the -- under the Crosstown because there's a
20:44:18 lot of parking under the Crosstown.
20:44:21 >> Where are you going to address, Santiago?
20:44:24 >> Where can you drive a golf cart?

20:44:27 United Kingdom drive a golf cart down Santiago.
20:44:30 Right to MacDill.
20:44:31 And right under the Crosstown.
20:44:41 >>MARY MULHERN: Can we get a commitment on the site
20:44:42 plan?
20:44:47 >>> In addition to which I was going to take Ralph
20:44:50 Turner's advice and propose to have monthly meetings
20:44:52 with the neighborhood to be able to, you know, voice
20:44:56 issues with regard to the construction, be noise,
20:44:59 dirt, or parking issues.
20:45:02 We can commit to doing that, and try to work with the
20:45:06 neighbors.
20:45:09 Let me go down some of these items.
20:45:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Well, you will have time for that.
20:45:14 We just need council to address the questions and you
20:45:18 will have rebuttal time.
20:45:20 >>MARY MULHERN: I have one more question for you.
20:45:22 So, you know, he had just today the letter from rob
20:45:27 and the letter from Vicki then the neighbors show up
20:45:32 tonight and do have questions about it.
20:45:33 So I'm just wondering if -- did you work with them?
20:45:39 >>> Nobody ever called me.

20:45:41 I sent the letter out that you saw.
20:45:43 And I asked for e-mails, letters.
20:45:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, okay, okay, you can't do that.
20:45:53 Just talk to us, to council.
20:45:55 And the audience, you can't -- this is a public
20:45:57 hearing.
20:45:58 Please do not interrupt the proceeding.
20:46:00 >>MARY MULHERN: So you didn't hear from people, but
20:46:05 you also didn't --
20:46:10 >>> I asked if there's any opposition, please contact
20:46:12 me.
20:46:16 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'll try to speak to you.
20:46:18 Mr. Robinson, let me zip through something real fast.
20:46:20 Where is the generator?
20:46:22 The generator was a huge and still huge issue on the
20:46:25 Alagon.
20:46:26 >>> It will be in the parking garage.
20:46:29 >> Could it object it Bay to Bay side of the parking
20:46:31 garage?
20:46:32 Is that possible?
20:46:32 Because what happens is you guys crank it up, you have
20:46:36 got to test it.

20:46:37 >>> Yes, that can be possible.
20:46:40 >> Abbye, I'm going to zip some added conditions in
20:46:43 here.
20:46:45 Petitioner agrees to that.
20:46:50 I would love to have a note about no construction
20:46:53 vehicles on Isabella, because it really became a big
20:46:57 problem again by the Alagon where they well meaning
20:47:04 subcontractors clog up that for two years as Mrs.
20:47:08 Lyons pointed out.
20:47:09 So if you can at least stipulate your construction
20:47:12 vehicles -- I mean, obviously, if you have to put a
20:47:14 crane out there you have to put a crane out there
20:47:16 temporarily.
20:47:16 But the day-to-day subcontractors, pickup trucks,
20:47:20 et cetera, delivery trucks, are not going to block
20:47:22 Isabella, because if they do these people aren't going
20:47:25 to be able to get in and out of their neighborhood
20:47:27 during construction.
20:47:28 So Abbye, if you guys can figure -- Mr. Robinson, are
20:47:31 you okay with that?
20:47:32 >>> Yes.
20:47:35 Can use Bay to Bay and Bayshore.

20:47:37 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Beautiful.
20:47:39 Exterior garage treatment concerns me greatly in terms
20:47:41 of light and noise.
20:47:44 I don't know if you got to that level of treatment yet
20:47:46 in terms of architectural renderings.
20:47:49 But do you think it's possible that your Santiago
20:47:54 exposure might just be 100% opaque?
20:47:57 >> It going to be a closed garage.
20:48:00 >> So that would be yes then?
20:48:01 >> Yes.
20:48:02 Because the definition, we are going to have opacity
20:48:11 and 100% ventilation.
20:48:13 >> Not active but passive demo -- ventilation.
20:48:17 >> And two sides which would be 50% of the total
20:48:20 perimeter.
20:48:20 >> As far as these people are concerned on the south
20:48:23 side on Santiago, they are just going to look at a
20:48:25 wall, three-story wall.
20:48:27 >>> Right.
20:48:29 Entry, that's it.
20:48:30 >> So if it not in the conditions, Abbye, let's make
20:48:33 sure that is.

20:48:34 And --
20:48:36 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Is F I could ask, is that acceptable
20:48:38 to add that to the notes?
20:48:45 >>> Yes.
20:48:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I need to hear from one of the
20:48:48 adjacent neighbors, whichever one of the three of you.
20:48:51 The existing 6-foot fence, you know, a lot of times,
20:48:56 cypress fences come and go.
20:48:59 You know, they are only built to last, you know, 10,
20:49:02 15 years, whatever.
20:49:04 Then this type of massive construction if I was living
20:49:06 next door I might like to see perhaps an 8-foot
20:49:09 cinderblock wall.
20:49:15 Bill, you are putting a lot of concrete in there.
20:49:17 Would you be okay with an 8-foot cinderblock wall?
20:49:21 >>> 6-foot I think.
20:49:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I know.
20:49:24 I'm suggesting 8 feet.
20:49:25 >>> I don't mind it.
20:49:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Okay.
20:49:31 And I'm just trying to protect those folks.
20:49:33 These are the immediately impacted people.

20:49:37 >>> On the south property line.
20:49:38 >> On the south property line, yes.
20:49:40 And then what is above the 155-foot -- are you putting
20:49:44 an elevator?
20:49:45 >>> There will be an elevator, equipment room.
20:49:49 >> How about a parapet?
20:49:52 >>>
20:49:55 >> And the trash.
20:50:00 I assume there's no other real viable alternative for
20:50:03 the trash?
20:50:04 >>> There's a lot -- there's a huge amount of trees in
20:50:09 that corner there.
20:50:14 That goes back to the sidewalk issue.
20:50:18 Because the sidewalk over the corner, you are going to
20:50:22 have to have remove a lot of trees so we thought they
20:50:25 might prefer the in lieu trees.
20:50:27 >> I think the expert on that edge should help with
20:50:30 the trash and noise.
20:50:31 >>> And there's a masonry wall enclosure around that.
20:50:36 >> Yes, but it's only six feet.
20:50:38 And our dump trucks are 12 feet probably, 10 feet
20:50:42 tall.

20:50:47 I think that's my whole laundry list.
20:50:50 The gentleman, the vice-president of the neighborhood
20:50:52 association, said that, you know, this is like the
20:50:55 better two of evils.
20:50:57 I definitely agree.
20:50:59 Ideally, it would have been nice if the city could
20:51:01 have just bought this parcel but it never ended up
20:51:05 being for sale and we can't force that.
20:51:07 We aren't going to take it by eminent domain. So Mr.
20:51:10 Robinson chose not to sell it so now I think he's
20:51:13 putting forth a compromise project.
20:51:15 We often find ourselves between a rock and a hard
20:51:17 place so we have to make the best of the situation.
20:51:20 So thank you.
20:51:23 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just want to confirm Mr. Robinson,
20:51:26 sir, you had said that you had no objection to an
20:51:30 8-foot masonry wall along the south property, you say?
20:51:33 >>> South property line.
20:51:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY: The site plan you would have no
20:51:36 objection to that?
20:51:37 >>> I would like a clarification on that.
20:51:40 At what point do you want me to stop that going

20:51:43 towards Bayshore?
20:51:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Well, yes, downtown want --
20:51:46 >>I don't think you want an 8-foot wall all the way.
20:51:49 >> How far down do their units go?
20:51:55 >>> The unit is all the way up on Bayshore Boulevard.
20:52:03 If we ran the wall to the width of her unit, I don't
20:52:09 know what her setback is.
20:52:15 The wall would go within 10-foot of Bayshore.
20:52:18 >> I'll tell you. What Abbye, maybe you all can look
20:52:21 at that and come back to us at second reading for
20:52:24 whatever your recommendation is on that.
20:52:29 And work with the neighbors as well, the developer on
20:52:31 that issue.
20:52:33 Is that too vague?
20:52:36 >> That is kind of vague for second reading, Mr.
20:52:40 Dingfelder.
20:52:40 For conformance between first and second reading.
20:52:44 >> All right.
20:52:44 Why don't we say 25 feet.
20:52:48 At the 25-foot mark, or what?
20:52:51 >> Under the RM 35. Let's say you were going to put
20:52:55 up fence which you wouldn't put probably an 8-foot

20:53:00 wall.
20:53:03 But it would not come further than that from set back
20:53:07 under the RM 35, is 25 feet.
20:53:18 >> The building probably back at -- what I have marked
20:53:22 out here in black is the RM 35 where the buildings
20:53:27 would come.
20:53:28 So I would probably recommend that you terminate the
20:53:31 wall somewhere in that area.
20:53:37 >> What corner are you at there?
20:53:38 I don't have a context.
20:53:41 >>> This is Bayshore.
20:53:45 And then Santiago would be down here and then your
20:53:47 property is in here.
20:53:49 >>> Thousand about we go 75-foot on the front and all
20:53:54 the way to Isabella?
20:53:57 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So start the wall 75 feet back?
20:54:00 >>> Back to Bayshore and then go all the way to the
20:54:03 property line on Isabella.
20:54:05 >> That would be equal --
20:54:10 >> I agree.
20:54:12 I want to be reasonable.
20:54:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Quick question.

20:54:16 Signage.
20:54:17 I didn't see any signage on the site plan, what's
20:54:20 being planned for signage.
20:54:21 >> There will only be a small sign by the front door.
20:54:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Mr. Robinson, you have five minutes
20:54:31 for rebuttal.
20:54:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: If you don't want it.
20:54:36 >>> I think we already have it.
20:54:39 One issue.
20:54:50 Ms. Weekley, I don't know this time or the last time,
20:54:53 brought forth an idea because she had a discussion
20:54:56 with councilman Miranda about what property are
20:54:58 available on Bayshore to be built.
20:55:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Mr. Robinson, we always say, you
20:55:03 have to know when to just chill.
20:55:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Mr. Robinson, before you leave,
20:55:11 though, is it agreed that you will agree to have that
20:55:13 put on the site plan as was stated?
20:55:16 >>> Yes.
20:55:17 75-foot from Bayshore all the way to Isabella.
20:55:20 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Thank you, sir.
20:55:22 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.

20:55:27 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: (off microphone) before you
20:55:31 close --
20:55:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: We are making it a better project.
20:55:39 >>> The only thing I would warn about --
20:55:43 Mr. Robinson, if you come to the mike, I appreciate
20:55:45 it, sir.
20:55:46 Thank you so very kindly.
20:55:49 >>> Remember that these residents are accessing on
20:55:52 Isabella.
20:55:53 We may not want to bring that all the way up to the
20:55:56 property line.
20:55:56 We need to look at where their driveway comes out and
20:55:59 where the site visibility triangle is so we are not
20:56:02 making, you know.
20:56:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I completely agree.
20:56:07 We can't do that engineering today.
20:56:08 >>> We'll sit down and get back and get together with
20:56:12 Mr. Robinson.
20:56:16 Mr. Dingfelder, you had recommended, and Mr. Robinson
20:56:19 had agreed to, placing the general rate or on the Bay
20:56:23 to Bay side of the property.
20:56:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: The garage, yes.

20:56:26 >>> Adding a note related to construction vehicles and
20:56:29 staging, not to take place on Isabella.
20:56:33 No construction vehicles and/or staging would occur on
20:56:38 Isabella.
20:56:41 The garage on the south portion of the property would
20:56:43 be 100% opaque.
20:56:45 Mr. Robinson agreed that it would actually include
20:56:48 100% ventilation.
20:56:51 You didn't talk about where that ventilation or the
20:56:53 mechanical equipment for that ventilation was going to
20:56:56 occur.
20:57:00 Lastly, with an 8-foot masonry wall on the south
20:57:03 property line, we discussed initiating or starting
20:57:06 that, to be in line with the building at 75 feet off
20:57:09 of Bayshore and continuing that all the way back to
20:57:12 Isabella, for site visibility.
20:57:16 I did review the site plan.
20:57:18 And the AC units, although Mr. Robinson spoke that
20:57:23 they would be located on the roof, would be roof
20:57:25 mounted.
20:57:26 There is not a note on the plan for.
20:57:27 That so I would like a motion that it be added to

20:57:30 that.
20:57:32 >> Good.
20:57:34 >>ABBYE FEELEY: And then we needed a determination of
20:57:37 impracticality on Isabella for the preservation of all
20:57:41 the right-of-way trees and motion for the addition on
20:57:43 the note for review for recording of the easement.
20:57:49 That's it.
20:57:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.
20:57:57 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: One other question.
20:57:58 Staff?
20:58:00 Staff?
20:58:00 Is this the place to address the maintenance of
20:58:03 traffic?
20:58:05 Let me just express my concern and you can tell me the
20:58:07 best way to address it.
20:58:09 My concern is that we not make the neighborhood
20:58:11 completely crazy during construction.
20:58:14 And that there's some responsibility we can hold the
20:58:19 developer to during this.
20:58:22 Do we have that recourse?
20:58:23 Can we put that in the site plan?
20:58:26 We specified, for example, we can't mess with Isabella

20:58:31 during this but there needs to be something to protect
20:58:33 the neighborhood because --
20:58:36 >>> It's my understanding in the process that when
20:58:37 they go in for permits and they get permits for
20:58:41 transportation, at that time transportation works with
20:58:43 them on a plan for construction staging and accessing
20:58:46 the site, and all of that.
20:58:48 I don't know, and I would like Julia to speak to the
20:58:52 legal enforceability of those.
20:58:53 I mean, they are going to meet with transportation,
20:58:56 have to device a plan for access and for functionality
20:59:00 of those roadways systems during the time of
20:59:02 construction.
20:59:05 What effect would an additional note to have an impact
20:59:07 to be able to enforce?
20:59:09 I don't want to necessarily recommend that you put
20:59:11 something in there that may or may not when they get
20:59:13 to meet with transportation be in concert with the
20:59:17 plan that transportation finds most suitable for this
20:59:20 interception in order to keep traffic flow at an
20:59:23 acceptable level of service.
20:59:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Pretty much saying let you all handle

20:59:28 this.
20:59:30 >>> Not land development, transportation.
20:59:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Thank you.
20:59:33 >>> Legal department.
20:59:36 I discussed this with Mr. Robinson briefly, and
20:59:40 technically you would have to do this anyway, ensuring
20:59:44 that it does occur during the construction review
20:59:46 process.
20:59:51 This would indicate that he would, pursuant to chapter
20:59:55 22, work with transportation department to come up
20:59:57 with the maintenance of traffic and I think he told me
21:00:05 keep traffic on Bay to Bay an and Bayshore, so notes
21:00:08 to that effect, now.
21:00:11 That way it's clearer for everybody and clear during
21:00:13 the permitting process.
21:00:15 So he agrees to that.
21:00:16 Maybe we can add a note such as that and make that as
21:00:19 part of the motion.
21:00:21 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay, motion to close.
21:00:23 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: So moved.
21:00:25 >>MARY MULHERN: Wait a minute.
21:00:26 I just want to make sure you put this in there, a

21:00:29 note.
21:00:29 You probably already did it, but that the construction
21:00:33 staging is going to be on --
21:00:36 Yes, all that's taken care of.
21:00:37 Okay?
21:00:38 Motion to close.
21:00:39 Second?
21:00:41 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:00:46 Okay.
21:00:49 Who is on?
21:00:50 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: It's John's area.
21:00:52 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Thank you so much.
21:00:53 Now all the patriots will hate me forever.
21:01:01 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
21:01:03 of the southwest corner of Bayshore and Bay to Bay
21:01:06 Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida described in
21:01:09 section 1 from zoning district classification RM 35 to
21:01:13 PD planned development residential multifamily
21:01:16 providing an effective date and incorporating all the
21:01:18 changes that Ms. Feely and Ms. Cole just proposed, and
21:01:27 that the developer agreed to.
21:01:28 >>MARTIN SHELBY: Just a clarification, why I'm sorry,

21:01:31 you said the word adopt.
21:01:32 You mean on first reading, correct?
21:01:36 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to approve it for first
21:01:38 reading.
21:01:38 Thank you.
21:01:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The reason I am going to support
21:01:40 this is because I think it's a really beautiful design
21:01:43 and protects the trees and I think the setbacks are
21:01:45 good.
21:01:45 I hope this is the last proposal for a high-rise on
21:01:47 Bayshore I ever see.
21:01:49 I want to go on record.
21:01:51 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's my understanding this is the last
21:01:53 piece of property for a high-rise on Bayshore, is that
21:01:56 right? I thought I heard that earlier.
21:02:03 There's a motion.
21:02:04 All in favor say Aye.
21:02:06 Opposed?
21:02:07 THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
21:02:09 Second reading and adoption will be on December
21:02:11 4th at 9:30 a.m.
21:02:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open number 9.

21:02:16 >> Second.
21:02:16 (Motion carried).
21:02:17 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item number 9.
21:02:20 Okay, we are still in session.
21:02:21 Excuse me.
21:02:22 We are still in session.
21:02:25 It's still public hearings.
21:02:27 Thank you.
21:02:31 Number 9.
21:02:34 >>> Samantha Fenger, Land Development Coordination, I
21:02:37 have been sworn.
21:02:38 Item number 9, petition VO 8-92 is here before you
21:02:41 tonight for 4302 West Kennedy Boulevard, currently
21:02:45 zoned commercial general and seeking a special use
21:02:47 approval for a bank with drive-in window.
21:02:49 The petitioner is requesting three waivers.
21:02:53 Section 27-130 to reduce the required 15-foot buffer
21:02:57 with 6-foot masonry wall to 3.4 with a 7-foot and
21:03:02 5-foot existing masonry wall.
21:03:05 Section 27-246 to allow access to a local street.
21:03:09 Section 27-272 to reduce the required separation
21:03:13 between the drive-in window to residential use from 50

21:03:16 feet to 3.44 feet.
21:03:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Could you repeat what you just said
21:03:21 only louder?
21:03:22 >>> I'm sorry.
21:03:23 Section 27-272.
21:03:27 This is a third waiver that the petitioner is
21:03:29 requesting.
21:03:29 To reduce the required separation between the drive-in
21:03:33 window to a residential use, 50 feet to 3.44 feet.
21:03:38 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: From 50 feet to 3-point --
21:03:42 >>> 44 feet, correct.
21:03:43 The main building setbacks are as follows.
21:03:46 North 23-point 88 feet, south 28.1-foot, west 150.5
21:03:53 feet, and east 5.9 feet.
21:03:56 The bank use requires 11 parking spaces, and 13 spaces
21:03:59 are being provided including one ADA and seven compact
21:04:04 spaces.
21:04:05 The site is located on the Westshore overlay district
21:04:07 and given the structure of the existing and undergoing
21:04:11 minor renovations and must comply with sign
21:04:14 regulations as a condition of the change of use.
21:04:22 >> I don't have any contacts.

21:04:24 What are we talking about?
21:04:27 It would be better to start so we have a frame of
21:04:30 reference.
21:04:31 >> Now we have heard all that but we don't know where
21:04:36 we are talking about.
21:04:36 >> Thank you.
21:04:41 >> The site is located on Kennedy.
21:04:46 Manhattan on the west.
21:04:49 You can see that the site has been zoned commercial
21:04:53 general with commercial general located primarily on
21:04:56 Kennedy.
21:04:57 It's surrounded by PD, planned development on both the
21:05:00 west and the east.
21:05:01 And some residential single-family on the south.
21:05:10 >> Excuse me.
21:05:12 Mr. Chairman, what was the structure there before?
21:05:17 I know that's had various changes.
21:05:21 I just told Mr. Dingfelder, I think it was the Boston
21:05:24 market.
21:05:24 But he didn't believe me.
21:05:25 And I don't blame him for not believing me because my
21:05:28 mind sometimes is not hooked up to my computer.

21:05:36 >> Here is an aerial view of the site located on
21:05:39 Kennedy with access from Kennedy and Huber.
21:05:48 This is the site from Kennedy.
21:05:50 The existing signs on the site.
21:06:00 This is looking north on Kennedy.
21:06:05 Looking west on Kennedy.
21:06:11 The dental clinic looking east on Kennedy.
21:06:15 This is a residential property south on Hubert.
21:06:23 Another looking south on Hubert.
21:06:25 This is the existing buffer along the residential
21:06:28 property south on Hubert.
21:06:31 Staff found the petition inconsistent with the City of
21:06:40 Tampa land development regulations.
21:06:42 However, if the applicant revise it is site plan with
21:06:44 the required notes and site plan revisions as stated
21:06:47 in the staff report between first and second reading,
21:06:49 the DRC will amend its determination and find the
21:06:53 petition consistent with the exception of the
21:06:54 transportation division that has an objection to the
21:06:58 access on the local street.
21:06:59 To brief you quickly on Land Development Coordination
21:07:02 finding, most of the items are technical in nature,

21:07:04 such as amending the site plan and the requested
21:07:07 revisions form has been submitted to you.
21:07:09 I would like to know that the first four items on that
21:07:13 revision item has been deleted and the petitioner has
21:07:17 agreed to those items being deleted.
21:07:20 This completes my presentation and staff is available
21:07:23 for any questions.
21:07:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I have been to the site and looked at
21:07:27 of the.
21:07:32 Where is the drive-in window going?
21:07:38 I just don't see where it's going.
21:07:51 >>> Here is an elevation that the petitioner has
21:08:01 provided showing where the drive-through is going to
21:08:06 be.
21:08:09 Back to the site plan that you have.
21:08:14 >> Show us the route that the cars are going to take.
21:08:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I thought they were going to come in
21:08:25 off Kennedy.
21:08:26 Go ahead, I'm sorry.
21:08:28 >>> Where the arrows are on Kennedy and right here,
21:08:32 the drive-through kiosk where the speakers face is the
21:08:39 drive-through here.

21:08:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Pretend you're a car, driving in
21:08:50 off Kennedy.
21:08:56 Coming in there.
21:09:05 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Okay, keep that there.
21:09:06 Describe to me the protection to I guess that's to the
21:09:12 south between the residential use and the kind of
21:09:17 lighting, buffering, green space.
21:09:20 >>> If I can go back to the photograph.
21:09:26 This photo here shows you they had an existing 5-foot
21:09:32 and 7-foot --
21:09:34 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm talking about down to the
21:09:37 neighbors, the south.
21:09:40 The peach --
21:09:41 >>> Correct.
21:09:42 >> This is the house.
21:09:44 >>> That's directly south on Hubert.
21:09:49 This is the residential property.
21:09:50 This is the wall and their fence.
21:09:52 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: So what is the commercial property
21:09:54 doing to protect them?
21:10:00 >>> They are maintaining the existing buffer that's on
21:10:04 this side right here, the shrubbery here, and there's

21:10:09 a 5-foot fence that's right here.
21:10:15 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Have you looked at the proposed
21:10:17 lighting?
21:10:18 We are really interested in doing here is protecting
21:10:21 the neighborhood.
21:10:23 So what about lighting?
21:10:25 >>> We asked the petitioner on one of the notes,
21:10:29 revised notes, to between first and second reading.
21:10:37 >> How high is the lighting?
21:10:38 Is it oriented down? You know, those are our usual
21:10:43 concerns.
21:10:43 >>> Right.
21:10:44 It's to make sure that one of the items that we asked
21:10:47 them to revise is to add to the site plan that
21:10:50 lighting shall be directed away and shield from
21:10:53 adjacent residential property.
21:10:54 >> And something else.
21:10:56 You said there's an oak tree that was misidentified as
21:10:59 a palm, that I just want to make sure that they are
21:11:02 meeting their tree table.
21:11:04 They don't have a tree table on the site plan?
21:11:06 I didn't see a tree table to the site plan.

21:11:11 >>> They have a tree table on their site plan.
21:11:19 They just have two items to correct for our landscape
21:11:22 specialist.
21:11:23 >> Is the landscape specialist here?
21:11:25 >>> She's not here.
21:11:26 >> Okay.
21:11:26 Are they going to replace what they need to replace?
21:11:33 >>> They will correct what they need to correct.
21:11:35 >> Are they adding additional impervious surface?
21:11:40 >>> Not that I know of.
21:11:42 Are they?
21:11:43 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Mulhern.
21:11:48 >>MARY MULHERN: I don't want those neighbors to have
21:11:51 lighting concerns, but I also think it seems very
21:11:55 unusual that we have it too low.
21:12:02 It looks to me like these drive aisles, that's where
21:12:05 the 3.4-foot setback is, so that's all going to be --
21:12:12 they are going to have people driving right by -- the
21:12:19 turn is right by the southern property, right?
21:12:22 That house.
21:12:26 You can't use the drive-through unless you go around
21:12:28 by their house.

21:12:33 >> Maybe you could put that photo back up of the house
21:12:55 and shrubs and then show me that.
21:12:57 Is that exactly where they are going to be driving?
21:13:02 Is a car going to be going right by that?
21:13:11 That's existing access?
21:13:13 >> The question regarding the 3.4, the queuing lanes,
21:13:17 is down here.
21:13:20 In the site plan.
21:13:27 They are keeping the current building, I think.
21:13:40 >> Correct.
21:13:41 >> Do they have a drive-through now?
21:13:43 >> No, no drive-through there now.
21:13:48 Has no cut-off on Kennedy either.
21:13:56 I thought -- it's one piece there, too?
21:14:01 All right, fine.
21:14:01 Then it is, yeah.
21:14:11 >> Planning Commission?
21:14:22 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:14:23 I have been sworn.
21:14:30 The site is located, between you have the Westshore is
21:14:35 several streets to the west.
21:14:37 You see Manhattan on the side.

21:14:39 You see the large context.
21:14:40 And Lois Avenue located to the east of the site.
21:14:43 Westshore plaza is the neighboring association on the
21:14:47 north.
21:14:47 Beach Park to the south.
21:14:48 Land use category along Kennedy Boulevard, urban mixed
21:14:52 use 60 which is the second highest mixed use category
21:14:55 that you have in the comprehensive plan, the land use
21:15:02 category to the south is residential category,
21:15:05 residential 6, which is common to a large segment of
21:15:09 this neighborhood.
21:15:10 We have several pocket of residential, residential 20
21:15:13 to the south, and of course Westshore Palms, much
21:15:16 higher density.
21:15:18 Going to the aerial, you see there's a lot of strip
21:15:28 development, a lot of general commercial and
21:15:30 neighborhood commercial, and very few Krewe I uses,
21:15:35 mostly general commercial uses, and to the west, of
21:15:39 course to the east, office, the site of course was
21:15:43 also previously a restaurant site which did have
21:15:45 increased hours of operation compared with what's
21:15:48 being offered to this evening, also something that was

21:15:53 open seven days a week by having a bank use which is
21:15:56 going to be much more of a contributing type of
21:15:58 neighborhood use.
21:15:59 You do have a reduction of type of hours that will be
21:16:01 impacting the neighborhood.
21:16:03 Also the number of traffic activity is going to be
21:16:08 lower than for a restaurant.
21:16:09 We do have an existing access point already on Hubert
21:16:13 for the restaurant.
21:16:14 As far as the amount of impervious surface that
21:16:18 currently exists on the site right now so there's no
21:16:21 additional impact as far as impervious surface is
21:16:24 concerned.
21:16:25 Parking lot pretty much the same, the green space, the
21:16:29 green areas, and
21:16:39 As far as the impact to the residential to the south,
21:16:41 the site plan, there is an existing site as well as
21:16:45 7-foot masonry wall to the south.
21:16:47 In addition to the vegetative buffer.
21:16:49 Planning Commission staff found the proposed request
21:16:51 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
21:16:55 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions?

21:17:01 >> I guess this is a question.
21:17:03 I'm a little early, but maybe -- no, maybe could you
21:17:07 just tell me.
21:17:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I meant questions for Tony.
21:17:11 >>MARY MULHERN: Well, I just realized Tony probably
21:17:15 doesn't know.
21:17:16 I'm sorry.
21:17:18 [ Laughter ]
21:17:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
21:17:30 You have 15 minutes presentation.
21:17:35 You don't have to use it all.
21:17:38 >>> I hear you, Mr. Chairman.
21:17:40 >>THOMAS SCOTT: A long day.
21:17:41 >>> Provided our site plan rendered and now we can't
21:17:44 seem to find it.
21:17:46 But we'll plan it for you shortly.
21:17:49 Michael Horner, 15502 representing north sit -- Citrus
21:17:55 Bank.
21:17:56 You asked some questions.
21:17:58 With me tonight is Chris McNeil, site engineer,
21:18:01 Richard Fleming, architect, also president of first
21:18:04 Citrus Bank.

21:18:05 We have worked very hard with staff and the neighbors,
21:18:10 and the HOA, and they are quite pleased that we are
21:18:14 not having a restaurant there any more.
21:18:17 With late hours, with Saturdays and Sundays, with
21:18:23 double trip generation, with different kind of impact
21:18:27 because you know what goes into a dumpster versus
21:18:29 papers from a bank.
21:18:30 So we feel that the plan before you is one that comes
21:18:35 with many benefits, greater open space, greater number
21:18:37 of trees, 75% planting an additional 11, greater
21:18:43 buffer because they are now increasing now conforming
21:18:46 Kennedy Boulevard buffer, hours of operation, no
21:18:52 Saturday, no Sunday, typically close at 5 to 6:00 at
21:18:56 night, very shortened queue lanes for the
21:19:00 drive-through, because 60% of Citrus Bank by Courier
21:19:05 and electronic deposit.
21:19:07 So this is a state-of-the-art facility converting
21:19:09 every single square foot of the structure, not adding
21:19:12 one more impervious surface square foot, in fact we
21:19:14 are adding a net benefit of 253 feet of green space,
21:19:19 also retention and a treatment pond which is not
21:19:22 existing now. So better stormwater quality,

21:19:24 additional trees, we are not changing access,
21:19:27 Mr. Chairman, we are not adding anything to Kennedy
21:19:28 Boulevard, we are not distributing traffic directly to
21:19:32 Hubert, we are maintaining only what is there now.
21:19:35 The neighborhood did approach us at one of our
21:19:38 meetings, particularly Barbara Hudson who said please
21:19:41 don't direct traffic down Hubert, we had problem with
21:19:44 cut-through traffic, on Westshore, we put in a type
21:19:48 curve that forces people to make left-hand turn out
21:19:51 towards Kennedy from Hubert.
21:19:53 No right turns.
21:19:54 There is a right turn in so people that want to come
21:19:56 from Kennedy into the bank and into the drive-through,
21:19:59 makes perfect sense, we are allowing that.
21:20:03 Signs are -- we are not adding to it, not increasing,
21:20:08 allowing to remain.
21:20:10 We have we think a land use, if you look at ULI two
21:20:14 years ago, the number one influence of blight in
21:20:17 neighborhoods, not crime, not drugs, not --
21:20:26 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
21:20:27 >> Again I apologize.
21:20:29 >>THOMAS SCOTT: No problem.

21:20:29 Thank you, sir.
21:20:32 Is anyone here in opposition to this?
21:20:35 Okay.
21:20:43 >>MARY MULHERN: Can I ask a question?
21:20:45 >> Let her speak and then come back.
21:20:46 >>MARGARET VIZZI: 213 south Sherill and I have been
21:20:49 sworn.
21:20:49 Yes, we did in fact meet with the citrus Park Bank,
21:20:53 the Citrus Bank people, before they even had their
21:20:58 representative.
21:20:58 We told them they probably had to come here.
21:21:01 And so the only thing that I heard tonight that I
21:21:11 don't remember, was three and a half feet.
21:21:16 Was that one of the drive-up?
21:21:19 I'm confused with that.
21:21:20 Because I don't remember hearing that.
21:21:26 You were talking about one of the -- they drove up to
21:21:30 do their banking.
21:21:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Why don't we let Mrs. Vizzi finish?
21:21:45 >>> I want to know exactly what that three and a half
21:21:48 feet from the residential was.
21:21:50 It was only supposed to be the drive, not one of

21:21:54 their -- whatever they call where they drive up to do
21:21:58 your banking, kiosk, whatever.
21:22:02 And is the kiosk three and a half feet from --
21:22:08 >>> There.
21:22:09 >>> Okay.
21:22:10 What is the three and a half feet?
21:22:13 That's just the queuing.
21:22:16 Okay.
21:22:17 Okay.
21:22:19 Yes, we did feel that this would be less intense.
21:22:21 We were the ones who asked them to please put in that
21:22:27 pork chop because the residents who are right there,
21:22:32 not only the one abutting but right across the street.
21:22:36 So we did agree with their plan, as long as they put
21:22:40 that in, and tried to be good neighbors.
21:22:44 Thank you.
21:22:45 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone else from the public?
21:22:49 Pro or con?
21:22:49 Okay.
21:22:51 Councilwoman Mulhern.
21:22:52 >>MARY MULHERN: I just wanted to make sure.
21:22:54 This is a drive-through for customers.

21:22:57 It not an ATM, is it?
21:23:00 >>> No.
21:23:00 >> Given the economy and the purchases by the banks,
21:23:11 is this going to be sustainable over the long-term?
21:23:14 >>> Let me have Mr. Layton respond to that question
21:23:18 but we have represented citrus bank for some time now,
21:23:22 they are a well funded, well financed, capitalized,
21:23:25 successful bank that just opened their facility on
21:23:27 sterling Avenue as well, no plans to close, and
21:23:30 looking forward to reaching out.
21:23:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Did you have anything else you wanted
21:23:35 to add?
21:23:36 >>> Not unless you have questions, sir.
21:23:37 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other questions by council
21:23:39 members?
21:23:40 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
21:23:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: I want to make sure now.
21:23:43 You are okay with your presentation?
21:23:45 Good.
21:23:45 That's what the attorney always said, you all should
21:23:48 have the last say-so, last T last word.
21:23:51 >>> I hate to miss opportunities to speak.

21:23:53 However -- on the last presentation know when to hold
21:23:58 them and know when to followed them.
21:24:01 >>MARY MULHERN: I am going to give you one more
21:24:04 opportunity.
21:24:04 Did you speak?
21:24:05 Have you talked to the person who lives in the
21:24:08 Mediterranean, the house?
21:24:11 >> Right to the south.
21:24:13 Beautiful fence, side by side.
21:24:16 My personal card in the mailbox.
21:24:17 No opposition.
21:24:18 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.
21:24:20 Motion to close.
21:24:23 >>CHAIRMAN: I already made the motion.
21:24:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
21:24:25 All right, all in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:24:28 Okay, Mr. Miranda, do you want to read the ordinance?
21:24:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move an ordinance for first
21:24:39 reading, an ordinance for a bank in a CG controlled
21:24:44 zoning district in the general vicinity of 4302 West
21:24:47 Kennedy Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida as
21:24:49 more particularly described in sections 1 approving

21:24:54 wafers set forth providing an effective date along
21:24:55 with all the documents that were received that the
21:25:00 petitioner and the city work worked out to be put on
21:25:04 the petition for approval.
21:25:07 >> Moved and seconded.
21:25:08 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:25:10 Opposed same sign.
21:25:11 THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and
21:25:13 Saul-Sena being absent at vote.
21:25:14 Second reading and adoption will be on December 4 at
21:25:17 9:30 a.m
21:25:20 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to open item number 10.
21:25:26 (Motion carried)
21:25:29 Item number 10.
21:25:36 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Land Development Coordination.
21:25:56 I have been sworn.
21:25:57 Item number Z 08-61, located at 402 South Boulevard,
21:26:03 813 and 815 west Horatio street, is tonight a rezoning
21:26:10 from PD planned development residential multifamily to
21:26:12 PD planned development congregate living facility,
21:26:16 youth care facility.
21:26:18 Three waivers associated with the petition this

21:26:20 evening, and one that will need to be added that's not
21:26:23 listed in the staff report.
21:26:25 I'll call out for you.
21:26:26 The first is 27-246 to allow nonresidential traffic to
21:26:32 a local street.
21:26:33 Second is 13-161 to allow pavement within the required
21:26:36 8-foot landscape buffer shown on the site plan.
21:26:39 You will see that those are actually sidewalks
21:26:42 connections from the building to the public
21:26:45 right-of-way.
21:26:46 Third is section 13-161-A to allow less than 30% green
21:26:52 space, a waiver of green space at 5,623 square feet
21:26:58 will be a messed a payment of fee in lieu.
21:27:01 Some of the changes you will see that are being
21:27:03 requested is that waiver number 2, gets language added
21:27:06 to be paid fee in lieu also, and the other waiver
21:27:09 that's not listed is going to be for reduction in the
21:27:11 drive aisle for 26 feet to 24 feet.
21:27:19 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property at
21:27:21 402 South Boulevard and 813 and 815 west Horatio from
21:27:25 PD to PD, to develop 156 bed congregate living
21:27:31 facility.

21:27:31 Proposed development is oriented towards South
21:27:33 Boulevard with the main entry on west Azeele.
21:27:36 Building is composed of several elements of varying
21:27:39 Heights up to a maximum height of it 2 feet.
21:27:42 The PD setbacks are as follows -- north along west
21:27:46 Azeele, 27 feet along west or who are ratio, 13.6
21:27:51 feet, west along South Boulevard, 14 feet, and east
21:27:55 9.9 feet.
21:27:56 The proposed use requires 62 parking spaces and 69
21:28:00 spaces are being provided.
21:28:02 The site was previously rezoned in 2005 to PD for 66
21:28:08 multifamily residential units in a 7-story building
21:28:10 for the maximum height of 92 feet, 104 feet to the top
21:28:15 of the mechanical equipment.
21:28:24 I'll start with the zoning atlas.
21:28:26 I'm sorry.
21:28:28 This is a very familiar segment of Boulevard located
21:28:32 right next to Gorrie Elementary school.
21:28:36 We have done several PDs, next to Mr. Mechanik's
21:28:39 office where the PD is located thon segment, south of
21:28:43 Platt, north of Swann.
21:28:47 Most of you who travel in the DBC periphery area.

21:28:54 The site is currently vacant.
21:28:56 I am going to show you some pictures.
21:29:01 You have Meridian research here with parking to the
21:29:04 north.
21:29:06 And the PDs that we did were at the southern end of
21:29:10 South Boulevard, and again is Gorrie Elementary
21:29:14 school.
21:29:20 This is a picture of the subject site but this is from
21:29:24 Azeele log west toward Boulevard.
21:29:27 This is a picture of the subject site from Boulevard
21:29:31 looking east.
21:29:35 This is looking north.
21:29:38 So goer would be behind you and you would be looking
21:29:40 north towards Azeele.
21:29:43 This is the POLY building to the east.
21:29:49 >> Is that a historic site -- a protected site?
21:29:52 It should be.
21:29:53 I just don't know if it is.
21:29:59 >>> This is looking north oh O on Boulevard from the
21:30:06 intersection of Azeele and Boulevard.
21:30:08 This is looking south on Boulevard.
21:30:13 This is the Meridian research building.

21:30:16 And the parking for Meridian.
21:30:20 And Gorrie Elementary school.
21:30:25 Staff found the request inconsistent.
21:30:34 However, if the applicant resides in the site plan
21:30:43 D.O.T. would find this consistent with the exception
21:30:45 of transportation who is objecting to access to the
21:30:47 local street.
21:30:48 This applications went before the architectural review
21:30:51 commission on October 8th, and they recommended,
21:30:55 they voted to recommend approval of this project as
21:30:57 presented, on the site plan dated September 18th
21:31:01 which is the site plan that is before you this
21:31:03 evening.
21:31:03 I provided you with a sheet of revisions that we are
21:31:06 looking for.
21:31:09 There were a couple of discrepancies in the dimension
21:31:11 of some of the parking spaces, I needed for them to
21:31:14 change that, and their parking calculations, and also
21:31:17 to add language to waiver number 2 to state payment in
21:31:21 fee of Lou.
21:31:22 Mary had a comment that she wanted the two green space
21:31:26 waivers combined into one.

21:31:28 We either need for them to get advocacy in lieu
21:31:31 statement to waiver 2 or combine, whichever the
21:31:36 petitioner prefers.
21:31:37 Transportation did comment, they do need a waiver from
21:31:39 the 20-50 to the 24 feet for the drive aisle and they
21:31:43 had some calculations that needed changing as well.
21:31:47 The last comment I wanted to talk about with solid
21:31:50 waste, there is a TECO easement, you can see on the
21:31:54 site plan, and the proposed location to the dumpsters
21:31:56 encroaching into that easement.
21:31:58 For the previous rezoning, there was intent to vacate
21:32:03 that easement or have that easement released and I
21:32:06 believe the petitioner has been in discussion was TECO
21:32:09 for that to happen.
21:32:12 What solid waste requested is that a note be added
21:32:14 that prior to permitting, the current 15-foot wide
21:32:19 TECO utility easement must be relocated.
21:32:23 The petitioner asked that condition of permitting be
21:32:26 to certificate of October pan pansy because without
21:32:29 site permit they cannot purchase the property from
21:32:31 TECO.
21:32:32 So it would kind of -- that would be a modification on

21:32:38 that, and I don't believe solid waste is here to be
21:32:40 able to speak to whether or not that would be
21:32:42 acceptable.
21:32:42 I don't see that there would be any issues with that.
21:32:44 So I would support that as well.
21:32:47 Staff is available for any questions.
21:32:50 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
21:32:50 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:33:01 I have been sworn.
21:33:02 As relates to the comprehensive plan, the proposed
21:33:04 site in question, which Mrs. Feeley already state
21:33:07 towed is 136 units, adult congregate living facility,
21:33:10 will be located in this area, which is known as the
21:33:13 Historic Hyde Park north neighborhood association.
21:33:19 The land use categories in the area, you have
21:33:20 residential 50 to the east, this is residential 35,
21:33:25 public semi-public, which is Gorrie Elementary, along
21:33:32 Platt Street which is one of your collector roads.
21:33:35 Let me show you the aerial.
21:33:37 This particular part of the Historic Hyde Park area is
21:33:42 evidenced of a lot of adaptive reuse.
21:33:45 Off lot of office buildings in the area in colonial

21:33:48 style that are used primarily for professional office
21:33:50 use.
21:33:51 And there is a smattering of residential in the area.
21:33:54 There are some residential uses to the east of the
21:33:56 site.
21:33:56 And several to the north of the site.
21:33:59 Mostly this area has been -- has had a nice transition
21:34:03 to a lot of professional office uses.
21:34:05 There was a nice mixed use project done on this site
21:34:09 which is currently vacant land right now, Ms.
21:34:14 Saul-Sena, you recall the mix used residential and
21:34:17 office, and also just to the west of Gorrie
21:34:23 Elementary.
21:34:27 This was actually approved about five years ago by
21:34:30 this council for the development.
21:34:33 They did have allowance for a lot more density in
21:34:39 addition to higher height of what's presently
21:34:42 requested by this particular applicant.
21:34:45 The request for adult congregate living, it would be
21:34:48 nice if we could have a project like this in every one
21:34:50 of our established neighborhoods in the city, as we
21:34:53 are faced with the increasing reality of an aging

21:34:58 population in our city as well as across the United
21:35:00 States.
21:35:01 So it's good to see that we have uses like this coming
21:35:05 in to that segment of our population, in need of
21:35:09 specialty housing.
21:35:10 It kind of ironic to add elementary things to the.
21:35:19 Planning stiff staff found it consistent with the
21:35:24 comprehensive plan.
21:35:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Petitioner?
21:35:28 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
21:35:37 Though Abbye did read the recommendation of approval
21:35:39 by the architectural review commission I did want to
21:35:42 give a little texture to that recommendation.
21:35:44 The applicants have been working and we have met
21:35:47 several times with the applicants, and their
21:35:51 architect, and they have made a number of changes from
21:35:54 the original plan, which staff has supported
21:35:57 throughout, which included reducing the overall
21:35:59 density of the project, the height, and adding various
21:36:03 notes onto the site plan, with undetermined elements
21:36:09 up to have the to the architectural review commission
21:36:12 but be required to come back to the ARC.

21:36:15 So just for your information, keep in mind that some
21:36:18 of those undetermined issues will be resolved through
21:36:20 the process.
21:36:23 >>JIM SHIMBERG: Holland and Knight for the record, for
21:36:28 the record. I have been sworn.
21:36:30 In the interest of time, staff made a good
21:36:33 presentation.
21:36:33 We have Stephani Gaines, our architect here, who would
21:36:37 love to walk you through the proposed project.
21:36:39 It's a real exciting project.
21:36:41 We are replacing what was town homes and that's not as
21:36:46 viable in this current economy but we think it's one
21:36:49 of the first senior housing facilities built in South
21:36:51 Tampa in many years.
21:36:57 Stephen Benjamin and their company is here, they have
21:36:59 properties in 17 states, are a very high caliber
21:37:03 operator, very excellent reputation.
21:37:05 There's a number of advantages to this project
21:37:07 including the fact that the Heights will be lower,
21:37:11 there's not going to be a parking garage, there's
21:37:13 going to be greater setbacks.
21:37:15 We do believe there will be some opportunity for a

21:37:18 relationship between the resident and the elementary
21:37:20 school students.
21:37:24 The city tax base will go from about $40,000 a year to
21:37:25 $500,000 a year, and there's a lot of positives.
21:37:29 Let me just talk to you about our outreach.
21:37:32 Again TWI is the developer here.
21:37:36 They went beyond the call of duty and required to
21:37:39 the -- prior to the required notice, they met with all
21:37:43 the neighborhood associations, even the ones that I
21:37:46 thought we were not required to meet with, based on
21:37:49 this location, we still met, we feel the number of
21:37:54 phone calls were not aware of any opposition and there
21:37:57 may be someone here tonight that I am not aware of.
21:38:00 We are not aware of any opposition.
21:38:05 Stephani has a great presentation.
21:38:08 If would you like to hear it.
21:38:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here in opposition?
21:38:12 Anyone here to speak in opposition?
21:38:14 Anyone here in support of this, maybe you just want to
21:38:18 stand and same you support it? Any other questions
21:38:20 for council?
21:38:23 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I'm just thrilled.

21:38:24 When I looked at the pictures that you really
21:38:26 reference the Friday morning musicale, the scale fits
21:38:30 nicely into the neighborhood, it's a tricky site, and
21:38:34 beautiful.
21:38:35 Maybe we'll all end up there.
21:38:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
21:38:40 I think there's one issue that we need to address
21:38:43 about the -- want to speak to that again?
21:38:48 >>ABBYE FEELEY: On the sheet of revisions that I gave
21:38:51 you, it needs to be amended, one to include the waiver
21:38:54 for 27-246 to reduce the drive aisles, from 26 feet to
21:38:59 2467 feet, and the second is just to amend that note
21:39:03 from solid waste to the certificate of occupancy,
21:39:08 instead of time of permitting.
21:39:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Motion to close.
21:39:11 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:39:13 Opposes?
21:39:14 Okay.
21:39:16 Do you want to read it?
21:39:19 >>THE CLERK: Who was the second on the motion to
21:39:21 close, please?
21:39:23 >> Miranda.

21:39:23 Do you want to read the ordinance on the changes?
21:39:26 >> Move an ordinance rezoning property in the general
21:39:32 vicinity of 402 South Boulevard and 813 and 815 west
21:39:35 Horatio street in the city of Tampa, Florida and more
21:39:38 particularly described in section 1 from zoning
21:39:40 district classifications PD planned development
21:39:42 residential multifamily to PD planned development
21:39:44 congregate living facility, group care facility,
21:39:47 providing an effective date, including the specific
21:39:52 revisions noted by our staff.
21:39:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Been moved and seconded.
21:39:58 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:40:00 Opposes?
21:40:01 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Dingfelder and
21:40:03 Mulhern being absent at vote.
21:40:05 Second reading and adoption will be December 4th
21:40:08 at 9:30 a.m.
21:40:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 11.
21:40:11 >> So moved.
21:40:12 >> Second.
21:40:12 (Motion carried)
21:40:15 >> Item 11.

21:40:45 >>ABBYE FEELEY: Item 11 subpoena case V 08-88.
21:40:50 Land Development Coordination, I have been sworn.
21:40:53 Located at 3863 South Dale Mabry Highway.
21:40:56 This is going to be another familiar site to you all.
21:40:58 Current zoning is CG commercial general.
21:41:00 The proposed special use before you tonight is for
21:41:05 banks drive-in window and associated with retail.
21:41:10 There are three waivers associated with this.
21:41:12 Special use request this evening, 27-130 reducing
21:41:17 required buffer from 15 feet to 5 feet for that
21:41:19 portion of the property located in the northwest area
21:41:22 adjacent to the property zoned RM-24fully section
21:41:27 27-246-J to allow access for nonresidential traffic to
21:41:31 a local street, west Davis Avenue, and section
21:41:34 27-324-1-D-1 to allow referee skeptical screening,
21:41:39 closure placement within the required buffer.
21:41:42 I'll show you those areas on the site plan.
21:41:48 I showed you the pictures.
21:41:58 It will probably be a little better.
21:42:00 This is Dale Mabry highway located to the east and
21:42:03 Euclid to the north, this large CG pocket over here.
21:42:11 This is discount auto parts to the north here.

21:42:12 This is existing bay view village and one trust bank
21:42:17 here.
21:42:17 And as you know, a splattering of all sorts of retails
21:42:22 to the south here.
21:42:23 And oaf the property, there is an existing SunTrust
21:42:26 bank located here, retail store here for baby village
21:42:30 and another building on the back area here.
21:42:38 Some views of the subject parcel.
21:42:42 This is looking north.
21:42:51 Intersection of Dale Mabry and Bahia Vista, this is
21:42:54 north of the property.
21:42:57 This is a couple shots of the existing SunTrust bank.
21:42:59 The existing SunTrust does currently have a drive-in
21:43:04 window.
21:43:08 This is on the south side of Bahia Vista.
21:43:15 Also moving a little more to the west.
21:43:17 There's an American Legion on the south side.
21:43:19 This is, from the south side of Bahia vista, this is
21:43:25 the parking area for the SunTrust and the existing
21:43:28 drive-through.
21:43:32 The site plan does have access onto Bahia vista,
21:43:38 access onto Doug Graber.

21:43:41 This is that existing secondary building.
21:43:49 This is a look to the south, on the southwest corner
21:43:52 of Dale Mabry and Bahia vista and across the street.
21:43:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
21:44:03 >> I do have a revision sheet to revise to you.
21:44:08 There are just a couple technical issues.
21:44:10 One is related to stormwater.
21:44:12 We need a replacement of the stormwater note.
21:44:16 There are about five comments from Mary Daniel Bryson.
21:44:20 She is not here this evening.
21:44:22 She has met with the petitioner prior to tonight's
21:44:24 hearing.
21:44:24 They have worked through all these revisions.
21:44:27 And everything is ready to move forward.
21:44:29 And the last was a comment from parks and
21:44:32 recommendation ration, site and landscape plans would
21:44:34 be renewed, approved by parks and rec at time of
21:44:38 permitting.
21:44:41 Staff is available for any questions.
21:44:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Give us the speedy version.
21:44:59 >>TONY GARCIA: I was going to tell but all the
21:45:01 restaurants.

21:45:10 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
21:45:11 I have been sworn.
21:45:14 This is the South Tampa area, this is CMU 35 heavy
21:45:19 commercial, residential 10.
21:45:22 This is Euclid, south Dale Mabry, of course Euclid is
21:45:26 the collector.
21:45:32 This has been a bank, calling for a bank use, been a
21:45:38 banking use.
21:45:39 The plaza which has been there for a long, long time.
21:45:43 Walgreen's is across the street.
21:45:45 I believe they are going to be moving on this side.
21:45:48 The bank will be repositioning itself.
21:45:50 This building will be going away on your site plan.
21:45:52 This will be better as far as the location of
21:45:54 commercial uses, or nonresidential uses, adjacent to
21:45:58 residential, which is along this street.
21:46:00 As you can actually see, there will be stormwater
21:46:03 retention, provider over here as a buffer to the
21:46:06 existing residential to the west.
21:46:09 You already have access points, you will have three on
21:46:18 Dale Mabry, and two on west Bahia Vista Avenue.
21:46:25 The questions are pretty straightforward.

21:46:27 A drive-through for both operations.
21:46:30 Planning Commission staff find the proposed request
21:46:32 consistent with the comprehensive plan.
21:46:36 One side bar.
21:46:38 I used to live in this apartment complex.
21:46:41 [ Laughter ]
21:46:44 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any questions?
21:46:47 Petitioner?
21:46:56 >>MARK BENTLEY: I'll give you an option of the cliff
21:47:00 note version or the --
21:47:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Any opposition out there?
21:47:06 >>MARK BENTLEY: No, but one concern is the separation
21:47:07 of the drive-throughs and what we are proposing on the
21:47:10 southeast corner of the property, replace the bank
21:47:13 with a Walgreen's, and their drive-through is 185 feet
21:47:15 away.
21:47:15 The buffer to the west is 8-foot wall, 15-foot green
21:47:19 space, and 35 feet of retention area.
21:47:22 Okay.
21:47:22 So that's a great improvement with respect to what's
21:47:26 there right now.
21:47:26 And the drive-through for the SunTrust, which is north

21:47:30 of the Walgreen's, which is essentially to replace the
21:47:35 furniture store, 240 feet and your code requires 50
21:47:38 feet.
21:47:39 You already have that discussion.
21:47:41 So if you have any specific questions let me know.
21:47:43 We think it's a very exciting redevelopment project
21:47:46 for the South Tampa area, and it's not a signalized
21:47:50 intersection.
21:47:51 That's why the staff reported access on Bahia Vista.
21:47:56 Take we are going to limit that to one.
21:47:57 If you have any questions, let me know.
21:47:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Anyone here in opposition?
21:48:01 This is a public hearing.
21:48:02 Anyone here in opposition?
21:48:03 Anyone who wants to speak that's in support?
21:48:06 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to close.
21:48:09 >>> Can I get these into the record, please, receive
21:48:12 and file?
21:48:12 >> Move to receive and file.
21:48:13 >> Second.
21:48:14 (Motion carried)
21:48:15 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Staff, do you need to add anything

21:48:19 else?
21:48:20 All right.
21:48:20 Move to close.
21:48:21 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:48:23 Opposed same thing.
21:48:26 >>MARK BENTLEY: Thank you very much.
21:48:27 Have a good evening.
21:48:32 >>GWEN MILLER: An ordinance approving a special use
21:48:34 permit S-2 approving a bank with a drive-in window in
21:48:38 a 3-G commercial general droning district in the
21:48:42 general vicinity of 3863 South Dale Mabry Highway
21:48:46 Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section
21:48:48 1 approving waivers as set forth herein providing an
21:48:51 effective date.
21:48:54 And incorporate all the on the things you have on
21:48:56 here.
21:49:02 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of the motion signify by
21:49:04 saying Aye.
21:49:04 Opposes?
21:49:05 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
21:49:07 Second reading and adoption will be on December
21:49:09 4th at 9:30 a.m.

21:49:11 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor of opening item number 12
21:49:15 signify by saying Aye.
21:49:17 Opposed same thing.
21:49:18 So moved.
21:49:24 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Can we open 12 and 13? Because they
21:49:27 are related, right?
21:49:29 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: 13 also.
21:49:30 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All in favor signify by saying Aye.
21:49:32 Opposed?
21:49:33 Okay.
21:49:34 >>CATHERINE COYLE: Land development.
21:49:43 Case C-07-22 vacating request for the alley and that
21:49:49 portion of Mohawk Avenue, Cherokee.
21:49:57 Square footage of this request is approximately 10,500
21:50:01 square feet, related to Z-08-51 which is the next
21:50:04 agenda item, located within the historic district
21:50:07 Seminole Heights, local, and national, as well as the
21:50:11 overlay district.
21:50:13 The alley is unimproved.
21:50:15 The alley runs north-south between Hillsborough Avenue
21:50:20 and Mohawk, and this is the portion of Cherokee,
21:50:24 between -- I'm sorry, Mohawk between Cherokee and

21:50:27 Central Avenue.
21:50:28 The proposed vacated portion is only about half up to
21:50:31 the alley itself.
21:50:33 275 is here.
21:50:35 And just for your reference, and you will see it in
21:50:37 the photos, the Starbuck's site is immediately
21:50:41 adjacent.
21:50:51 Mohawk is improved with asphalt paving and both the --
21:50:56 various utilities.
21:50:57 There is no previous vacating history on either of
21:50:59 these segments.
21:51:02 Staff is objecting to the vacating of Mohawk based on
21:51:05 the objection from city of transportation planning
21:51:07 department division.
21:51:08 It does not serve a public purpose to vacate Mohawk
21:51:11 Avenue.
21:51:12 Transportation is here to address that issue, and
21:51:15 there is no objection from staff to the alley
21:51:17 vacating.
21:51:20 There are some conditions.
21:51:21 There is a permanent overall easement required for
21:51:23 Verizon and TECO.

21:51:25 A partial easement for wastewater over the alley and a
21:51:29 permanent transportation easement, Mohawk is -- if
21:51:34 Mohawk is serrated.
21:51:35 On the staff report, wastewater requires that -- no
21:51:40 planting of trees in easement area due to the
21:51:42 underlying -- the underground line.
21:51:45 There is a wastewater memo attached to the staff
21:51:48 report dated 12-10.
21:51:50 I'm sorry, yes, 12-10-2007.
21:51:53 Petitioner is to grant an easement to D.O.T. as well,
21:51:57 over east 15th feet of Mohawk Avenue.
21:52:01 Just to GOP through the photos.
21:52:07 This is that portion of Mohawk Avenue looking east
21:52:09 towards Cherokee.
21:52:11 Approximately where the alley comes out, you can see
21:52:15 in the rezoning petition you will see that this is the
21:52:17 house that's part of the rezoning petition.
21:52:19 This is the driveway that goes into the 4 by 4.
21:52:26 This is Mohawk looking west from Cherokee back towards
21:52:30 central.
21:52:31 This is the alleyway that's in question.
21:52:34 You can see the signs for Starbuck's here, and this is

21:52:37 noted in the staff report.
21:52:38 This is the subject site and this is star Bucs bucks.
21:52:42 This is the alley looking the other way looking south
21:52:44 towards Hillsborough, the old Amoco sign, a BP
21:52:49 station.
21:52:49 This is also looking south as well.
21:52:53 This is a different view.
21:52:55 There's a car in that particular portion of the alley.
21:52:58 This is the subject site.
21:52:59 Looking south from Mohawk.
21:53:02 This is the other side where the house is proposed to
21:53:06 convert.
21:53:08 This is east of the alley.
21:53:13 Adjacent property Starbuck's.
21:53:15 This is Mohawk looking west from the alley.
21:53:17 Towards central.
21:53:18 This is the portion not to be vacated.
21:53:21 And this is the alley north of Mohawk not to be
21:53:24 vacated.
21:53:24 That is the improved portion of the alley which is
21:53:27 utilized.
21:53:30 I'm available for any questions, if you have any.

21:53:32 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions, counsel?
21:53:55 >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
21:53:56 Council members.
21:53:57 LaChone Dock, Land Development Coordination and Irv
21:54:00 sworn.
21:54:01 I'm going to present their rezoning portion of the
21:54:03 petition, and this is petition number Z 08-51 for the
21:54:08 property located at 512 east Hillsborough Avenue, and
21:54:11 5502 north Cherokee Avenue.
21:54:13 The request is to rezone the property from CG
21:54:17 commercial general and RS-50 residential single-family
21:54:19 to PD planned development.
21:54:21 The petitioner is requesting to rezone the property to
21:54:24 PD to develop a mixed use project with restaurant,
21:54:28 retail, and business professional office uses.
21:54:31 Property contains approximately 41,572 square feet.
21:54:36 The plan consists of two parcels.
21:54:38 The first parcel contains an existing 6,452 square
21:54:43 foot building, which the plan proposes to convert and
21:54:46 expand into 5,734 square feet of restaurant.
21:54:52 And 2,031 square feet of retail.
21:54:56 The plan proposes access to the site from both

21:54:58 Hillsborough and Mohawk Avenue.
21:55:00 The second parcel contains an existing one-story,
21:55:03 1,222 square foot single-family residence, which will
21:55:07 be converted to business professional office.
21:55:10 The project requires 60 parking spaces and 50 parking
21:55:14 spaces are being provided.
21:55:16 A waiver has been requested for the ten parking
21:55:21 spaces.
21:55:22 Approval of this is contingent upon approval of the
21:55:26 vacating.
21:55:28 I have an atlas of the area.
21:55:35 Zoning at last of the area.
21:55:36 This is the site here located on Hillsborough to the
21:55:40 south, west of the site, 275 is east of the site, PD
21:55:49 zoning here, a Starbuck's, residential multifamily
21:55:53 zoning, and then predominantly RS-50 north of the
21:55:56 site.
21:56:03 And this is an aerial of the site.
21:56:09 And this is a view of the site on Hillsborough.
21:56:20 This is north.
21:56:21 This is the site on Cherokee.
21:56:28 And this is a view of the site that is located on

21:56:31 Cherokee, and the location of professional office.
21:56:38 That's the north portion of the site.
21:56:40 The view on Mohawk.
21:56:46 This is west of the site.
21:56:53 Also located west of the site.
21:56:58 This is southwest of the site.
21:57:03 South of the site.
21:57:06 This is the interstate, okay, east of the site.
21:57:11 And this is the view looking south on Cherokee.
21:57:16 The development review committee has reviewed the
21:57:21 petition and finds it inconsistent with City of Tampa
21:57:23 Land Development Code.
21:57:25 However, if the applicant revises the site plan with
21:57:27 the required notes and site plan revisions as stated
21:57:31 in the report below, between the first and second
21:57:32 reading, the DRC will amend its review and find it
21:57:42 consistent.
21:57:47 These we would also like to add to the record with
21:57:49 additional changes to be made.
21:57:50 The architectural review commission voted to recommend
21:57:53 approval.
21:57:56 As presented to the board on October 5th, 2008.

21:58:01 On the staff report I did want to point out a couple
21:58:03 of the -- on page 4 of the staff report, for
21:58:09 transportation, they had a finding of inconsistent in
21:58:17 regards to nonresidential to Mohawk.
21:58:19 The other finding of consistency was regarding a
21:58:22 designated walkway, identified on Mohawk Avenue.
21:58:26 Which is a public right-of-way and it would not be
21:58:28 permitted.
21:58:31 The petitioner has agreed to remove that
21:58:33 identification on the plan.
21:58:35 Also, alert from FDOT is required.
21:58:40 The petitioner has provided that letter so that will
21:58:42 take away the last two statements from transportation,
21:58:45 also.
21:58:47 Solid waste had a finding of inconsistency.
21:58:51 The site is required based upon the usage to provide
21:58:54 to them.
21:58:56 On the site plan you will notice there was two visuals
21:59:00 illustrated, one showing one dumpster and another
21:59:04 showing two.
21:59:04 The petitioner is aware that two dumpsters are
21:59:06 required and has agreed to provide that location on

21:59:10 the revised site plan.
21:59:13 And that concludes staff's presentation.
21:59:16 If you have any questions.
21:59:22 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Planning Commission?
21:59:23 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission.
21:59:28 I have been sworn.
21:59:36 The site in question is located in the Historic Hyde
21:59:37 Park
21:59:42 As you can see it located on the northwest corner of
21:59:46 the intersection of Hillsborough Avenue and the
21:59:50 offramp for the interstate 275.
21:59:55 The site has two land use categories, residential 10
21:59:58 and community mixed use 35, planning staff, on this
22:00:05 site right here, there's a Starbuck's and several CG
22:00:09 uses to the south, several low intensity types, low
22:00:13 density uses.
22:00:16 To the west of the site.
22:00:17 Mostly residential in character as you can see off of
22:00:19 Central Avenue as one goes into the area looking at
22:00:22 the aerial.
22:00:24 The request is for a restaurant use over here, and for
22:00:26 business professional office to the north.

22:00:28 The site is located directly off the major arterial
22:00:31 east Hillsborough Avenue and of course off of major
22:00:34 thoroughfares, interstate 275, and of course also
22:00:37 interfaces offramp coming off the brand new offramp on
22:00:42 the north side.
22:00:45 Planning Commission staff, I need to explain this to
22:00:48 you, Planning Commission staff found this inconsistent
22:00:51 with the comprehensive plan.
22:00:53 And the reasoning for this is when you look at the
22:00:55 entire site plan itself, there's a component for a
22:01:02 commerce use, general commercial use to the south,
22:01:04 which will allow restaurant use, but you also have a
22:01:06 residence to the north and a residential land use
22:01:10 asking for business professional office use.
22:01:15 Under the CMU 35 which is to the south here, based on
22:01:21 just the CMU 35 and the use being requested, there is
22:01:24 no problem, it's compatible, it complementary, the use
22:01:28 is to the north and to the south, coming to the west
22:01:30 and to the south of the site.
22:01:33 The request also fits into the vision of many of the
22:01:36 residences, the residents that live in the Seminole
22:01:39 Heights area, regarding the revitalization of their

22:01:45 commercial corridors, so this actually fits in very
22:01:48 nicely with the one area, and they have -- seeking
22:01:54 more types of CG uses such as this which will be
22:01:57 complimentary to other uses on the corridor but I had
22:02:00 to find this inconsistent in its entirety because of
22:02:03 the house, to the house on its own would not meet
22:02:08 relocation criteria because it's in a land use
22:02:11 category.
22:02:12 So it currently does not meet the nature of the
22:02:15 residential land use.
22:02:16 Let me go back to the future land use map.
22:02:19 50% of this black face over here would have to be
22:02:23 considered on commercial.
22:02:28 He doesn't meet that criteria presently.
22:02:31 That's the reality of the whole thing.
22:02:33 Once this piece becomes vacated and this parcel comes
22:02:35 in with this parcel, then technically it becomes 50%.
22:02:41 So logistically, this plan is already in a PD,
22:02:51 entering this parcel along its entire parcel over
22:02:53 here.
22:02:56 I still find this plan inconsistent as far as how it's
22:02:58 presently submitted.

22:02:59 And you determined by the consistency of the
22:03:02 comprehensive -- comprehensive plan find the
22:03:08 determination consistent or inconsistent.
22:03:11 As representative of the plan for the Planning
22:03:13 Commission has to go by what's existing so that's why
22:03:19 I come to you this evening and find the PD as
22:03:22 submitted in the comprehensive plan.
22:03:25 So that's where I am right now.
22:03:29 Do you have any questions as far as my explanation,
22:03:31 the rendering of our finding of inconsistency?
22:03:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Council?
22:03:35 >>THOMAS SCOTT: The ARC.
22:03:43 Mr. Fernandez?
22:03:46 A recommendation, I believe?
22:03:47 >>DENNIS FERNANDEZ: Historic preservation manager.
22:03:53 On both the vacating request and the PD, the
22:04:00 commission recommends, I just want a condition,
22:04:03 typically the vacation of the office commission staff
22:04:05 do not support vacating of the streets.
22:04:07 In this situation, it is a unique situation, in that
22:04:10 the exist ramp from 275 has compromised the street
22:04:15 grid, Mohawk actually does not go through to Cherokee.

22:04:20 There is a barrier there that prevents that.
22:04:23 The PD plan does visually keep this street intact,
22:04:26 which has been a consideration, and as far as the
22:04:29 alley, the alley really is obsolete.
22:04:32 It can no longer feed onto Hillsborough Avenue.
22:04:35 The state road.
22:04:37 It just serves a purpose for land and the PD does,
22:04:43 reestablish the alleyway as a pedestrian walkway which
22:04:46 maintains its visual integrity.
22:04:48 If you have any questions I would be happy to answer
22:04:49 those.
22:04:52 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Questions by council?
22:04:54 Petitioner?
22:04:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there anyone here in opposition to
22:05:14 this proposal?
22:05:23 >> So you don't want to hear what a good project this
22:05:26 is?
22:05:26 >> Well, just give us -- then we'll take public
22:05:32 comment.
22:05:33 >> How about real fast, with my assistant helping me
22:05:35 with the photographs.
22:05:40 Roger Glencoe. I'm the representative for the

22:05:42 petitioner.
22:05:45 The site is one of the many former shabby tire and
22:05:50 auto repair shops.
22:05:52 Can we please have the Elmo?
22:05:53 Thank you.
22:05:54 One of the shabby tire repair shops along
22:05:57 Hillsborough, Florida, and Nebraska avenues.
22:05:59 As presented by Land Development Coordination, the
22:06:02 property is uncomfortably situated between an off-ramp
22:06:06 between I-275, a dead-end street, and narrow frontage
22:06:11 on busy Hillsborough Avenue.
22:06:14 Result is when requesting a change of use and only
22:06:17 when requesting a change the site becomes landlocked.
22:06:20 FDOT will no longer allow any access to our site along
22:06:26 our longest street front, Cherokee.
22:06:28 The city lists Mohawk as a residential street, and
22:06:34 would exist onto Mohawk as LeRoys has for the last 40
22:06:40 years. In truth that segment of Mohawk between
22:06:43 central and where was dead-ended by the interstate has
22:06:48 not been residential since the early 50s.
22:06:50 The position of the building, of the exiting building
22:06:54 of the site, and the narrowness of Hillsborough Avenue

22:06:56 frontage, requires additional exit possibilities.
22:06:59 That's a landlocked effect.
22:07:01 FDOT does not want traffic to exit directly off of
22:07:07 Hillsborough, nor will they allow us out onto
22:07:10 Cherokee, not here, not there, not there.
22:07:16 And the city will not allow us onto Mohawk.
22:07:22 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: We love it.
22:07:36 >> We love it too.
22:07:38 If there are any questions I would be happy to answer.
22:07:41 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Is there anyone from the public that
22:07:44 would like to address council?
22:07:47 Anyone from the public?
22:07:50 Okay.
22:07:55 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
22:07:59 We are excited.
22:07:59 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second?
22:08:01 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
22:08:03 Okay.
22:08:06 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
22:08:07 I believe the chair did ask if anybody was in
22:08:10 opposition earlier.
22:08:10 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Yes, I did.

22:08:11 I asked was anybody in opposition?
22:08:13 Nobody -- okay.
22:08:14 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I just wanted to be clear.
22:08:18 Thank you.
22:08:18 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: I just want to say we are thrilled
22:08:20 that so many people -- we have been here since nine
22:08:24 and we think this is great.
22:08:26 And it's no disrespect to the project.
22:08:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Councilwoman Saul-Sena, do you want to
22:08:33 read this?
22:08:35 >> Or whoever.
22:08:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: It makes no difference.
22:08:38 I can read it or Mr. Caetano, but let's close the
22:08:43 street first so he doesn't get upset with the council
22:08:45 members.
22:08:48 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: Do you want to read it?
22:08:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: You can read it.
22:08:51 >>MARY MULHERN: You have to compliment him on his
22:08:56 finding of inconsistency.
22:08:59 >>JOSEPH P. CAETANO: An ordinance vacate closing
22:09:01 discontinuing abandoning a certain right-of-way Mohawk
22:09:05 Avenue lying north of east Hillsborough Avenue, west

22:09:07 of north Cherokee Avenue and east of Central Avenue,
22:09:11 and east Suwannee Heights a subdivision in the City of
22:09:15 Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, same being more
22:09:19 fully described in section 2 hereof providing an
22:09:22 effective date.
22:09:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Just a quick question on Mohawk.
22:09:27 I'm not sure he can answer that.
22:09:33 I'll ask staff.
22:09:35 I just want to know who closed Mohawk?
22:09:37 D.O.T.?
22:09:38 >> By the expressway.
22:09:44 >> So when they did Cherokee it's sort of like an exit
22:09:47 ramp?
22:09:49 Thank you.
22:09:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by councilman
22:09:52 Miranda.
22:09:53 All in favor?
22:09:58 [ Applause ]
22:09:59 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
22:10:00 Second reading and adoption will be on December
22:10:02 4th at 9:30 a.m.
22:10:04 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.

22:10:06 Next.
22:10:07 Councilman Miranda?
22:10:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move for first reading, an
22:10:12 ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of
22:10:15 512 E. Hillsborough Avenue and 5502 N. Cherokee in the
22:10:15 City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly
22:10:19 described in section 1 from zoning district CG
22:10:22 commercial general and RS-50 residential single-family
22:10:24 to PD planned development restaurant, retail,
22:10:27 business, professional office, providing an effective
22:10:28 date.
22:10:31 >>THOMAS SCOTT: It's been moved and seconded by
22:10:32 councilman Dingfelder.
22:10:34 >>MARTIN SHELBY: I'm sorry, was there something along
22:10:39 with that --
22:10:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Along with that provided by the
22:10:44 city under Z08-51.
22:10:46 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded.
22:10:49 All in favor signify by saying Aye.
22:10:51 Opposes?
22:10:51 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried with Caetano being absent
22:10:54 at vote.

22:10:54 Second reading and adoption on December 4th at
22:10:57 9:30 a.m.
22:10:58 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 15 and 16 are continued.
22:11:01 Is that correct?
22:11:02 >> Yes.
22:11:03 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Do we need to make a formal motion?
22:11:06 >> It's already been done.
22:11:07 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Then item 17.
22:11:08 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: Move to open number 17.
22:11:13 >> Second.
22:11:14 (Motion carried).
22:11:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Item 17.
22:11:19 It going real short.
22:11:42 >>ABBYE FEELEY: City of Tampa land development.
22:11:44 Irv sworn.
22:11:45 Item 17, Z 08-62, 3328 west Columbus drive, requesting
22:11:52 rezoning from CI commercial intensive to PD planned
22:11:55 development, retail, restaurant, commercial parking.
22:11:58 There are three waivers.
22:11:59 One to reduce the required drive-aisle from 26 feet to
22:12:03 24 feet, one to allow access to a local street, and
22:12:06 one to reduce the number of required parking spaces

22:12:08 from 69 to 55.
22:12:15 Then has been my night of familiar sites.
22:12:17 This is another familiar site, the FDOT bus tour,
22:12:24 Planning Commission, whoever was leaving the tour,
22:12:26 actually stopped here, for people from out of town,
22:12:33 they took them to get some cafe Lucci, Columbus to the
22:12:38 north, Glen to the west, Lincoln to the east.
22:12:46 The site was developed in '53, older retail.
22:12:54 A couple years ago, they actually came in and they
22:12:56 rezoned some other pieces to BCI, they converted a
22:13:00 house into a restaurant area on there.
22:13:12 You know which site this is.
22:13:14 The Florida Bakery.
22:13:17 I just want to -- I have a picture of the tree.
22:13:19 We need one note added to the site plan, related to
22:13:23 this tree, I am going to show you which one it is.
22:13:28 This one here.
22:13:31 You see the asphalt has been pretty much put up.
22:13:34 And, like I said, this was developed in '53.
22:13:36 A lot of changes since then.
22:13:38 There's going to be improvements on the site.
22:13:39 But one note that Mary would like to have added is

22:13:43 that pavement removal around this tree will be done by
22:13:48 hand.
22:13:49 And supervision of an arborist.
22:13:52 And the arborist with an provide further revision for
22:13:57 the trees.
22:13:59 Other than that, that really is the only outstanding
22:14:01 item.
22:14:04 A waiver of 12 spaces.
22:14:06 And what they are doing, they are going to remove an
22:14:08 existing residential structure which I can show you in
22:14:11 the aerial, and they are going to improve parking.
22:14:14 They are going to make this a surface parking lot
22:14:17 which is definitely needed an and they are going to do
22:14:20 a small addition.
22:14:24 Staff is available for any questions.
22:14:30 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: The parking in there is completely
22:14:35 impossible now.
22:14:36 It absolutely --
22:14:40 >>> It's a 420-square foot addition.
22:14:43 >> Yes, but my question was, are they adding tables,
22:14:47 or adding cooking space or storage pace?
22:14:51 >>> I believe it may ab combination.

22:14:52 The site is deficient in parking as it is.
22:14:54 And what's going to happen if we can look at the site
22:14:56 plan, because right now, this is the parking that
22:15:08 service it is site, and when we stopped, the bus
22:15:13 actually pulled in here the other day, it's crazy, and
22:15:17 these spaces are not even improved at this time so
22:15:21 this will improve that.
22:15:22 And it will also add this lot back here.
22:15:25 It is going to take off this parking that's occurring
22:15:28 right now, in the right-of-way here that's not really
22:15:31 functioning.
22:15:32 There is a waiver of the 12 spaces.
22:15:37 So they are deficient.
22:15:41 The expansion of the restaurant requires additional
22:15:44 parking.
22:15:45 Total site requires 9.
22:15:46 They have 57 which is more than they have today.
22:15:51 That's really at your discretion.
22:15:54 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Mr. Miranda, this was done so
22:15:56 before code, it's so crazy.
22:15:58 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'm not going to disagree with you.
22:16:01 In fact there's one across the street from the new

22:16:04 city building there on Glen and Columbus drive.
22:16:08 That's been remodeled for the last 22 years.
22:16:13 >>TONY GARCIA: Planning Commission staff.
22:16:14 I have been sworn.
22:16:16 Yes, this is part of our -- south side of column
22:16:26 business drive, 235 on the north, residential 10 to
22:16:30 the north and residential 20 to the south of subject
22:16:33 site.
22:16:35 Here is an aerial that's I think Ms. Feeley succinctly
22:16:40 put it like if you come in here and park and of course
22:16:43 Ms. Saul-Sena you visited the site many times.
22:16:47 It is crazy.
22:16:48 But what developed in '523, that's before Castro came
22:16:51 into power.
22:16:54 We had all the transition, and if you come to this
22:16:57 block -- if you go to this block, this really does
22:17:07 look like -- the restaurant from Lincoln Avenue over
22:17:16 here, and the infamous La Gaceta.
22:17:25 >> That restaurant was there before all them.
22:17:29 It was the second original Lavieles.
22:17:38 >>TONY GARCIA: Can you translate that one?
22:17:40 >>> You translate it first.

22:17:41 >> I put you on the spot first.
22:17:45 >> Frozen stuff.
22:17:47 >> There is a request to move this building.
22:17:51 Going to be a combination of some seating and kitchen
22:17:54 space.
22:17:56 It will provide some parking relief.
22:18:01 This is West Tampa.
22:18:02 Over here, it is what it is, just like IKEA is what it
22:18:06 is.
22:18:07 [ Laughter ]
22:18:08 Planning Commission staff find it consistent with the
22:18:16 comprehensive plan.
22:18:17 >>JOHN DINGFELDER: Move to close.
22:18:20 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: This is the first time I have heard
22:18:22 the Planning Commission say that a dictator did the
22:18:24 zoning.
22:18:28 [ Laughter ]
22:18:31 Being in West Tampa I understood what he said.
22:18:33 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Oh, boy, we are in rare form tonight.
22:18:37 Come up and give your name.
22:18:40 >>> I'm Carlos Castilla.
22:18:47 1976 West Martin Luther King.

22:18:49 >>THOMAS SCOTT: You stated your name and address
22:18:59 already, right?
22:19:01 >>> Yes.
22:19:01 >>THOMAS SCOTT: All right, that's good.
22:19:02 Anyone here in opposition?
22:19:03 >>LINDA SAUL-SENA: Move to close.
22:19:11 >> Second.
22:19:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I move the ordinance.
22:19:14 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Okay.
22:19:16 I move an ordinance for first reading along with the
22:19:20 script that was given to us by the young lady in our
22:19:23 planning department.
22:19:24 An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity
22:19:26 of 3328 west Columbus drive in the city of Tampa,
22:19:29 Florida and more particularly described in section 1
22:19:31 from zoning district classification CI commercial
22:19:34 intensive PD planned development, retail restaurant,
22:19:36 commercial parking, providing an effective date.
22:19:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Second.
22:19:39 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Moved and seconded by councilman
22:19:41 Dingfelder.
22:19:42 All in favor signify by saying Aye.

22:19:44 Opposed same sign.
22:19:46 >>THE CLERK: Motion carried unanimously.
22:19:47 Second reading and adoption will be on December
22:19:50 4th at 9:30 a.m.
22:19:52 >>GWEN MILLER: Move to receive and file.
22:19:53 >> Second.
22:19:57 (Motion carried).
22:19:57 >>THOMAS SCOTT: Any other business to come before us
22:19:59 tonight?
22:19:59 If not we stand adjourned.
22:20:00

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