Tampa City Council
Thursday, February 25, 2016
5:30 p.m. session
DISCLAIMER:
This file 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]
05:31:46 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Good evening.
I am going to call this meeting to order.
Roll call.
05:31:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
05:31:53 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
05:31:55 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
05:31:57 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
05:31:59 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Here.
05:32:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
All right.
Need a motion to open the public hearing.
05:32:04 >> So moved.
05:32:05 >> I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Opposed?
All right, staff, item number 1.
05:32:19 >>TONY GARCIA:
Planning Commission staff.
I am not presenting for item 1 but I want to preface it by
saying you have two amendments this evening, two small scale
endment.
Actually there's three.
One is a companion to another.
So you do have three amendments before you for adoption,
consideration.
But we did have at our Planning Commission meeting several
weeks ago, we did have two additional plan amendments that
were -- because of additional circumstances, continued to
next month's meeting of the Planning Commission on March
14th.
That being said, I am making a formal request of council
this evening to consider making a motion to continue the
plan amendment 15-08 and 15-09 to the March 24th evening
hearing of Tampa City Council at 5:30 p.m.
05:33:07 >> So moved.
05:33:08 >> Second.
05:33:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
All in favor are? Opposed?
05:33:14 >> Without further ado, the first presentation on the first
two amendments.
05:33:19 >> Line heart, Planning Commission staff.
Presenting tonight on the future land use map amendment for
15-10-A.
The location of the project is in the central Tampa planning
district.
We are located near the I-4 corridor, the site represented
by this do it.
We are near north 50th street and Columbus Drive.
Both streets are listed in the comprehensive plan as transit
emphasis corridors as well as mixed use corridors, and as
such the comprehensive plan outlines those areas as suitable
for redevelopment and intensification.
This single-family private will you initiated.
It's small scale.
.56 acres in size.
And the future land use category is currently split between
residential 10 and community mixed use 35.
And the request would be to change that to community
commercial 35.
Here is an aerial of the site which is outlined in pink.
The site is currently comprised of three parcels.
On the north side of old Columbus Drive, just west of north
51st street.
They are located adjacent to the Fisher hydraulics business.
And they are actually the property owner of these three
parcels.
I want to mention as well, as Mr. Garcia mentioned
piggybacking on that, there is a companion plan amendment,
15-10 B that I will be discussing as the second agenda item.
When the presently initiated plan amendment came through to
us at the request, we wanted to look at the area
holistically, looking at -- making sure we were looking at
the area holistically and making good planning sense to kind
of reflect the area that's heavily commercial in nature and
also more of a high intensity corridor.
This is a picture of the -- one of the parcels looking north
into the subject site, old Columbus Drive.
Again currently vacant.
This is looking west from north 51st street.
You can see this is the I-4 corridor in the background.
There's a gas station here and the Burger King on the
corner.
This business I mentioned, Fisher hydraulics west of the
subject property adjacent to it.
And this gives some context.
This is the intersection of 50th street, I-4 and old
Columbus Drive.
To kind of give you just an overall view of what this area
is like at the present day.
The adopted future land use map showing those three parcels,
and their current land use designation -- this light orange
color on the north side, that represents the residential 10.
The pink color on the south end, that is the community --
the community mixed use 35.
And then the proposed future land use map outlines the
community commercial designation which is shown here in red.
The next slide goes through the development potential of the
site.
Currently the property in total, combining the three
parcels, they could be considered for 14 dwelling units or
34,346 square feet of nonresidential development.
With the potential land use change there is the potential of
21 dwelling units or 56,627 square feet of nonresidential.
And I should add with this new land use category, the
community commercial 35, the residential could be guided by
either density or floor area ratio, whichever is more
favorable to the development.
As usual the Planning Commission sends out agency summary
for review by the local agencies.
The school board is the only one that came back with a
little bit of concern about capacity.
Blake high school right now does not have capacity but they
do see the capacity within the next five years.
They mentioned 2019, 2024 years.
I am going to go over some of the policies that we outlined
in our report.
05:37:58 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Didn't you say it was for business
expansion?
05:38:04 >> Yes.
05:38:04 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
So the school board comments would
not --
05:38:07 >> At some point down the road.
But residential.
05:38:12 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Got it.
The proposed amendment, the Planning Commission staff,
Planning Commission found it consistent with the following
objectives and policies.
Talking about compatibility, making sure developments in the
area is compatible with the character of the area.
Using land resources more efficiently, and also encouraging
in-fill development on vacant underutilized sites.
Another policy talking about developing commercial areas in
the manner that enhances the City of Tampa's character and
bience.
Encouraging development of commercial uses that are in
character in general look and scale of the community.
And then lastly, providing for infrastructure and support
services for business in order to allow them to thrive and
expand.
That being said, Planning Commission recommends that the
proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the City of Tampa comprehensive
plan.
I'm here for any questions if you have any.
05:39:17 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions by council?
Ms. Montelione.
05:39:19 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Looking at the existing land use map,
there are single-family residences very close to this site.
And there's one parcel that's excluded out that's on the
block.
05:39:38 >> Yes.
05:39:39 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Are those single-family residences or is
that vacant land?
05:39:43 >> It's vacant land, two parcels just to the east of the
subject site.
These are vacant parcels that are shown as residential 10 in
the comprehensive plan.
And when we discussed this, looking at this area
holistically at a staff level, the Planning Commission staff
talked about using those -- keeping those as residential
still as a buffer to those single-family to the east, and we
also pointed out -- we looked at this area, because it's on
the I-4 corridor at its major intersection, transit emphasis
corridor, mixed use corridor, looking at the intensity
that's here in this area, because this is already community
commercial 35, and looking at that transitioning, because as
you move eastward and south, you have the multifamily, you
have civic uses, the park.
And then transition to single-family.
But right here in this area, we felt that that was more of a
commercial corridor and this reflected that.
05:40:41 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
The properties across the street, east
17th -- no, the other way.
I'm sorry.
North.
There you go.
Is that residentially zoned, multifamily?
What is that?
05:40:59 >> There is one home here, and these are vacant.
And this is a dead-end street.
05:41:05 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
Thank you.
05:41:12 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any other questions from council? Anything
else?
05:41:17 >> No, sir.
05:41:19 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Okay, thank you.
Anyone from the audience like to speak on item number 1?
Anyone from the public wish to speak on item number 1?
05:41:34 >> Good evening.
Thank you very much.
05:41:37 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
You can stand in front.
It will pick you up.
05:41:45 >> Thank you.
1001 Ashley, suite 900, here representing the property
owner, Fisher hydraulics.
And with that said, they own the properties to the east.
The intention is for planned development.
We will be going through a planned development to develop
the site at the business.
At this point, we don't have any design in place.
We don't have, you know, any information on, we don't know
where the retention ponds are going to go.
But what is going around us, especially those residents to
the north, there are two residents to the north at the
corner of the duplex, and next is single-family.
He developed those here.
So they have some concerns.
Of course, with vacant land being developed, in discussion
with them, and explain to them where we were in the process.
For one thing, we are not going to have access to the north.
This is really going to be oriented towards the south, and
that is also going through a comp plan amendment similar to
ours.
So we are looking forward to move on, and I'm here if you
have any questions.
05:43:14 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
05:43:15 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I think you answered what I was going to
ask, so thank you.
05:43:22 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anyone else in the audience to speak on
item number 1?
05:43:25 >> Come to the mike.
05:43:31 >> My name is Dan Dorsch. First, I would like to actually
thank you folks for serving.
I know you are a longstanding member.
I have been here before.
Thank you very much.
I have this property just north of 17th Avenue.
And my concern was -- and I spoke to this fellow at the last
county meeting, and I was concerned about the drainage,
which is one of my concerns.
And the ditches fill up.
And I was worried about in that area, where it's just north
of Brocato's, between Brocato's and Greg -- he's the other
property owner -- the trees absorb a lot of water are in
there.
So it's not like a swamp area but it is a look-standing
area.
That's one of my concerns.
Also, I don't know if it was appropriate tore bring that up
at this point in time but I did want to mention that.
And I appreciate that buffer zone which -- with the two
houses actually opposing ours in the very corner.
We do very much appreciate that.
Greg has concern about the noise.
The other gentleman.
And he opted not to speak today.
And also possibly the lighting in the area.
So our concern would be if this goes through, and like I
said, I don't know what exactly the appropriate time to
bring it up is, but that's our concern.
We were hoping -- and might add, he's been a good neighbor,
but we are hoping to be fence and possibly landscape are if
all this goes through.
And that's all I have to say.
Thank you.
05:45:33 >>HARRY COHEN:
I want to just say that based on what the
previous speaker said about they will most likely be coming
back to us with a planned development of some kind, most of
the concerns that you brought up, it would be appropriate to
address at that hearing.
Stormwater, buffering, lighting, landscaping, all of those
issues are things that we can appropriately deal with when
we look at whatever the proposed site plan is.
05:46:08 >> Thank you.
05:46:12 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
As Mr. Cohen just stated, when that
happens, sometime in the future, then that developer has the
responsibility under the law -- and I am not going to say
that it's alleges perfect because it's not -- to make sure
that any lighting only goes on their property, not into
yours, A.
And B, that whatever drainage they create, they have got to
maintain in their property.
Supposedly.
Not into yours or anyone else's.
05:46:39 >> It's kind of a convoluted area there because of the
interstate.
It's cut off.
05:46:44 >> I understand.
05:46:45 >> And the drainage, because we think it might flow, it
doesn't.
05:46:49 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
You can always go to Brocato's.
Very good place.
05:46:56 >> Devil crabs and that sort.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
05:47:04 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Anybody else wishing to speak on item
number 1?
05:47:06 >> Move to close.
05:47:08 >> Second.
05:47:08 >> I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mrs. Montelione.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
We go to item number 2.
Oh, I overlooked the ordinance.
05:47:28 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
I move an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance amending the Tampa
comprehensive plan, future use map for the property
generally located at 5011 and 5021 east 17th Avenue and
5018 east Columbus Drive from residential 10 and community
mixed use 35 to community commercial 35 providing for repeal
of all ordinances in conflict providing an effective date
providing for severability, providing an effective date.
05:48:01 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Second.
05:48:03 >>THE CLERK:
Second reading and adoption will be on March
17th at 9:30 a.m.
05:48:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Now item number 2.
05:48:09 >> Thank you.
Again, companion plan amendment to the one we just heard,
15-10-B.
It's adjacent to the previous property.
So the location map -- actually it's the same location map,
representing subject property, in the central planning
district near the intersections of north 50th street,
which is here, and then old Columbus Drive, which is there.
The request tonight is publicly initiated, and that is
initiated by Planning Commission staff.
As I mentioned in my previous presentation, when the
privately initiated portion of this companion amendment came
in, we wanted to look at the area holistically and thought
we would look beyond the three parcels submitted, look at
the road alignment that happened about ten years ago, the
parts that war affected by that, and then look at the future
land use categories and see that all fit in together with
the current development pattern and the current land uses in
the area.
The amendment is 2.86 acres and small scale, and residential
20 and community mixed use 35, and they would go to the same
one that I mentioned from the previous amendment, community
commercial 35.
Here is an aerial map of the amendment site.
So this is the previous site here on the north side of old
Columbus Drive.
This amendment is four parcels.
This one on the north side of old Columbus Drive is vacant,
as well as the larger parcel on the south side of old
Columbus Drive.
And then there are two other parcels here.
One houses the Brocato family restaurant and then one to the
south of that houses a single-family residence.
And all four are owned built Brocato family.
A few pictures of the subject property. Here we have the
restaurant.
And then the single-family home that I mentioned before.
And that's looking south from old Columbus Drive into the
subject site.
This is a photo of that larger parcel looking north from
east Columbus Drive into the site. This is the larger one.
The site currently is vacant, also utilized for overflow
parking for the restaurant and you can use this as an
entrance into the restaurant as well.
This is the parcel on the north side of old Columbus so it's
not contiguous with the other three. This is lag north into
the site. This one is vacant.
Also used for overflow parking as well.
Currently the future land use map showing those four
parcels.
In the pink we have community mixed use 35, future land use
designation.
To the south of that is the residential 20.
And again I mentioned that road realignment.
You can see here it's not well represented on that map
because the right-of-way is not showing up.
But you can see the realigned east Columbus Drive on the
south side of the property.
And then you can also see the vacated right-of-way in gray.
You can see how looking at this in a larger context made
more sense than isolating them out into two separate
sessions.
The proposed future land use map showing the red color
representing the community commercial 35 which is a future
land use designation being sought this evening.
And then again talking about the development impact.
Currently, this site in combination, the four parcels can be
considered for 71 dwelling units or 126 -- 126,323 square
feet of nonresidential.
With a proposed designation that will change to 99 dwelling
units or 249,162 square feet of nonresidential.
And again as I mentioned, the residential could be
calculated by either density or floor area ratio in that
plan category.
Because the sites are adjacent beef the T same comments from
the school board, again just a concern with existing
capacity, but residential development.
The next five years.
The proposed amendment is consistent with the following
policies of the comprehensive plan.
Talking about interconnectedness of assets and economic
engines, providing for greater variety of allowable
development patterns and a range of uses.
Making sure scale and massing of new development provides
for appropriate transition within that development.
And transforming major corridors to include a broader mix of
uses.
That being said, Planning Commission recommends that the
proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals,
objectives and policies of the City of Tampa comprehensive
plan.
And I assume here to answer any questions that you have as
well.
05:52:58 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions?
[Off microphone.]
05:53:07 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
05:53:07 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
An ordinance being presented for first
reading consideration, an ordinance amending the Tampa
comprehensive plan, future land use map for the property
generally located at 5019 and 50720 east Columbus Drive,
5021 east Columbus Drive and 2608 north -- 51st street
from residential 20, CMU 35 to community commercial 35, CC
35, providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
providing for severability, providing an effective date.
05:53:41 >> Second.
05:53:44 >>FRANK REDDICK:
[Off microphone.]
05:53:53 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on March 17th at
9:30 a.m.
05:54:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 3.
05:54:06 >>TONY GARCIA:
Planning Commission staff. This is going to
be the last of the three plan amendments before you this
evening.
This is future land use amendment 15-11.
This is a privately initiated request consisting of
approximately 0.72 acres.
The request is to go from residential 10 to community mixed
use 35.
The general location of the site is in the Westshore
planning district.
As you can see as evidenced by the star over here, it's
right on the north base of Kennedy Boulevard, several blocks
west of the intersection of Kennedy Boulevard and North Dale
Mabry.
Here is a picture of the subject site.
As already explained, giving you some general context, here
is the intersection of Kennedy Boulevard and Dale Mabry.
As one can see, there are a variety of uses, mostly
neighborhood-serving commercial uses and general commercial
uses scattered about Kennedy Boulevard.
As one goes east to west.
And then of course, as one leaves the major arterial of
Kennedy Boulevard, going to the more established
neighborhoods of Swann Estates to the south and North Bon
Air to the north.
The subject site consists of strip center presently.
Which is really reflective of a lot of character in the
surrounding area.
Here is a little bit of a different scale and perspective of
the subject site.
This is to the rear, which is to the north of the site.
As one can see -- let me go back real quick over here.
Here is the concrete masonry wall on the north face of the
property.
And basically what happens, you are transitioning
immediately from commercial, which we know along many of our
commercial corridors, really a drop-off in intensity to
residential.
So that's basically what you are seeing as the north Bon Air
residential single-family detached character.
Here is another picture reflective of -- reflective of that
single-family detached character.
And the site.
Just a couple other pictures of some of these general
commercial uses along Kennedy Boulevard.
Complementary and similar in use and character.
So as far as the land use is concerned, the land use along
Kennedy Boulevard is primarily urban mixed use 60 which is
your second most intensive mixed use category that you have
Bon Air future land use map.
And you can obviously see the drop-off in intensity right
down into residential 10.
North Bon Air is really the character of north Bon Air is
single-family detached residential.
When you cross Lois it changes dramatically.
On the west side you are in Westshore Palms.
Residential 20, residential 35.
Those of up that have seen this historically, we have had
several town home developments and apartment developments
that have been passed by this body over the last decade.
And that has been transitioning to a higher density west of
Lois, north of Kennedy Boulevard.
Of course, Beach Park to the south over here, south of Lois,
which is residential 10, your second lowest residential
category.
Residential 10 to the south over here.
Urban mixed 60, the request, it's an interesting kind of
request.
And with a little bit of problematic that we had to come up
with some creative ideas with what to do on this site.
So what we did is the land use category that we recommended
for them to go to, and the reasoning behind the category is
this.
The structure that I showed you is actually when you look at
the future land use map, split by two lanes.
So when you look at the aerial and the zoning district, you
will see that the building is actually split on zoning
category, which is RS 50 to the north and CG to the south.
The building is actually split that way.
Also the land use category.
So we are looking at over here the conveyance.
The current property owner from what I understand is trying
to sell the property.
And I believe in an abundance of caution they wanted to go
ahead and be sure even though the majority of the site is in
the general commercial zoning district, they wanted to get
that extra protection for them should anything happen to
their property to be able to rebuild it to what it currently
is, which is that strip center.
So that's the general commercial use.
So we are saying, well, to go with the urban mixed use 06 to
the rear is really going to be too high of intensity as far
as encroaching into the residential neighborhood.
There needs to be some transition, because based on some
history, you know, automotive sales tried to do something
similar to this about eight to ten years ago and it whats
not received well to try to go to a 60 north of A street
which is right here. This didn't work out very well at all
as far as trying to encroach into a residential
neighborhood.
These people are very vigilant and really know what's
happening here and are very fearful of commercial
encroachment into their residential neighborhood which is
well established.
That being the case, Planning Commission, in talking with
the applicant's representative, recommended that they go to
the lesser intense category for the northern piece of the
site, which would be community mixed use 35.
Community mixed use 35 does not allow commercial intensive
zoning, which will allow car lots.
So this only allows general commercial use.
Mixed use 60, which is the front part, the southern part of
the site, that already allows commercial intensive but it's
one transition away going north, you are only going to be
able to allow general commercial uses so it's going to
reflect the existing use on the site, which is -- I'm sure
Ms. Grimes will explain that to you in a little more
detail -- is what the intent is of the applicant, is to
probably modify but still retain the use of a commercial
strip on that particular site.
And of course the ample buffering that exists to the north
from the neighborhood, and the concrete masonry wall which
is there.
06:00:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Do you have a question?
06:00:50 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes, excuse me.
The part that faces Kennedy, is that parking?
And part of the building -- the building splits between the
lavender and the pink.
06:01:00 >> Yes, that's the problem.
I was trying to articulate that.
06:01:03 >> Because the way it looks, it looks like it's divided
exactly --
06:01:07 >>TONY GARCIA:
That's exactly correct.
06:01:09 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
And the front would be parking and the back
of the building, and the back of it had some space for
parking.
06:01:15 >> Yes, I can show you that picture again.
There is an ample amount of buffering.
In the way of surface parking in the rear.
06:01:23 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
I don't need to see it.
I understand.
Thank you.
06:01:28 >>TONY GARCIA:
Impacts for the existing maximum potential
intensity and density because it's residential 10 would be 7
dwelling units or nonresidential potential of just under
11,000 square feet.
With the new recommendation for post-maximum potential
intensity and density would be 25 residential units and just
over 62,000 square feet of nonresidential use.
We did not receive any objections from any of the external
reviewing agencies during our process.
We did find it consistent with the plans such as objective
18.6 about developing commercial areas in a manner of the
area's character and ambience, 18.61 which talked about
commercial uses and character and/or scale.
This will be in scale.
It's going to remain what it is right now.
Just more of an adjustment to reflect the actual use that's
on the site.
Objective 21.4 which talks about existing and future land
use development regulations shall be made consistent with
the comprehensive plan and the final one 21.4.1 which talks
about developments shall not exceed the density and
intensity as defined by the land use plan categories.
We presented this to the Planning Commission, and they
unanimously approved staff's recommendation of consistency
to bring this forward for your consideration this evening.
Thank you.
06:02:48 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Questions from council?
Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 3?
06:02:58 >>GINA GRIMES:
Law firm of Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East
Kennedy Boulevard.
And I represent an entity that's comprised of several
members of the Brocato family and the Pathis family.
Tony did a great presentation and explained most of the
background to you on this.
I wanted to just show you a couple of things on the Elmo.
As he mentioned, this is the comp plan, R-10 in the back.
At the same time, here is the -- here is the building.
And what's interesting is somehow, the USU, the comp plan
line, follows these lot lines.
I don't know if you can actually see that.
But there's the lot line.
So you can see the comp plan line actually goes through the
middle of the building.
And here is an overlay of the comp plan over the building.
You can kind of see it underneath.
But even more specific is my color drawing here, which shows
you the green UMU, the back is the building in the middle
and then the blue is the REZ 10.
It does go right through the building.
But to complicate it even further, this is the zoning map.
And the zoning map you can see the line is different.
It doesn't go straight across.
It jogs up.
So you have CG over about three quarters of the property and
then you have RS-50 over this back corner of the property.
And then again to show you my color map you can kind of see
the green is the CG and the blue is the RS-50.
So why do we need this comp plan amendment?
Well, the owners want to renovate the existing building.
They actually want to keep that existing building but they
need it rezoned.
They can't rezone it all to CG unless we do a comp plan
endment for this back half of the property.
That back half.
So we have to change the back half of the property to a
different comp plan category as Tony mentioned.
We are willing to go -- we were going to try to combine it
all under one comp plan category which would have been UMU
60.
But because he was concerned about that intensity, we agreed
to just keep the back half CMU 35.
The staff report recommends consistency and the Planning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend this plan
endment for approval.
The project -- there are several different provisions in the
comprehensive plan, but I didn't hear Tony mention this when
it was cited in his report, and that's a policy that
encourages especially in these areas like a mixed use
corridor village, they encourage redevelopment of existing
commercial structure to do exactly what we are doing, and
that's enhance the exterior, do additional buffering, do
additional access management, encourage economic viability,
but the bottom line is the site will be brought up to code
and will be much improved over what's existing out there
today.
And we have already been in close contact with the
neighbors.
The neighborhood president, Richard, came to the Planning
Commission hearing.
I actually spoke to him again today.
He wasn't going to come tonight.
They are more interested in the plan development that we
plan to file on this.
But we of course will get into a lot of the specifics.
So Randy Coen, who is working with me on this project, he
and I will go out to the neighborhood in advance of the
hearings and meet with them and address their concerns.
A lot is aesthetics.
Some of it is traffic.
But we did commit to them to meet with them as we get the
planned development, site plan finalized, we'll go out and
meat with them and hopefully they will be able to support
the project and we can come back in front of you with a PD.
So with that we would ask for your approval of this plan
endment.
06:07:09 >>FRANK REDDICK:
None else wish to speak on item number 37?
Anyone else wish to speak on item 3?
06:07:18 >> Move to close.
06:07:19 >> Second.
06:07:20 >> Motion by Mrs. Montelione.
Second by Mrs. Capin.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed.
Mr. Cohen, would you kindly read it?
06:07:28 >>HARRY COHEN:
I move an ordinance being presented for
first reading consideration, an ordinance amending the Tampa
Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map, for the property
generally located at 4001 West Kennedy Boulevard, from
residential 10, R 10, to community mixed use 35, CMU 35,
providing for repeal of all ordinances in conflict,
providing for severability, providing an effective date.
06:07:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion by Mr. Cohen.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Okay.
06:08:00 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on March 17th at
9:30 a.m.
06:08:08 >>FRANK REDDICK:
We stand in recess till 6:30.
(Meeting in recess.)
06:30:06 >> Roll call.
06:33:30 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Here.
06:33:31 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Here.
06:33:37 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Here.
06:33:38 >>HARRY COHEN:
Here.
06:33:39 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
Here.
06:33:41 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to open number 4 through 6.
06:33:45 >> Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Cohen.
Anyone going to speak on 4 through 6, pleas stand to be
sworn.
(Oath administered by Clerk)
06:34:00 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Item number 4.
06:34:05 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
This is AB 2-16-08.
The property is located at 1719 and 1723 West Kennedy
Boulevard.
The property is currently CI.
And it is currently approved for alcohol beverage sales for
a restaurant.
The applicant before you wishes to change that to a small
venue, beer wine liquor on premises only.
The square footages stay the same for a total of 5,596
square feet.
In total AB sales area.
There are 79 available parking spaces.
The proposed hours of operation are again staying the same.
It's Sunday through Wednesday, 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
Thursday, Friday -- Thursday through Saturday, 11 a.m. to 3
a.m.
Previously, they had been approved of the allowance to use
more compact space up to 85.
The request again is for a small venue.
And they are indicating on their site plan that they
continue to operate as a restaurant so the use is not
changing.
Their occupant level which is 186 persons is not changing.
Really, the only change is that they will not be reporting
51-49%.
This is for ducky's restaurant.
I have the aerial that shows the location on Kennedy.
They do have parking back to North "A."
I think most of you are probably familiar.
There is an office building on the same side here.
That's part of the address here.
And this is the view looking across the street on Kennedy.
Staff has no other comments.
There are some minor changes to the site plan just for
corrections that need to be made.
Otherwise, we have no objections.
06:36:28 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Petitioner?
06:36:39 >>GINA GRIMES:
Hill, Ward, Henderson, 101 East Kennedy
Boulevard.
And I have a presentation book that I believe Mr. Shelby
passed out.
Leave that up on the Elmo.
I represent Ducky's of South Tampa LLC, and with me this
evening is Keith Goan, who is the managing member of that
LLC, and as Gloria mentioned, this was first approved by
everybody on the board except for I believe Councilman
Maniscalco wasn't on the board at the time.
But all of you were on the board back at the time it was
approved back in 2013 and approved for beer wine and liquor
as a restaurant.
It began operation shortly thereafter in December, and as
you may know, it's very popular and very successful.
In fact it's been so successful that during part of last
year, part of the year, they exceeded the 51-49.
And, unfortunately, the state came in and filed an
administrative complaint.
And when Mr. Goan asked them, what can I could to resolve
this problem?
He was basically given two options.
He can either close, or you can get ab state license and
modify the local zoning.
Well, obviously closing wasn't an option for them.
They have invested a lot of money in this property, and it's
a very successful business.
And we didn't realize this.
They give you very little time to comply.
The question was raised, can we modify the menu to see if
that will increase the food sales and therefore decrease the
liquor sales, and you don't get any time.
Pretty stern options.
In these kind of instances, I think what some business
owners do, license holders, is they get engaged in creative
accounting, and adjust the 51-49.
Other members of this restaurant ownership did not want to
do anything like that.
Another option would be to increase maybe the fad prices, to
bring it up a little bit higher.
But actually in reality, he says that that's a risk to do
that.
And also think about it, if the food prices go up, then food
sales may end up going down and it doesn't readjust it.
So here we are before you today asking for you to permit up
to amend the local special use approval, not to change the
uses as a restaurant, but to give us the small venue
designation so that we do not -- are not restricted to the
51-49.
We want to emphasize that nothing about Ducky is changing at
all.
It's going to continue the operations that they have had
since 2013.
None of the conditions on the special use permit are
changing.
In fact, when I talked to Gloria about this and asked what
kind of assurance can I give council that we are not going
to change anything, she said what you could do is include on
the site plan, which I have, there's a note on the site
plan, the only change that we made to the site plan is to
add this note 17, which repeats or reiterates the definition
of a restaurant out of the zoning code.
And it's in your package of materials.
I think it's at tab 3.
Basically what it says is the AB sales area will continue to
operate the restaurant as defined in the city code, and the
principle business is the serving and selling of foods to
customers for immediate consumption on the premises and for
takeout.
Then this is important.
Food shall be continuously ready to be prepared, served and
sold during all business operational hours for restaurant
use.
So even though we won't have the 51-49, we will still commit
to continuing to operate as a restaurant.
And some reasons we think council should approve this
modification is first of all, it does meet all the special
use criteria.
We didn't ask for waivers are from any of the distance
separation requirements for a restaurant, nor do we need any
waivers from the distance separation requirements for a
small venue.
There are no other AB establishments or residential within
250 feet of the AB sales area.
The only waiver was we asked to increase the number of
compact spaces.
The Kennedy Boulevard address is their signature location,
and the good news about the success of this restaurant is it
is awarded or has agreed to be one of the new
concessionaires at the airport, so you know how they are
adding local restaurants.
That will be one of the local restaurants at the airport.
And in addition to that they are going to be a
concessionaire now at the Tropicana Field too as well.
So obviously this is a restaurant that is well known, very
popular, and it's expanding its signature and its venue.
Also, another reason we think it should be supported is TPD
has no objections to it.
There has not been any incidences related to alcohol.
They have operated with no issues with the neighborhood as
well.
And why is that?
Well, we believe one of the reasons is that in the rear,
there is a large parking area.
In fact, we did not need to waive the number of required
spaces.
And this is the parking area in the rear.
And as you can see, it borders North "A."
But what we agreed to do from the outside with the
neighborhood is we have a fence across the rear.
So there is no access out of the parking lot into the
neighborhood.
It comes in off of the alley, and either goes out to Kennedy
or goes down here to Howard.
So it's had little or no impact on the neighborhood.
I spoke to Wes Weisenberger who was here in 2013 on behalf
of the Hyde Park Civic Association.
I did not attend the neighborhood meeting.
He said I didn't need to.
What he told me was that ducky's has been cooperative, it's
an upward class establishment, those are his words, and we
operated it in the manner that we said we would.
So with that, if you have any questions, I'm available.
I don't know if you have any questions for him.
And we would request your support and your approval.
06:43:07 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Mr. Suarez.
06:43:08 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Ms. Grimes, I got it now.
It would not be a land use hearing with you if we did not
receive a book, so thank you.
A couple questions.
You mentioned that the state said they did not meet the
requirement of 51-49.
What is it their percentage right now, if you don't mind my
asking?
06:43:33 >> It's between 57 and 58.
06:43:35 >> I'm sorry?
06:43:37 >> 57 and 58.
06:43:38 >> 57% liquor.
06:43:40 >> Alcohol, right.
And Keith is available to answer what he thinks is the
specific reason.
He will give you will some examples about why that happened
just recently.
They operated for 14 and most of 15 without any problems.
06:43:55 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
And Mr. Goan, if you don't maned coming up
here and just real quick, state your name for the record and
I'll ask you act couple questions.
06:44:04 >> Keith Goan with Ducky's.
06:44:07 >> So you are at 57%, and that happens sometimes.
When you are running a restaurant, you know, and it becomes
popular, a lot of times the after-hours crowd may not be
eating and drinking only, especially since you have the
bowling, you might have a lot more people that are there
playing duck pin bowling and watching games.
I'm not sure that anybody has a reason or explanation as to
how these things sometime happen.
But you said 13 and 14, you all were within the 51-49 range?
06:44:40 >> Yes, sir.
When we first opened -- 13 we were only open for the month
of December.
And that month was kind of quirky because we were giving out
a lot of stuff and food and giving away a lot of alcohol.
But in 14 we were in compliance.
And then in 15, at the beginning of 15, I was personally
running some self-audits through our microsystem and we were
in compliance.
And then at one point that we weren't, we were falling out
of compliance, and we anticipated something how we were
going to fix that.
Weight didn't anticipate what ended up happening meaning we
ended up with a full audit by the state.
And one of the best examples I can use -- and when Ms.
Grimes said explain, why our food is competitively priced.
So I use one of the best examples.
If I come in and get a hamburger, one ever our ground cheese
burgers that we use, chuck, biscuit, we charge $12 for it.
If I get two craft beers I'm in violation because the beers
are $8.
So it's $16 and $12 for the burger.
I have now violated the 51-49.
It's an example that makes sense as to how this is
happening.
And then there's a bunch of different ways we can try to
correct it.
And some don't make any business sense.
And really what I wanted to let council members understand
is that we are a restaurant.
We are not a bar.
We are not a nightclub.
And that's of what we want to continue to be and we have an
executive chef that we pay a lot of money to on staff that
we want to make sure we stay a restaurant.
06:46:12 >> Did the insurance audit that is required now, or when you
first started out, did we have that in place?
This would have been either your first year, I believe would
have been the first year you would have been able to --
06:46:23 >> Yes.
This past year would have been the first audit.
Ms. Grimes --
06:46:30 >>GINA GRIMES:
I filed and said we were coming in front of
you.
06:46:34 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Do you know what that number was?
Because they are pretty meticulous when they do those kind
of audits.
06:46:41 >> I think it wags actually 56.9 to 58.1, because when the
insurance comes in and does the audit, they do it based on
my system, my summary reports.
What the state does is they come and they take -- they want
actual receipts, but they really only take a small sample.
And I don't know quite frankly if the audit was completed
because I was very forthright with them when they called me
because I assumed that like everything else that if you were
in violation you would have time to cure.
And when I was told you can close, I thoughts was kind of
comical.
06:47:13 >> When were you first cited for the violation?
06:47:16 >> November.
06:47:17 >> November.
And then when did they say you had to comply?
06:47:19 >> Well, what happened --
06:47:21 >> Within six months?
06:47:22 >> Well, no, what happened, we actually are in the process
of seeking an administrative review if this doesn't -- this
was obviously -- but the real issue is even under
administrative reviews because they don't give you time to
cure, we already know that the numbers are how they are.
We aren't going to engage in anything to try to say that we
are in compliance.
We know we are in violation.
So the question would be then asking -- as Ms. Grimes can
tell you, we researched this to find out if they would allow
us a time to cure.
And that is a unique sanction as it relates to my research
pursuant to the sanctions that are levied. If they find
that we are in violation, which we already admittedly said
that, they are going to give us 15 days to relinquish your
license which means close.
So 65 full time employees.
We are trying to do the right thing here.
As council knows by now, the most of us are from Tampa, and
we are just trying to keep the brand going.
Again, we do all these festivals around town.
We never go with cocktails, I mean, we are a restaurant.
We want to stay that way.
06:48:32 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Thank you.
Ms. Moreda, I have a quick question for you.
The note that Ms. Grimes has mentioned about putting on some
site plan, is that enforceable in terms of any issue that
might come up later on?
I mean --
06:48:49 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Well, the approved small venue is going to
be for a restaurant use.
If that changes in the future, they would have to come back
in for any alcohol approval.
06:48:59 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
Are you comfortable with the wording of it,
the one portion of it that I was just curious about, is
prepare food, not preparing food, and I just was curious
about that.
I believe seemed like a little bit of wiggle room.
06:49:15 >> That's a definition straight out of the zoning code.
06:49:18 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I wanted to make sure that's what it was,
not knowing if it was their verbiage or our verbiage.
06:49:26 >> No, I actually included -- the city code definition has
the same language.
06:49:36 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I want to make sure because I keep -- I just
want to make sure that that's what it was.
06:49:46 >> That gives me some comfort.
06:49:51 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I'm very happy that you put that on there,
because really the spirit of what the insurance audit was
supposed to do was to make sure that we did not get in these
type of situations and that folks are not trying to become
bars.
I'm not saying that your client is.
06:50:05 >> Right.
06:50:06 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
But how do you solve that?
I think you found a fairly elegant way of putting that and I
appreciate you going and being proactive about that.
06:50:16 >>GINA GRIMES:
Thank you.
06:50:19 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Mr. Goan, the example that you gave, the
hamburger and the two beers, I made that argument two years
about this 51-49.
The other day I went to a restaurant.
I had a hamburger and two glasses of champagne.
It is what it is.
It was $16 each.
The hamburger -- there's no way.
I looked at it and I said, this is exactly what happens.
So we try to keep the 51 oat 49.
And if you are serving alcohol, and exactly wag you said
happened is the example that I gave two years ago of why --
it's almost absurd.
06:50:56 >> Very difficult.
06:50:57 >> It's very, very difficult for a restaurant to do the meet
that requirement.
Of course, I was in St. Pete so I don't know what --
(Laughter).
06:51:08 >> We understand the reason for it and the basis for that as
far as license.
A lot of times it saves the owner of the establishment from
purchasing very expensive license, which we already
purchased the license, by the way.
I own the license now to be placed there if all is well and
we are allowed to be do this because it's $125,000
investment for that license.
You know, something that obviously we weren't anticipating
this year.
But we had the opportunity to buy it.
So that's one of the things, you know, we are a restaurant.
And that's all I wanted to make sure everybody understands
it.
06:51:47 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
So were so many others.
But still they have that issue, and they are grappling with
that reporting.
That is a fact out there that is happening to many business
people.
And we want to be business friendly.
So I just wanted to set an example which is exactly the
argument that I made two years ago.
Thank you for bringing your example forward.
06:52:08 >> Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Any other questions?
06:52:12 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
No, that's it.
I believe that's it.
06:52:16 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right, anyone else wish to speak on
item number 4?
Got a motion from Mr. Miranda, second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Ms. Capin, would you read item number 4?
06:52:35 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, with pleasure.
Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration,
an ordinance approving a special use permit S-2 for
alcoholic beverage sales, small venue, consumption on
premises only, and making lawful the sale of beverages
regardless of alcoholic content, beer, wine and liquor, on
that certain lot, plot or tract of land located at 1719 and
1723 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida and 1712 and
1714 North "A" Street, Tampa, Florida, as more particularly
described in section 2, that all ordinances or parts of
ordinances in conflict are repealed, providing an effective
date.
06:53:13 >> Second.
06:53:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
I have a motion from Mrs. Capin, seconded
by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
06:53:21 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on March 17th at
9:30 a.m.
06:53:29 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Item number 5.
06:53:33 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
Land development.
This is AB 2-16-09.
If property is zoned PD.
It is the Westshore plaza. The address 253 Westshore Plaza.
And this is going to be in space C-39.
The proposal is for a small venue, beer, wine, liquor on
premises consumption only, inside totals 2,733 square feet,
outside is 185 square feet for a total of 2,918 square feet.
There is over 5,000 parking spaces at the mall.
And the proposed hours of operation for this use will be
from 12 p.m. to 3 a.m., 7 days a week.
There are no waivers requested as part of this petition.
The request is for a restaurant.
It's for an Irish 31.
The occupant load of the restaurant is going to be
approximately 130.
06:54:47 >> You are saying that the hours to 3 a.m. on here.
AB sales hours are complying with chapter 14.
06:55:02 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
The site plan indicates their hours of
operation will be 12 p.m. to 3 a.m.
I think the agenda was wrong.
The Westshore mall, I think everybody knows where Westshore
is.
They are actually going in right next to where PF Chang is,
and right next door to it.
There are some minor changes to the site plan that need to
be made.
I want to emphasize this proposed use is for a restaurant as
well as defined in the zoning code.
And they are satisfying all the distance separations.
Staff has no objections.
06:55:57 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
All right, petitioner.
06:55:59 >> Grace Yang, Gray Robinson, 401 East Jackson Street, suite
2700 Tampa, Florida.
It's my pleasure to be here tonight open behalf of the
applicant.
31 Westshore and I have been sworn.
With me in the audience is Jay Mize of Irish 31.
As Ms. Moreda said this is at the Westshore plaza mall, it
is no space next to PF Chang.
It used to be a pink Berry restaurant, pink Berry yogurt and
okay jewelers space.
That Irish 31 is trying to build out at the mall.
On the site plan, you do see that we had originally said 3
a.m.
However, I did want to tell council that in addition to the
modifications between first and second reading that are
listed in the staff report, we are willing and won agree to
changing those hours of operation to reflect that they are
compliant with chapter 14.
Instead of listing the noon to 3 a.m. hours.
So I did want to mention that.
I did discuss it with Mr. Mize, and we are agreeable to
changing that to be compliant with chapter 14.
At the mall, no distance separation waiver is required, and
it's consistent with the code.
We would be glad to answer any additional questions you
might have.
06:57:26 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Any questions from council?
Anyone in the audience wish to speak on item number 5?
06:57:33 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Move to close.
06:57:35 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Miranda.
Second by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of the motion say yay.
Opposed?
Mr. Suarez, would you be kind enough to read number 5?
06:57:44 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
I present an ordinance for first reading
consideration, an ordinance approving a special using permit
S-2 for alcoholic beverage sales, special restaurant,
consumption on premises only, and making lawful the sale of
beverages regardless of alcoholic content, beer wine and
liquor, on that certain lot, plot or tract of land located
at 253 Westshore plaza, space number C-39 Tampa, Florida as
more particularly described in section 2, that all
ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict are repealed,
providing an effective date.
06:58:14 >> Second.
06:58:15 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Suarez --
06:58:18 >> And including the changes mentioned by the applicant
between first and second reading.
06:58:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Suarez.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
Discussion on the motion?
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
06:58:32 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried with Montelione absent at vote.
Second reading and adoption will be on March 17th at
9:30 a.m.
06:58:40 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
We go to the final item of the night.
Item number 6.
06:58:45 >>GLORIA MOREDA:
This is application AB 2-15-19 it involves
Tampa Theatre which is address at 707 through 711 North
Franklin Street and 702 North Florida Avenue.
The property is in the central business district 1.
The proposal is for large venue beer, wine, liquor on
premises consumption.
The proposal is for inside area of 31,754 square feet.
There is a 611 square feet of outside area for a total
32,365 square feet.
There are no off-street parking spaces at Tampa Theatre.
The application is saying that they will be saying with
consistent with chapter 14 hours of operation.
They are asking for a reduction of distance separations from
250 feet to 190 for residential uses, and the 250 seat to 1
foot for other AB establishments.
I think most of you are familiar with Tampa Theatre.
Located on Franklin Street.
I have the photograph showing the front of the theater and
it does extend all the way to Polk street.
When I went out there, they were doing renovations to it.
Staff is finding this request inconsistent.
There are some minor changes to the site plan that need to
happen if council is inclined to approve it.
07:00:44 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Mr. Chair, I should disclose that hi serve
on the board of the Tampa Theatre.
But I have in a conflict in voting.
07:00:56 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
Is it clearly disclosed that you have no
financial interest in this?
07:01:07 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
Right.
Thank you.
07:01:07 >>MARK BENTLEY:
201 North Franklin Street.
I represent the Tampa Theater who is operated by the Tampa
Theatre Foundation. With me in attendance tonight is the
foundation CEO Mr. John Bell.
I think a lot of you know John.
Currently the theater has a 2(COP-X) from City Council in
1987.
However, it's very limited with respect to the type of sales
in the area where alcoholic beverages can be sold.
So it's 2(COP), and primarily the lobby area.
So what the theater is seeking tonight is, number one, the
ability to add a liquor component, and secondarily, to
increase the area between the theater where you can sell and
consume.
The way your wet zoning ordinance is applied is not only
where you sell, it's where you consume.
So just you buy something in one place, I guess you call it
wet zoning in that other area.
So that's what this is about.
The theater hosts about 50 special events per year besides
the typical film screening.
These are corporate events, weddings, receptions, parties,
businesses rented out for meetings, private film screenings,
et cetera.
A lot of these customers request the full range of alcoholic
beverages, which obviously they can't fulfill.
So consequently, the theater is missing a lot of existing
opportunity in allowing the sale of beer, wine and liquor in
the entire theater block actually increase the opportunity
as well, which is very important because it's a nonprofit
and relies solely on grants and charitable donation.
So every dollar really counts.
I would like to address two issues which caused the staff to
find the plan inconsistent, besides a couple of little
typographical errors which we'll clean up in the next two
weeks.
Number one, the separation requirement.
First of all with respect to other ABs, obviously the
public policy is to prevent undue concentration of
establishments selling alcohol to prevent adverse secondary
impact on a community.
In this case there are only two other ABs.
One is the Si-am Restaurant a foot away, and that's an "R."
And then the second is The Hub.
That's 42 feet away.
And we are pretty compatible with the hub.
We aren't going to have any adverse impact on the hub.
Also bear in mind of that we actually beat those two
establishments to the punch.
Our wet zoning was in 87 and they came after us.
We are just kind of modifying the wet zoning.
So we don't think there's any problem there.
The second is separation from residential to the extent of
any residential at 250 feet.
That would be the Element high rise down the street and
clearly we aren't going to have any adverse impact on the
element.
The way we are operating now we are going to continue to
operate whether we have 50, 60 events or whether we have a
liquor component in the theater.
The second issue was the noise attenuation.
There's a requirement in your code that if you are a large
venue that you have some noise attenuation plan in place.
And I kind of lived through that and really the intent was
to get some of these bars in Ybor City under control, Mr.
Miranda, in the 90s.
That's you've the enhanced security and noise attenuation
plan.
It really wasn't contemplated that you apply it to like an
assembly venue or a theater situation.
So we put on the plan that we would comply with the city
noise ordinance, even though that's redundant.
It goes without saying.
So we don't think there's any issue with respect to noise.
And then secondarily, there are three locations within the
geographic boundaries of the city.
There are a lot of enhanced notification limitations that
would be downtown, Channelside, Ybor City.
And you all will hear probably from Channelside.
Buff in our situation until 3 in the morning, that generates
85 DBA, 87 at the property line, versus in the city which is
55 DBA, 65 DBC.
So without getting too technical, in downtown, you are
allowed to generate approximately six times more noise than
you would in another area of the city.
So we don't think noise is an issue with respect to the
theater, especially when all the activities are
self-contained.
So that being said, we respectfully request the council's
approval of our application tonight.
And if you have any questions, certainly I'll try or Mr.
Bell is available to answer any questions.
07:06:17 >> Any questions from council?
Anyone in the public wish to speak on item number 6?
07:06:23 >> Move to close.
07:06:24 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
All in favor of that motion?
Opposed?
All right.
Mr. Miranda.
07:06:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
Mr. Chairman, before I read the
ordinance, I just want to thank, 38 years ago Mayor Poe,
councilmember Lee Duncan, councilmember Cathy Barger,
councilmember Charlie Spicola, allowed this to happen, and
that's why Mr. Bell, with the great job he's doing along
with his board, has kept this beautiful gem in the City of
Tampa operating.
We want to thank all of you.
With that in mind, an ordinance for consideration on file AB
2-15-19, an ordinance repealing ordinance number 7929-A
approving a special use permit S-U for alcoholic beverage
sales large venue, consumption on premises only, and making
lawful the sale of beverages regardless of alcoholic content
beer wine and liquor on that certain lot, plot or tract of
land at 707-711 North Franklin Street and 702 North Florida
Avenue Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in
section 3 from all ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflicts are repealed, providing an effective date.
07:07:28 >> Second.
07:07:30 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Got a motion from Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Suarez.
All in favor of the motion say aye.
Opposed?
07:07:36 >>THE CLERK:
Motion carried unanimously.
Second reading and adoption will be on March 17th at
9:30 a.m.
07:07:42 >>MARK BENTLEY:
Thank you very much.
07:07:47 >>FRANK REDDICK:
All right.
Ms. Montelione, any information?
New business?
07:07:52 >>LISA MONTELIONE:
No, sir.
07:07:54 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Maniscalco.
07:07:55 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
No, sir.
07:07:57 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Mr. Cohen?
07:07:58 >>HARRY COHEN:
Just one item, Mr. Chair.
This morning, we had a ceremonial activity scheduled.
It was item number 2.
And I would like to make a motion that we reschedule that
for 9:00 a.m. on March 24th.
07:08:12 >> Second.
07:08:13 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion by Mr. Cohen.
Seconded by Mr. Miranda.
All in favor?
Opposed?
Mrs. Capin.
07:08:25 >>YVONNE CAPIN:
(Off microphone.) Yes, I do. We have El
Galeon, which is docked today.
It should have arrived today, and tomorrow there is a
ceremony welcoming this tall ship, which is a replica of a
16th century El Galeon, and it's a one-to-one replica.
The Spanish galeons that for three century linked Asia,
erica, and Spain.
They ruled the navigation through the oceans of the world
and became the only commercial cultural vehicle between
continents, being responsible for the first worldwide
globalization.
And by that, the Spanish galeons were bought by other
countries and by private.
And Magellan sailed the first around the world circumference
in using one of these tall ships.
And that's when he discovered the straits that were named
after him, and also the Philippines.
This galeon will be docked at Curtis Hixon park as of today
through May -- March 6th.
So if anyone wants to visit it.
They seem to be very beautiful.
So the motion is to present a commendation to the crew and
captain tomorrow at the event.
07:09:48 >> Second.
07:09:50 >>FRANK REDDICK:
Motion from Ms. Capin, seconded by Mr.
Maniscalco.
All in favor say aye.
Opposed?
All right.
Thank you.
Mr. Suarez.
07:10:11 >>MIKE SUAREZ:
They used to have guns on it, too.
No, sir, I have no new business.
Thank you.
07:10:18 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
None, sir.
07:10:20 >> Motion to receive and file.
07:10:23 >> So moved.
07:10:24 >> Motion by Mr. Miranda.
Seconded by Mr. Maniscalco.
Opposed?
All right.
We stand adjourned.
DISCLAIMER:
This file 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.