AND I INFORMED BOTH SIDES, THE ATTORNEYS, ABOUT THE SITUATION, WITH WHAT REMAINS ON THE AGENDA. I ASKED IF THEY WOULD HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO A LITTLE FORBEARANCE ON THE PART OF COUNCL TO ALLOW YOU TO MOVE QUICKLY THROUGH YOUR AGENDA, AND THEY ARE HAPPY TO OBLIGE. AND HAVE YOUR UNDIVIDED ATTENTION WHEN YOUR AGENDA IS COMPLETE SO IF WE CAN MOVE QUICKLY WE CAN GET TO THAT HEARING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU HAVE THE SECOND READINGS. YOU HAVE TWO REVIEW HEARINGS, WHICH I HAVE BEEN INFORMED SHOULD NOT TAKE LONG. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE STAFF REPORTS THAT REMAINING TIME FOR THOSE. SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. I THINK MR. MIRANDA OPENED THE HEARINGS EARLIER. >> ROLL CALL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SO ROLL CALL. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HERE. >>THE CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. IF WE COULD OPEN THE HEARINGS 61. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SO MOVED. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO MOVED. CITRO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? WE ARE OPEN. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHICH NUMBERS, SIR? >>ORLANDO GUDES: 61 THROUGH 71, RIGHT? >>MARTIN SHELBY: QUASI-JUDICIAL. THEN AFTER THAT, 72 THROUGH 79 WILL BE QUASI- >>ORLANDO GUDES: OKAY. MR. DINGFELDER JUST ARRIVED. SHOW HE'S PRESENT. WE HAVE STAFF ON ITEM NUMBER 61. >>JENNIFER MALONE: PLANNING COMMISSION. ITEM 61 IS SECOND READING. PLAN AMENDMENT 20-24, FROM TRANSITIONAL USE 24 THROUGH RESIDENTIAL 35. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO QUESTIONS, ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>MARTIN SHELBY: PETITIONER IS PRESENT, I BELIEVE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: OKAY. >>DAVID MECHANIK: MR. CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL MEMBERS, MY NAME IS DAVID MECHANIK HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON 61? ANYBODY REGISTERED? >> NO ONE REGISTERED FORHIS ITEM. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO ONE SPECIFICALLY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY TO ADDRESS THAT BUT I DO KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE FOR SECOND READS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE QUASI-JUDICIAL OR NOT. WE HAVE TO BE SURE THAT NOBODY IS PRESENT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE CALLED FOR 61 TO COME UP. ALL RIGHT. WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE TO CLOSE. MR. MIRANDA, MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MR. MANISCALCO, WILL YOU TAKE 61? THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO VIERA WHEN HE'S PRESENT. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I HAVE AN ORDINANCE AMEND FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 302 SOUTH 56th STREET FROM TRANSITIONAL USE 24 TU-24 TO RESIDENTIAL 35 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. VIERA. ROLL CALL. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRAND: NO. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH MIRANDA VOTING NO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM NUMBER 62. >> ITEM 62 IS SECOND READING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRA AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PUBLIC UPDATE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUEIONS ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THIS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? NO ONE REGISTERED? >> IT WAS PUBLICLY INITIATED UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. IT'S DONE BY ORDINANCE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE REGISTERED? >> NO ONE REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA MOVED TO CLOSE. SECOND BY MR.ANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: YES, SIR. I MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SECTION BY REPLACING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SECTION SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2026 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVING , PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. DINGFELDER. ROLL CALL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ITEM 63. TA/CPA 21-04. STAFF. >>JENNIFER MALONE: PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS AS COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER STATED TA/CPA 21-04, NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE 24, NMU 16, AND NMU 35, ALLOWING ALL DEVELOPMENT AT A MAXIMUM F.A.R. OF 1.5. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ANY STAFF ON THIS? I'LL TAKE THAT AS A NO. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM CITY COUNCIL? >> WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT. >> >>THE CLERK: I HAVE JEAN STROHMEYER REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SHE'S NOT ON? >>ORNDO DES: MS. STROHMEYER, ARE YOU THERE? >> HELLO. I WAS ON THE PHONE. I APOLOGIZE. WHAT ITEM ARE WE ON, F.A.R.? >>ORLANDO GUDES: 63. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY, YEAH, WE DID ELIMINATE F.A.R. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A WHILE AND WE JUST FELT THAT YOU ALL DO JUST THAT. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> NO ONE ELSE ISEGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MR. MANISCALCO. SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. MR. CARLSON, 63, PLEASE, SIR. >>BILL CARLSON: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE 63, FILE TA/CPA 21-04, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO AMEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE 16 NMU 16 NEIGHBORHOOD MIXED USE 24 US 35 NMU 35 CATEGORIES TOXED REMOVE REFERENCE TO VERTICAL MIXED USE ALLOWING ALL DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE A MAXIMUM F.A.R. OF 1.5, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MANISCALCO. ROLL CALL. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES, MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM. >>JENNIFER MALONE: PLANNG COMMISSION. ITEM 64 IS 21-06, STAFF AMENDMENT, PARKS UPDATE, RESIDENTIAL 10 TO RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. MALONE? ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION GRANTED. >>JOSEPH CITRO: FILE TA/CPA 21-06. ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2105 WEST DEKLE AVENUE OTHERWISE KNOWN AS COLLINS PARK, FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 R-10 TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE R 01 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ARLIMIRANDA: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. ROLL CALL. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: NEXT ITEM. >>JENNIFER MALONE: TEMPLE CREST PARK FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 TO 20, RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. MALONE? ANYBODY REGISTERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS ITEM THIS. >> THERE IS NOBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. MR. MANISCALCO TO CLOSE. SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MR. CITRO. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 8116 NORTH 37th STREET OTHER WAYS KNOWN AS TEMPLE CREST PARK FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 R-10, RESIDENTIAL 20 R-20, AND RESIDENTIAL -- RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE R/OS TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE R/OS, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING NOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. ROLL CALL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YE >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM NUMBER 66. >>JENNIFER MALONE: 21-08, WOODLAWN CEMETERY, RECOGNIZING THE PORTION OF WOODLAWN CEMETERY OWNED BY THE CITY OF TAMPA AND OPERATING AS WOODLAWN CEMETERY FROM PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. MALONE? ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THISTEM ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >>THE CLERK: THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 66. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED? >> WE HAD THREE PEOPLE REGISTERED. HOWEVER, THEY ARE NOT LOGGED ON AT THIS TIME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. MOVE TO CLOSE. MIRANDA, SECOND BY CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? CARRIED. MR. MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: FILE TA/CPA 21-08, MOVE AN ORDINANCEEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3412 NORTH OLA AVENUE OTHERWISE KNOWN AS WOODLAWN CEMETERY FROM PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC P/SP TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE, R/OS, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MANISCALCO. ROLL CALL. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>BILL CARLSON: IT SOUNDED LIKE SOME PEOPLE WANTED TO SPEAK OUT ON THIS AND WE DID GET SEVERAL E-MAILS ABOUT IT, AND WE ALREADY VOTED ON IT, BUT ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS COULDN'T WE EXPAND THIS TO THE OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT I THINK THE CITY DOESN'T OWN ALL THAT PROPERTY SO WE COULDN'T DO THAT DIRECTLY HERE. BUT THE OTHER THING, SOMEONE ASKED WHY IS IT RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE INSTEAD OF A CEMETERY ONLY? INTERFERENCE SOMEBODY IS NOT MUTED. BUT THE PUBLIC ASKED, WHY ISN'T S ISN'T THERE A CEMETERY ONLY CATEGORY? CAN ANYBODY GIVE A QUICK ANSWER ON THAT? >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. >>JENNIFER MALONE: THE CEMETERY CATEGORY, RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC SEMI-PUBLIC, IF THAT IS THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL TO RESEARCH THAT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >>BILL CARLSON: OKAY, THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CARLSON? >>BILL CARLSON: DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A MOTION? I CAN DO THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, MAKE A MOTION THAT STAFF LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A CEMETERY CATEGORY, AND THEN COME BACK TO US, I DON'T KNOW, FEBRUARY 3rd, TO REPORT ON THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING A CEMETERY CATEGORY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: FOR FEBRUARY 3rd. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. NEXT ITEM. >>JENNIFER MALONE: ITEM 67, 21-12, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 3814 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS ROBLES PARK VILLAGE FROM RESIDENTIAL 35 MIXED USE 35. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ON THE SECOND FRACTURE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED FOR THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? GRANTED. WE ARE BACK TO MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: I MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3814 NORTH CENTRAL AVEN FROM RESIDENTIAL 35 R-35 TO COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 CMU-35 PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY CITRO. ROLL CALL. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>JENNIFER MALONE: 21-15, AS PART OF THE PARKS PROJECT AGAIN FOR DAVIS ISLAND APEX, TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. MALONE? ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MR. MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I HAVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORNANCAMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 106 EAST DAVIS BOULEVARD OTHERWISE KNOWN AS DAVID ISLANDS APEX PARK FROM RESIDENTIAL 35 AND RESIDENTIAL 10 TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: TEM NUMBER 69. >>JENNIFER MALONE: ITEM 69 IS 21-16, KIT MASON CENTER FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, FUTURE LAND USE, TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: THERE IS NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED FOR THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY MANISCALCO. MOTION CARRIED. MR. CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: 69. I'D LIKE TO MOVE FILE TA/CPA 21-16, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1101 NORTH JEFFERSON STREET OTHERWISE KNOWN AS KID MASON CENTER FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CDB TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE R/OS PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT PROVING FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MIRANDA. ROLL CALL. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MIRANDA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM 70. >>JENNIFER MALONE: 21-17, FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >> THERE IS 23450 ONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS ITEM. >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. ORLAO GUDES: MOTION TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. MR. CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: FILE TA/CPA 21-17, AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4124 WEST BAY TO BAY BOULEVARD, OTHERWISE KNN AS MARCELLINO CHELO HEWITTA JR. FRIENDSHIP PARK FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 R-10 TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE R/OS PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. ROLL CALL. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THAT WAS ALMOST AS HARD AS PRONOUNCING EHCHBERRY. >>JENNIFER MALONE: LAST BUT NOT LEAST, 21-18, FROM RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: QUESTIONS OF MRS. MALONE? ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >> THERE IS NO ONE HEAR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY DINGFELDER. MOTION PASSES. LET'S GO TO 71. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: IN REGARD TO TA/CPA 21-18, I'LL MOVE THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE IMAGINE 2040 TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, FUTURE LAND USE MAP, FOUGHT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4702 WEST McCOY STREET OTHERWISE KNOWN AS PORT TAMPA PARK, FROM RESIDENTIAL 10 R-10 AND RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE R/OS TO RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. ROLL CALL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. DINGFELDER, THANK MS. MALONE FOR DOING ALL OF THESE AND ANYBODY AT THE CITY. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A LONG HAUL. MR. SUAREZ STARTED THIS MANY YEARS AGO. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE PROTECT OUR PARKS, IN PERPETUITY, AND YOU HAVE HELPED DO THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JENNIFER MALONE: THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER. WE APPRECIATE THAT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL OPEN THE HEARINGS FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SO MOVED, 72 THROUGH 79. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRAND. SECOND BY MR. VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE OPEN. ITEM 72. STAF >>SAMANTHA DECKER: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. FILE VAC 21-01, PRESENTED FOR SECOND READ BEING AND ADOPTION. AN ORDINANCE VACATING, CLOSING, DISCONTINUING, ABANDONING A PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ALLEYWAY LOCATED SOUTH OF SELMON EXPRESSWAY, NORTH OF WASHINGTON STREET, EAST OF 56th STREET AND WEST OF TAMPA BYPASS CANAL. STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? >>DAVID MECHANIK: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS DAVID MECHANIK, SWORN? DAVID? YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN, SIR. >>DAVID MECHANIK: OKAY. >>THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE% TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >>DAVID MECHANIK: I DO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: CONTINUE, SIR. >>DAVID MECHANIK: COUNCIL MEMBERS, I AM DAVID MECHANIK HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, SIMPLY HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS THE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, ANY REGISTERED ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MANISCALCO, MIRANDA, TO CLOSE. MOTION CARRIED. 72 PLEASE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I HAVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE VACATING, CLOSING, DISCONTINUING, ABANDONING A PORTION OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY ALLEYWAY LOCATED SOUTH OF LEE ROY SELMON CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY NORTH OF WASHINGTON STREET EAST OF 56th STREET AND WEST OF THE TAMPA BYPASS CANAL WITHIN THE PLAT OF THOMAS J.ROBERT'S SIX MILE CREEK SUBJECT TO COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AS PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: 73. >>SAMANTHA DECKER: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION >>ROSS SAMMONS: FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. AN ORDINANCE VACATING CLOSING DISCONTINUING ABANDONING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ALLEYWAY LOCATED SOUTH OF INDIANA AVENUE, NORTH OF OHIO AVENUE, EAST OF MYRTLE AVENUE AND WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD. STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MOVE TO CLOSE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES, SIR, HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN? >> YES. MY NAME IS WANNAMAKER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD, MR. WANNAMAKER? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SAID. THANK YOU, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> I'M SORRY? >>ORLANDO GUDES: NOT FOR YOU, SIR. ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO. >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED, MOTION TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY MANISCALCO. MOTION GRANTED. MR. CARLSON IS NEXT? >>BILL CARLSON: I WOULD SKIP THAT ONE. I VOTED NO LAST TIME. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FILE NUMBER VAC 21-10, AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE VACATING, CLOSING, DISCONTINUING, ABANDONING A PORTION OF PORTION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALLEYWAY LOCATED SOUTH OF INDIANA AVENUE, NORTH OF OHIO AVENUE, EAST OF MYRTLE AVENUE, AND WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE PLAT OF NORTH RIVERSIDE ADDITION NUMBER 2, A SUBDIVISION OF THE CITY OF TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FLORIDA AS MORE FULLY PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 HEREOF SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONVEYANCE -- CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS MORE PARTICULARLY SET FORTH HEREIN PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. DINGFELDER. ROLL CALL. >>BILL CARLSON: NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH CARLSON VOTING NO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: 74. >>ZAIN HUSAIN: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, CASE REZ 21-51. 1740 AND 1742 WEST SPRUCE STREET. THERE ARE SOME LOGISTICAL ISSUES WITH THE SITE PLAN HERE THAT ACALLY MET.R REVISIONS TO BE IT'S BEEN REQUESTED TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT SECOND READING THIS CASE. STAFF ALSO SUPPORTS THIS. I WOULD ASK CITY COUNCIL TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE CONTINUANCE TO NEXT SECOND READING AND STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MEET ALL THE REVISIONS NEEDED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CAN YOU SUGGEST A DATE, MADAM CLERK? MOVE THE CONTINUANCE TO NOVEMBER 12TH AT -- 4th AT 9:30 A.M. INCLUDING THE RESOLUTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVED BY MR. DINGFELDER. SECOND BY MR. MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: [OFF MICROPHONE] IT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND COULDN'T DO IT, AND WENT THROUGH SOMEWHERE, AND THEY GOT THE LOT SPLIT OR SOMETHING IF I RECALL. MAYBE I'M WRONG. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT, MR. DINGFELDER MOVED. MR. MIRANDA SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED IT'S CONTINUED. NUMBER 75. >>ZAIN HUSAIN: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 75, CASE REZ 21-58. IT'S BEFORE YOU FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. 1302 EAST 23rd AVENUE. IT IS PROPOSED FOR REZONE FROM PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED. SITE PLANS HAVE BEEN TURNED IN. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? ARE YOU SWORN IN, SIR? >> NO. >>THE CLERK: DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO. I'M JOHN LAROCCA REPRESENTING APPLICANT AS AGENT, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD. AS ZAIN INDICATED WE SUBMITTED A REVISED SITE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISION SHEET. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: NO ONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVED TO CLOSE BY MIRANDA, SECOND BY VIERA. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. MR. CARLSON, ITEM NUMBER 75. >>BILL CARLSON: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FILE REZ 21-58, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 13502 EAST 23rd AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER SECONDED IT. ROLL CALL. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM NUMBER 7 OF. >>ZAIN HUSAIN: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 76, CASE REZ 21-60, IS BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, 3430 WEST BEACH STREET, PROPOSING A REZONING FROM RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO RM-18 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, AS IT IS EUCLIDEAN IN A SITE PLAN WAS PROVIDED. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYUESTNS? ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR? ARE YOU SWORN? MICK MING YES, SIR, COUNCIL, REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER, 3430 WEST BEACH STREET REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MICHELINI? ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>STEVE MICHELINI: JUST FOR THE RECORD, CHAIRMAN, I HAVE BEEN SWORN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO, SECOND BY -- GRANTED. ITEM NUMBER 76. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: IN REGARD TO REZ 21-60, MOVE THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 3430 WEST BEACH STREET IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO RM-18 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND? SECOND? SECOND BY MR. VIERA. ROLL CALL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>STEVE MICHELINI: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: NUMBER 77. >>ZAIN HUSAIN: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 77, CASE REZ 21-62, PRESENTED TO YOU FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. THE ADDRESS IS 302 SOUTH 56th STREET. RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY. SITE PLANS WERE RETURNED TO CITY CLERK YESTERDAY. I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>DAVID MECHANIK: MY NAME IS DAVID MECHANIK. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORNDO DES: QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >> THERE IS NOBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR. >>THE CLERK: >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION TO CLOSE BY MR. DINGFELDER. SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? GRANTED. MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: JUST A REMINDER, WITH THIS ITEM THERE IS A SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR YOUR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AND WE WOULD ASK YOU LOOK AT THE SUBSTITUTE AND ALSO A REMINDER THAT TRAVEL WITH THIS IS A BONUS PROVISION AGREEMENT, A RESOLUTION THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN UP AFTER THE VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ITEM NUMBER 77, FILE REZ 21-62, SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 302 SOUTH 56th STREET IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DAT AND THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED AFTER SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE. WE WILL GO WITH READING FIRST. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MANISCALCO. ROLL CALL. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MOVE THE RESOLUTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. DINGFELDER. ROLL CALL. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I AM GOING TO SAY YES, AND MR. CHAIR COME BACK TO ME AFTER WE VOTE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I WANT TO REEMPHASIZE THAT ESPECIALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS PRETTY MUCH OUR FIRST PROJECT WHERE WE HAVE UTILIZED -- WHERE THE DEVELOPER UTILIZED THE BONUS PROVISION AGREEMENT, AND THE BONUS OPPORTUNITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND SO ANYBODY WHO IS OUT THERE LISTENING, AND THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY FOR THE FOLKS WHO NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT ALSO FOR DEVELOPERS AS WELL. AS THEY SAY, A WIN-WIN PROPOSITION. SO PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH MS. FEELEY OR MR. MECHANIK OR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE KNOWLEDGEABLE ON THIS AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS BONUS OPPORTUNITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM 78. >>ZAIN HUSAIN: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, AGENDA ITEM 78, 21-68, PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION. THE ADDRESS IS 3416 OHIO AVENUE PROPOSING TO REZONE FROM RS-60 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY. THIS IS EUCLIDEAN, NO SITE PLAN WAS REQUIRED. I AM HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THIS? >> JOHN LOCCA, AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> THERE IS NO ONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MR. MIRANDA. SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? BACK TO MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE THAN REZONING PROPERTY IN THE JESS GENERAL VICINITY OF 3416 OHIO AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS-60 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY TO RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MIRANDA. ROLL CALL. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: NUMBER 79. >>ZAIN HUSAIN: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 79, CASE REZ 20-96. FOR SECOND READING AND ADOION. T. JOSEPH STREET, 3002 NORTH MATANZAS AVENUE AND 3209 WEST COLUMBUS DRIVE.% THIS BEING PROPOSED FOR REZONING, RS 350 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY AND CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL OFF-STREET PARKING. SITE PLANS WERE TURNED IN YESTERDAY TO THE CITY CLERK. HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS OF HUSAIN? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLO F THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA MOVED TO CLOSE. SECOND BY MR. CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. MR. MANISCALCO, 79. >> I HAVE AN ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 3215 WEST ST. JOSEPH STREET, 3002 NORTH MATANZAS AVENUE AND 3209 WEST COLUMBUS DRIVE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY AND CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL OFF-STREET PARKING PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. OPENING OUR 10:30s. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO OPEN 80 THROUGH 82. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE OPEN. ITEM 80. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: SWAT 3700 BANK OF AMERICA. I HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN. MY CLIENTS NEED TO BE SWORN, ALSO. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED? >> PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT TE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BU THE TRUTH? >> I DO. >> I DO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THIS ITEM NUMBER 80 IS BEFORE YOU AS A PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED BY -- NUMBER 80, CORRECT? >>ORLANDO GUDES: THAT'S CORRECT. >>CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE: THIS IS FILED BY FRED HENRY, THE APPLICANT OF THE ALTERNATIVE ZAIN EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1709 WEST ST. JOHN STREET, APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION DENYING THE ALLEY ACCESS WHICH REQUESTS RELIEF FROM SECTION 27-241 SUBSECTION E SUBSECTION 2-C-5. I PROVIDED CITY COUNCIL THE HEARING PROCEDURES FOR TODAY'S REVIEW AS WELL AS MOTIONS AS WELL AS CODE SECTIONS. FOR PURPOSES OF TODAY'S HEARING, CITY COUNCIL APPLIED THE DE NOVO REVIEW. YOUR DECISION ISOT LIMITED TO THE RECORD CREATED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. INSTEAD YOU MAY TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE AND MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON THE APPLICATIONS IN THE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 27-50. MR. COLSKY WILL PROVIDE A REVIEW REQUESTED AND THE BASIS FOR THE CITY'S DECISION. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD AT TODAY'S HEARING, CITY COUNCIL MAY UPHOLDHE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND THEREBY DENY THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN EXCEPTION APPLICATION, OR COUNCIL MAY THEREBY APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN EXCEPTION. WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. REPULL I ASK, BUT I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY. THIS WOULD BE THE POINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY VERBAL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DISCLOSE IT NOW, THE SUM AND SUB SUBSTANCE, IF NOT A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION TO BE PLACED INTO THE RECORD. MOTION PLEASE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE, MR. MANISCALCO, MR. MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? GRANTED. ALL RIGHT. CITY STAFF. >> ANDY McCULL I ASK, URBAN DESIGN. MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN? McCULSKY. MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN? >>ORLANDO GUDES: CAN WE SHARE HIS SCREEN, PLEASE? >> CAN EVERYONE SEE THE PRESENTATION? >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE CAN SEE YOUR SCREEN BUT NO PRESENTATION. IT'S COMING UP NOW. >> DO YOU SEE PREVIEW MODE OR FULL SCREEN? >> PREVIEW MODE. LOOKS GREAT. >> McCULSKY: THIS IS THE PRESENTATION OF THE 21-213, 1709 WEST ST. JOHN STREET. THE APPLICANT, AGENT FRED HENRY, PROPOSED DESIGN EXCEPTION IS REQUEST VEHICLE ACCESS TO WEST ST. JOHN STREET IN LIEU OF ALLEY. HERE IS THE CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVE DESIGN EXCEPTION REVIEW. THE DETERMINATION OF THE URBAN DESIGN COORDINATOR, THE REQUEST WAS DENIED BY STAFF AS ALLEYWAY WAS DETERMINED TO BE OPENED AND USED, CONDUCTED THE WEEK OF JULY 12TH, 2021, AND STAFF FOUND THAT THE REQUEST DID NOT MEET TWO OF THE CRITERIA IN 27-06. THE TWO CRITERIA BEING EXCEPTION IS NOT THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE. THERE WERE NO UNIQUE SITE CONSTRAINTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED CODE AND GRANTED A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE T PETITIONER, AS OTHER SIMILAR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA ARE COMBINED WITH THE WEST TAMPA OVERLAY. THE ZONING MAP. THE PROPERTY LOCATION BETWEEN FREMONT AND ROME. THIS IS THE EXISTING HOUSE. THIS WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND A NEW ONE BUILT IN ITS PLACE BY THE CURRENT OWNER. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. ACCESS INTO WEST ST. JOHN STREET. AND NOW PICTURES OF THE ALLEYWAY. SO THE ALLEYWAY LEFT TO RIGHT, FAR LEFT IS BROWN, CENTER PICTURE APPROXIMATELY MIDPOINT OF THE ALLEY AND THE FAR RIGHT IS THE ALLEYWAY AT FREMONT. THERE'S ALSO THE GARAGE, OR THE PROPERTY TO THE IMMEDIATE WEST AT 1709 IS USING THE ALLEYWAY TO ACCESS THE GARAGE. SO THE THEY ARE USING THE ALLEYWAY FOR ACCESS. AND THEN LAST PICTURE, JUST GENERAL CONDITION OF THE ALLEY IS OPEN, AND IS FAIRLY WELL MAINTAINED ALLEY, AS FAR AS ALLEYS GO IN THE CITY. ANY QUESTIONS? >>ORLANDO GUDES: GO BACK TO YOUR SECOND SLIDE. >> McCULSKY: THIS ONE HERE? >> YES, THIS HOUSE IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED. AND THE NEW ONE IS GOING TO BE BUILT IN I PLACE. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO KEEP THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS ON WEST ST. JOHN. AND THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE HOUSES. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. THE HOUSE CURRENTLY HAS A CARPORT BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE PROPOSING A NEW BUILT WHICH THIS SITE PLAN HERE -- THIS ONE HERE TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE, CORRECT? >> McCULSKY: RIGHT. MR. MIKULSKI, IS IT? >> YES >> SO THE CODE PROVISION AT ISSUE ON THE SECOND PAGE OF OUR HANDOUT IS THE WEST TAMPA DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS. THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AROUND THAT LONG. MAYBE FIVE YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I HAVE GOT AN ATTORNEY WAVING AT ME. I BETTER BE QUIET. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MS. ZELMAN, ARE YOU TRYING TOET OUR ATTENTION? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYWAY, WHY DON'T YOU EXPLAIN IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO? THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PEOPLE TELLING THE OTHER 50 HOUSES THAT CHANGE ANYTHING. IT'S JUST IF YOU ARE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE, THIS IS THE STANDARD. AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE ALLEY LOADING AND WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT TO WEST TAMPA? >> OKAY, UNDERSTOOD, COUNCILMAN. SO THE WEST TAMPA CODE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE. HOWEVER, THIS PROVISION THAT REQUIRES THE ALLEY TO BE USED IS A RELATIVELY NEW ONE. I'M SURE YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE ARISING BEFORE YOU. THIS WAS ENACTED I THINK FEBRUARY OR MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND DOES PERTAIN TO NEW BUILTS AND MAJOR RENOVATIONS SO THIS IS THE CURRENT HOUSE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE REBUILT, AND WHICH THIS SITE PLAN HERE IS T PROPOSAL OF THE APPLICANT THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO USE ST. JOHN STREET IN LIEU OF THE ALLEY. THIS WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD INITIATIVE AND THEIR CONCERN IS THAT A LOT OF THESE DOCTOR DRIVEWAYS, IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO WALKING AND BIKING, AND DUE TO THE LOTS NOT BEING VERY DEEP LOT, A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE END UP PARKING IN FRONT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ONTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND BLOCK THE SIDEWALKS, AND THE STREET. SO IT'S NOT IDEAL PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ENACTED THIS, GOT THIS THROUGH AND PASSED BY COUNCIL EARLY THIS YEAR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. WHEN YOU SAY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS I RECALL, THIS BEGAN WITH THE CRA AND THE CAC, AND THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT GROUP, IS THAT CORRECT? >> ANDY McCULSKY: YES, I BELIEVE SO. I DON'T KNOW THE FULL HISTORY. AT WAS BEFORE MY TIME AT THE CITY. SO I CAME AFTER THIS WAS ADOPTED. BUT I KNOW THERE WAS EXTENSIVE PUBLIC MEETINGS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND THEN IT CAME UP THROUGH COUNCIL. ONE OTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. COTTON. I SEE MR. COTTON THERE, AND HE'S THE REPOSITORY OF ALL KNOWLEDGE FOR TOO MANY YEARS THAT HE WANTS TO EVEN THINK ABOUT. BUT ANYWAY, GOING BACK TO MY SORT OF OVERALL QUESTION, WHY DO WE HAVE THIS IN WEST TAMPA? IS -- WHY I THIS IMPORTANT? I THINK IT ALSO EXISTS IN OTHER PARTS OF TOWN, PERHAPS SEMINOLE HEIGHTS, ET CETERA. WHY? >>ERIC COTTON: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. MR. DINGFELDER, THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CAC, WORKING ALONG WITH THE CRA, DEVELOPED THE LANGUAGE, ENCOURAGED THE USE OF THE ALLEYS. AS ANDY WAS SAYING, THE GOAL OF THE COMMUNITY AS HOMES GET REDEVELOPED, YOULIMITE ALL THE CURB CUTS ALONG THE STREETS, THAT WHEN CARS DO PARK IN THE STREET, THEY DON'T BLOCK -- THEY ARE NOT HANGING OVER THE DRIVEWAY. WHEN THEY ARE HANGING OVER THE SIDEWALK THEY NEED TO PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY. THE GOAL IS TO GET THE CARS IN THE REAR, PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY, WITH FRONT PORCHES, ACTIVATE THE STREETS. THAT WAS THE GOAL OF THE CAC. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I GUESS I WILL HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER. >>ORLANDOUDES MR. CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THAT ALLEY? I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AND I DON'T SEE THE WIDTH OF THAT ALLEY S.THAT 15 OR 10-FOOT? >> I DON'T HAVE THE DIMENSION. IT'S MORE THAN 10, I CAN TELL YOU THAT. I DID GO OUT THERE AND MEASURED. IT DID MEET THE MINIMUM. THE ACTUAL PAVED AREA MET THE MINIMUM OF 9-FOOT IN WIDTH. SO I MEASURED AND IT'S PROBABLY 15-FOOT ALLEY BASED ON 9-FOOT OF PAVEMENT AND A COUPLE OF EXTRA FEET. THAT KIND OF GAVE ME AN IDEA, THAT'S PROBABLY 8 TO THE 9 FEET OF PAVEMENT, THEN A COUPLE EXTRA FEET ON THE SIDE OF THE SHOULDER OF THE ALLEY. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I AM JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN TO FIGURE OUT WHERE A GARAGE WOULD BE PUT BACK THERE, AND/OR SOME SORT OF CONCRETE PAD FOR A VEHICLE OR TWO FOR AN ENTRANCE IN THE ALLEYWAY. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW IT HAPPENED, MAYBE NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING ALL OF IT, WHEN YOU SEE A HOUSE LIKE THIS WAY BACK WHEN IT WAS BUILT, I DON'T KNOW, BACK IN THE EARLY LATE 50s, EARLY 60s, I THINK THIS HOUSE -- YOU HAD A CARPORT ON THE SIDE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING WITH A BLOCK FACE WHICH WAS USUALLY YOUR KITCHEN, AND AS THE HOUSE GREW, YOU BUILT OUT YOUR CARPORT BECAME FAMY ROOM, NOW YOU CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM FOR YOUR WIFE AND COUPLE OF KIDS OR THREE KIDS OR WHATEVER, AND YOU HAVE THAT. HOWEVER, WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS THAT -- I'M NOT SAYING IT'S LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, BUT I KNOW IF YOU HAVE A CARPORT IN WEST TAMPA, 95% OF THEM NEVER GOT A PERMIT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BECAUSE YOU GAVE UP YOUR CARPORT TO HAVE A FAMILY ENLARGEMENT, YOU BUILT ONE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE LAW WAS AND NOW YOU ARE STUCK WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS IEGAL. I AM JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE. SO THEN YOU HAD THAT CARPORT, AND THE BLOCK THAT I LIVED ON NOT ONE CARPORT IS THERE BUT YET WE CAN'T BUILD A GARAGE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGALITY TO BUILD ONE. NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT ONE. SO YOU ARE STUCK, THIS INDIVIDUAL IS, AND I'M SURE THAT'S THE REASON HE'S BUILDING, TEARING DOWN A HOME TO BUILDING SOMETHING NICER. I UNDERSTAND THAT PART. SO I GUESS LOOKING TO BUILD INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR HIS HOUSE IN THE BACK. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ONTO THE APPLICANT. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JOHN GRANDOFF. MY ADDRESS IS SUITE 37 HUGH BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA AND I HAVE THE PLEASURE THIS AFTERNOON OF REPRESENTING VINCENT AND SHAKITA WILLIAMS WHO ARE STANDING BEHIND ME AND OWN THIS PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU THE PLAT OF BOWDEN AND SKINNER'S ADDITION TO WEST TAMPA BACK IN 1895 WHERE HE WEST TAMPA WAS ITS OWN CITY BECAUSE IT WAS WEST OF THE RIVER. THE ALLEY IS 14 FEET WIDE BY PLAT. AND I HAVE GOT IT IN GREEN. THE YELLOW, YOU WILL SEE THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT'S CALLED MICHIGAN AVENUE ON THE NORTH WHICH IS NOW COLUMBUS DRIVE. THE BLUE IS THE 60 FEET WIDE ST. JOHN STREET. AND TRYING TO TELL MY CLIENT THEY CAN'T USE ST. JOHN STREET ANYMORE TO PULL INTO THEIR DRIVEWAY. NOW, WHAT DID THE SUBDIVIDERS DO, AND WHAT DID HE SAY WHEN HE CREATED THIS SUBDIVISION? VERY IMPORTANT. WHENEVER YOU LOOK AT A PLAT, WHAT DID HE DO AND WHAT DID HE SAY? WE KNOW WHAT HE DID BECAUSE HERE IS THE PLAT. TYPICAL LOT AND BLOCK PLAT, GRID PATTERN, FAVORED BY MANY PLANNERS. WHAT DID MR. BOWDEN SAY? HE SAID IN HIS DEDICATION WHICH I AM GOING TO READ VERBATIM, NOW THESE PRESENCE OR TO STAY IN THE CLEAR OF THE STREETS AND ALLEYS OR AVENUES ARE SETORTH I SAID PLAT ARE ALWAYS DEDICATED TO THE USE OF THE PUBLIC FOR FOOT PASTURES AND VEHICLES AND THESE ARE FOR THE EXPRESS BURP OF PRESERVING TO MYSELF THE SAID W.C. BOUTON AND HAIRS THE SOLE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A LINE OF STREET, RAILWAY THROUGH AND UPON THE STREETS AND AVENUES, LISTEN TO THAT, RAILWAYS THROUGH AND UPON THE STREETS AND AVENUES, AFORESAID IN THESE PRESENTS ARE HEREBY MADE IN THE PLAT OF SAID PROPERTY IN 1895. THERE'S THE DEDICATION. WHAT DID HE DO? WHAT DID HE SAY? WHAT DID HE INTEND? IN 1895 HENRY FORD HAD NOT PERFECTED INTERNAL COMBUSTION MACHINE OR THE AUTOMOBILE, AND AT THE TIME ACCESS WAS CONTEMPLATED TO BE AT THE FRONT AND WOULD BE SERVED BY RAILWAY. NOW LET'S GO FORWARD, WORLD WAR II COMES AND GOES, AND THE WILLIAMS FAMILY, THEN THE SAGITAS FAMILY BUY THIS PROPERTY 43 YEARS AGO. VINCENT WAS ONE-YEAR-OLD IN 1974. THE MAN STANDING BEHIND ME. WHAT DID HIS FAMILY DO? IN 1955, RELYING UPON THE PLAT, THEY BUILT A HOUSE. AND HERE WAS THE HOUSE. AND WHAT DID THEY DO, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DID AFTER WORLD WAR II? THEY BUILT A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE TO ACCESS ST. JOHN STREET. NOT THE ALLEY. NOT A 14-FOOT ALLEY. THAT'S NOT WHAT MR. BOUTON PUT ON THE PLAT. WHAT DOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK LIKE NOW? HERE IS THE ALLEY. ST. JOHN STREET. THESE ARE THE ALLEYS, ONE AFTER ANOTHER. BOTH SIDE OF THE STREET. WHAT DOES THE RULE SAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY THAT WAS ONLY MAPPED IN FEBRUARY? THE RULE SAYS, ORDINANCE 21-166, ALLEY ACCESS. IT'S AN EXISTING LOT IS ADJACENT TO AN OPEN AND USED PUBLIC ALLEY. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM THE ALLEY THCODE USED TO SAY "MAY BEESS. PROVIDED." IT WAS CHANGED TO "SHALL" IN FEBRUARY. YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, WE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. WE HAVE THROWN A COMPLETE DRAGNET ON THIS HOME FOR ABSOLUTELY NO PUBLIC PURPOSE, REASON. VINCENT AND SHAGITA WANTED TO DEMOLISH THE HOUSE, THE FAMILY PROPERTY BUILT ON THE PLAT AND THEY WANT TO BLD THEIR FAMILY HOME THERE AND THEY WANT TO BRING THEIR CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY. THAT'S ALL WE ARE HERE ABOUT. I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED NO TANGIBLE REASON WHY THIS RULE WAS PASSED. IT IS ABSURD TO NOW BRING ALL THE TRAFFIC THROUGH A 14-FOOT ALLEY WHEN YOU HAVE A FRONT DRIVEWAY ON A 60-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND YOU HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS, POLICY 1.2.24, FOR MOST DESIGN NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, STREETS PUBLIC SPACE THAT ENHANCE PUBLIC SAFETY BY PROVIDING STREET FRONTING USES, EYES ON THE STREET. NOW YOU HAVE A CONFLICT IN LEGISLATION. YOU HAVE AN INTENT TO HAVE EYES ON THE STREET, BUT YOU HAVE AN ABSURD RULE. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO PUT THE DRAGNET ON THESE FOLKS AND PREVENT THEM FROM BUILDING THEIR LEGACY HOME. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU OVERRULE T ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, THAT THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF FACT THAT JUSTIFY THIS, AND THAT THE STAFF'S FINDINGS ARE A REACH AT BEST. I RESERVE THE REMAINDER OF MY COMMENTS FOR REBUTTAL. VINCENT AND SHAKITA TO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOU BRIEFLY. >> VINCENT: GOOD AFTERNOON. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE, A VERY LONG TIME, AND AT AGE 15, THE ALLEY IS VERY NARROW. IT SHOWED ONE TRUCK IN THAT PICTURE SHOWED EARLIER. YOU CAN'T GET AROUND THAT. IT WAS BROKE DOWN OR EVEN HURRICANE SEASON, DEBRIS, DOINGS OH WHATEVER. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET OUT? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THERE? IT'S NOT MAINTAINED. YOU TALK ABOUT SAFETY ON THE PROPERTY. SON, DAUGHTER, ANYONE YOU CARE ABOUT THAT COMES THROUGH THE BACK WAY, THERE'S NO LIGHT. IN THAT ALLEY. IT'S NOT MAINTAINED. SO THAT'S WHY I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO GO BACKWARDS IN WEST TAMPA. I SEE WEST THE GROWING AND RIGHT NOW THIS PARTICULAR CODE IS CAUSING US TO GO BACKWARD. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> MY NAME IS SHAKITA WILLIAMS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT ON THE PHOTO OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS MENTIONED TO BE USED. ON THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT BEING USED. IT MAY BE THERE BUT IT'S NOT BEING USED. THE INDIVIDUALS ON OUR BLOCK ARE USING THEIR FRONT DRIVEWAYS. THE INDIVIDUALS ON THE OPPOSITE LOT FRONT AND BACK ARE USING THEIR DRIVEWAYS. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME. AS MY HUSBAND MENTIONED, SAFETY IS A BIG CONCERN. IF THERE IS NO LIGHTING BACK THERE. ALSO JUST BEING ABLE TO USE THAT. IT'S NOT MAINTAINED. OFTEN TIMES WE FIND DEBRIS, LOGS, AND WE CAN'T GET PAST THOSE ITEMS. SO AGAIN WE ASK THAT YOU ALLOW US TO USE THE FRONT DRIVEWAY. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER, MR. MIRANDA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. GRANDOFF, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOUR CLIENT. >> KEVIN: YES, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. HAVE YOU SEEN SOME OF THE HOMES OR DUPLEXES IN WEST TAMPA THAT ARE BEING BUILT WITH FRONT PORCHES ON THE STREET AND WITH THE GARAGES IN THE REAR? NEWER HOMES. AND EVEN BACK 10, 15 YEARS AGO WHEN MR. TURANCHIK WAS BUILDING THE SKINNY HOUSES AND A LOT OF THEM HAD REAR LOADED GARAGES ON THE ALLEYS. HAVE YOU SEEN SOME OF THOSE? >> NEWER HOMES THAT I HAVE SEEN ARE GARAGES IN THE FRONT, DRIVEWAYS IN THE FRONT. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY NEWER HOMES COMING THROUGH THE SIDE ALLEY OR IN THE BACK ALLEY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. YOU ALSO LIVE THERE? >> YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND SO YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH WEST TAMPA. YOU GREW UP THERE. >> YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ARE YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE OTHER ALLEYS THAT DO FUNCTION THAT WAY, WHERE THERE'S GARAGES COMING IN FROM THE ALLEY? >> YES, THERE'S MULTIPLE ATH ALLEYS IN WEST TAMPA, AND THERE'S NOT EVERY LOCATION THAT HAS AN ALLEY IN WEST TAMPA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BUT SOME OF THE ALLEYS DO FUNCTION THAT WAY WITH THE REAR LOADED GARAGES, RIGHT? >> NO. IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE BY WEST TAMPA ALONE AND LOOK TO ALL THE ALLEYS, YOU CAN'T USE THEM. CAN'T DRIVE THROUGH THAT. YOU CAN'T SEND ANYONE THAT YOU KNOW AND LOVE THROUGH THOSE ALLEYS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CRA PROGRAM, THE ALLEY PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE GOT GOING ON WHERE TO CLEAN UP THE ALLEYS AND TO PUT THOSE BRUSH BACK AND ALL THAT? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? >> NO, I AM NOTICE ITAMILIAR WITH THAT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. GRANDOFF, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. WHEN YOU SAY STREET FRONTING USES, JOHN, STREET FRONTING USES INCLUDE A PORCH, BUT MY EXPERIENCE, ESPECIALLY ON THESE NEWER HOMES, IS THAT IF YOU HAVE GOT A TWO-CAR GARAGE, PEOPLE PULL UP, THEY HIT THEIR REMOTE CONTROL, THE GARAGE DOOR GOES UP, GARAGE DOOR GOES DOWN, THEY WALK INTO THE KITCHEN AND THERE'S NAP EYES ON THE STREET. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED IN TERMS OF WHAT ALL THE FRONT DOOR ACTIVITY IS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE STANDARD. I AM GOING TO GUESS THAT THESE FOLKS SAID THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT SECURITY, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A GARAGE DOOR OPENER, AND THEY ARE GOING TO PULL UP AND PULL INTO THE GARAGE. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: WELL, LET'S GO BACK TO -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION IS, WHAT MAKES THIS PROPERTY DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE? BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. UNFORTUNATELY OR FORTUNATELY OR WHATEVER, THE COMMUNITY AT THIS CITY COUNCIL CHANGED 2 THE CODE, AND NOW YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN FIVE MONTHS LATER SAYING, WE DON'T LIKE THE CODE, AND WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. AND THAT'S THEIR RIGHT AND THAT'S WHY THEY HIRED YOU. WHAT MAKES THIS ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER 20 PROPERTIES UP AND DOWN THE STREET WHO VERY WELL IN THE NEAR FUTURE MIGHT WANT TO BE TEARING DOWN THEIR HOUSES AND BUILDING NEW HOUSES? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: BARRED ME, I WANT TO SPEAK TOY CLIENT REAL QUICK. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SURE. FOR CLARIFICATION, MY CLIENT IS BUILDING A CARPORT WITH THIS PROJECT. TO GO BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, I'M ADDRESSING NOW MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: NO GARAGE AT ALL? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: NO. CARPORT. TO GO BACK TO THE CODE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION THAT YOU WERE REQUESTING, AND ALSO JUST NOTED, THE OBJECTIVE IS TO RESPECT A FENCE OF COMMUNITY IDENTITY -- SENSE OF COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND SIGNIFICANT FEATURING BY PROVIDING STREET FRONTING USES. COMMUNITY IDENTITY. SIGNIFICANT FEATURES. IS MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY UNIQUE? NO, HE'S IN COMMON WITH EVERYBODY ELSE THAT HAS THEIR DRIVEWAY ON ST. JOHN. HE'S BEING PENALIZED FOR DEMOLISHING A HOME, BUILDING A NEW HOME, WHICH WILL CREATE MORE JOBS, UPGRADE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OVER A RULE THAT SIMPLY MAKES IN A SENSE. LET ME READ IT AGAIN. EXISTING LOTS. WHAT IS AN EXISTING LOT? WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? DOES THIS EVEN CONTEMPLATE DEMOLITION? IF AN EXISTING LOT HAS AN OPEN AND ED PUBLIC ALLEY -- NO EXCEPTIONS NOTHING. THAT IS UNFAIR. THAT IS THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU OVERRULE THE DECISION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IN LISTENING TO THIS CASE, LAWS ARE PASSED TO CREATE NEW -- THAT DOESN'T MEAN EVERY CASE FITS THE LAW, ORDINANCE OR NO ORDINANCE. WHEN YOU LOOKT WE TAMPA, WEST TAMPA HAS GOT SOME, NOT MANY, THAT YOU CAN'T PULL IN THE ENTRANCE BY THE BACK. VERY FEW. SOME DON'T HAVE THE FRONT OR THE BACK BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCALITY 50 FAT, NOT 70-FOOT, NOT 100-FOOT, THEY ARE 40-FOOT. SO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT AN ADDITION. YOU PARK ON THE STREET. ONE OR TWO PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET. THAT'S HAPPENED. HAPPENED NOW IN THE PAST RECENT MONTHS, I BELIEVE. THE WILLIAMS, IN THIS CASE, THE ONLY ONE TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE WHOLE BLOCK WHETHER THEY ARE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE. I UNDERSTAND THE LAW WAS PASSED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I OR ANYONE ELSE IS ANYTHING TO DO WITH PASSIN THAT LAW. WAS DONE WITH GOOD INTENTIONS BUT SOMETIMES GOOD INTENTIONS DON'T COVER REALITY OF LIFE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE FACED WITH HERE, A REALITY OF LIFE. A COUPLE WANTS TO HAVE A NICE HOME. THEY WANT TO TEAR DOWN THE HOME THEY WERE RAISEN TO BUILD A BETTER HOME TO INCREASE, WHAT, THE LONGEVITY AND THE LIVABILITY OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND NOW WE ARE SAYING AN ENTRANCE TO THE ALLEY. ALLEYS WERE 2021 USED WHEN WE HAD HORSES AND WAGONS. WHEN THINGS WERE DELIVERED. THE GARBAGE CAN WAS DELIVERED IN THE ALLEY. YOU HAD FIVE PEOPLE WORKING ON YOU CAN TRUCK. A DRIVER. NO FOUR. A DRIVER. TWOHROWERS. AND ONE HANDLING THE TOP PUTTING THE CANS BACK TO THE ALLEY. IN WEST TAMPA, MOST OF THE CITIES THAT YOU HAVE NOW. AND SOMETIMES EVEN TODAY STILL USING THE ALLEY. I WOULD ASSUME. SO WHAT WE HAVE HEAR IS A UNIQUE CASE. MAYBE CONTRARY TO THE CURRENT LAW. NOT GOING TO DEBATE THAT. BUT IS THE CURRENT LAW APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE? EVERY CASE SHOULD BE HELD ON THE RECORD.R THE APPEARANCE OF THE IF IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND, THAT EVERYONE ENTERS THROUGH THE BACK AND THE WILLIAMS WANT TO COME THROUGH THE FRONT, I WOULD SAY THE LAW WAS APPLICABLE. BUT IT'S NOT. JUST THE OPPOSITE. MY VIEW IS THIS, THAT REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS, THERE'S A PROVISION OF THE LAW WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THE PROVISIONS AND THE HEARING OFFICER VIEWS IT ONE WAY. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TO NOD THAT WAY ALL THE TIME. AND IT DOESN'T. THERE'S AN EXCEPTION T ERY RULE. AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING, IF DID THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DO THE RIGHT THING? I THINK THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DID THE RIGHT THING ACCORDING TO WHAT HE THOUGHT THE LAW WAS AT THE TIME HE MADE THAT DECISION. BUT KNOWING THE FACTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY THIS COUNCILOR TO THIS BOARD, I FEEL THIS BOARD, I AM NOT SAYING HOW I AM GOING TO VOTE, BUT I AM SAYING THAT THIS BOARD HAS A DUTY TO SEE IF THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE LAW, OF THE FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THIS CASE ONLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I SPEAK? MR. GRANDOFF, PUT THAT FOUGHT UP UP AGAIN, PLEASE. THAT'S ST. LOUIS AND ST. JOHN. THE DRIVEWAY HAS EVERY ASPECT -- A SMALL ALLEY IN THE BACK. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CRA AND CAC WAS TRYING TO DO FOR THE COMMUNITY BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW LONG BEFORE ALL THESE HOUSES MAY BE REMODELED OR TORN DOWN? I'M ALSO LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH THAT MAIN STREET. I GREW UP ON THE SIDE OF TOWN WHERE WE HAD ALLEYS BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ALLEYS NOW, I KNOW WEST TAMPA DID A GREAT JOB, CLEARING UP SOME OF THE ALLEYS. NOT SMALL CARS THEY USED TO BE. THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL, IF WE PUT IN THIS PROVISION, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES EVERYTHING DON'T FIT. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS FITS RIGHT NOW. I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME WITH THIS BECAUSE ION'T THINK THERE ARE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES LOOKING AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS STREET, THIS ALLEY WHERE THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO. SO HAD AN OBLIGATION AT THE TIME TO CHANGE THAT RULE. RIGHT AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, I HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT GNG FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HERE TO TALK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: NO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BEFORE YOU CLOSE. WE HAD THIS ORDINANCE CHANGED LAST SPRING, AND WE DID IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASKED US TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CAC ASKED US TO DO, AND THE CRA, CRA ASKED US TO DO, INCLUDING LOTS OF COMMITTEES AND LOTS OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, AND I HAVE A FEELING THAT THESE FOLKS PROBABLY WEREN'T AWARE OF IT PERHAPS AS IT WAS GOING ON, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT TO QUOTE ONE OF MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, ARE WE BY THE BOOK OR NOT? AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ADOPTED. AND MR. GRANDOFF ADMITTED THERE'S NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR LOT. IF IT WAS UNIQUE AND SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT OKAY. BUT WE ARE NOT HEARI THAT. WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS THAT THERE'S A NEW RULE IN PLACE THAT WE JUST PASS PASSED WITH A LOT OF STAFF TIME PUT INTO THAT, AND NOW WE ARE GETTING READY TO THROW THAT BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER BECAUSE, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT DESIGN IN MIND, WHICH IS SORT OF A MORE TRADITIONAL 50s, 60s, 70s APPROACH, BUT AS YOU DRIVE AROUND TOWN, THERE'S A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE REALLY NICE, OVER IN TAMPA HEIGHTS, FOLKS ARE STARTING TO SWITCH OVER TO THOSE HOUSES, TEAR DOWN THOSE OLD HOUSES AND USE THE ALLEY, ALLEYS THAT HAVE BEEN ABANDONED, AND MESSY AND THIS AND THAT, STARTING TO USE THOSE ALLEYS, AND WITH REAR LOADED GARAGES, AND IT CREATES A REALLY NICE WALKING ENVIRONMENT INSTEAD OF A CAR ENVIRONMENT. AND VIK IS HERE ALL THE TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW. AND WE ALL NOD OUR HEADS AND SAY, YES, THIS IS THE COMMUNITY WE WANT IN THE FUTURE, WE WANT WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WANT TO FOCUS LESS ON OUR CARS, YOU KNOW, GET THE CARS IN THE BACK, THAT SORT OF THING. I UNDERSTAND, IT IS A MATTER OF TIME. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. BUT IN WEST TAMPA IT IS HAPPENING AND WE ALL KNOW IT. WE KNOW IT BECAUSE THOSE HOUSES -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'M NOT TRYING TO INTERRUPT, BUT YOU ARE SOUNDING LIKE MR. MIRANDA AND I AM SOUNDING LIKE MR. DINGFELDER. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I KNOW. BUT WE CAN'T MAKE THESE DECISIONS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT THESE FOLKS. THEY HAVE BEEN PART THIS COMMUNITY, PART OF THIS NEIGHBORHOODOREV. BUT I WOULD JUST SUGGEST IF YOUR BUILDER DOESN'T HAVE THIS PRODUCT, A LOT OF OTHER BUILDERS OUT THERE EVERYBODY THAT DO, YOU KNOW, AND THEY CAN FLIP THIS AROUND AND MAKE A REALLY, REALLY NICE PRODUCT FOR YOU. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST ME. >>BILL CARLSON: SORRY TO JUMP IN AGAIN. MR. GRANDOFF, WOULD YOU MIND PLEASE? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: OKAY. >>BILL CARLSON: IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING ABOVE THE ALLEY, COUNTY I CORNER TO THE RIGHT, THAT ONE, A LITTLE BIT TO THE LEFT, TO THE BACK. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: THAT'S THE PETE BUSTO PLUMB DEPARTMENT, PLUMB COMPANY. >>BILL CARLSON: OH, THAT'S A SURFACE PARKING LOT. OKAY. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: ON ST. LOUIS STREET. >>BILL CARLSON: I HAVE BEEN TO THAT LOT BEFORE. SO LET ME ASK YOU -- AND SORRY IF YOU ANSWERED THIS BEFORE, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THE OTHER HOUSES DON'T USE THE ALLEYS? HOW DO WE KNOW THE OTHER HOUSES DON'T USE THE ALLEY? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: YOU DRAW A CONCLUSION BY LOOKING AT THE DRIVEWAYS ON ST. JOHN. >>BILL CARLSON: AND THEY PARK ON THE ALLEY -- >>JOHN GRANDOFF: YOU GO BACK TO THE PLAT, WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE PLAT. THAT'S YOUR POLE STAR. UNFORTUNATELY WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED NO ONE LOOKED AT THE PLAT. NOW WE ARE FIXING THIS BY LOOKING AT THE PLAT WHICH WE SHOULD HAVE DONE BACK IN FEBRUARY. HERE IS THE PLAT. BUILT ACCORDING TO THE PLAT. DRIVEWAYS UP FRONT. AND THEY HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO BUILD THE HOME THAT THEY WT TO BUILD AND ACCESS IT ON ST. JOHN. >>BILL CARLSON: THANK YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ONE QUICK QUESTION JUST IN REGARD TO THAT. MR. GRANDOFF, ON THE ONE HAND YOU SAID LOOK AT THE PLAT AND ON THE OTHER HAND YOU SAID CARS DIDN'T EXIST ON THE PLAT WHEN DEVELOPED. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: RIGHT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WAIT, WAIT, LET ME FINISH. THIS COULD BE >>JOHN GRANDOFF: IT'S EXTREMELY RELEVANT. MAY I COMMENT? MAY I BE HEARD, MR. CHAIRMAN? >>ORLANDO GUDES: PROCEED. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: THE PLAT IS ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT. IT IS THE BEDROCK OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WHEN IT WAS LAID DOWN IN 1895, AS I READ, THAT HE RESERVED -- THIS IS BEFORE THE CITY -- HE RESERVED EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE OF OPERATING A LINE OF STREET, RAILWAY, THROUGH AND UPON THIS STREET AND AVENUES, SO HE CONTEMPLATED THAT ACCESS WOULD BE THROUGH THE STREETS, NOT THROUGH THE ALLEY. MR. MIRANDA'S COMMENTS ARE VERY CRITICAL BECAUSE HE IDENTIFIED WHAT WAS AN HISTORICAL USE OF ALLEYS IN WEST TAMPA. IT WAS FOR LIVERY AND FOR SERVICING. SO IT WHATS NOT FOR PRIMARY ACCESS. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I AM GOING TO WAIT, BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOMETHING. NOT NOW. NOT NOW. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I RESPECT EVERYTHING MY COLLEAGUES ARE SAYING. BUT MAYBE WE DIDN'T KNOW TO KNOW. IT MAY BE A POINT NOW THAT SOMETIMES -- MAYBE STAFF THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE PLAT, LOOK AT ALL OF THE OTHER PARAMETERS TO MAKE A SOUND BASED DECISION ON THAT COMMUNITY, IS IT A GOOD IDEA, IF IT'S NOT, IF IT IS, WHY IS IT A GOOD IDEA? THE CAC AND THE CHANGE OF THE OVERLAY IN THAT AREA FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA RIGHT THERE. AGAIN WE TALK ABOUT COMMUNICATION, AND WE HAVE GOT A CRA PERSON THAT'S COMING ONBOARD, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE THESE THINGS WON'T HAPPEN SO IF A NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED TO BUILD PER THE LAWS AND RULES THAT ARE GOVERNED NOW SO PEOPLE KNOW IF YOU WANT TO BUILD OR WHEN IT COMES TO PERMITTING, BUILDING A HOME, THEY KNOW YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT KIND OF STRUCTURE, YOU CAN'T HAVE CARS ANYMORE BECAUSE THIS HAPPENED THEN. I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE REALITY OF WE DIDN'T KNOW TO KNOW, WE HAD GOOD INTENTIONS, BUT I THINK MAYBE WE OUGHT TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD SO STAFF CAN LET THE NEIGHBORHOOD KNOW WHAT IS COMING FORWARD, BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU, THEY ARE GOING TO GET CAUGHT COMING IN THE SAME SITUATION, AND NOT COMMUNICATING WITH THE RESIDENTS. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. I AGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I DO AGREE WITH MR. DINGFELDER THAT THE INDIVIDUAL RULES APPLY. THERE WERE NO CARS. HE ALSO DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO PASS THAT ORDINANCE IN FEBRUARY OF 2021. THANK YOU. >>JOSEPH CITRO: IF I MAY. THERE ARE SHADES OF GRAY. AND IF EVERYTHING THAT WAS NOT PROCEDURAL BY THE BOOK, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A VARIANCE REVIEW BOARD. WE WOULDN'T HAVE ZONING. WE WOULDN'T HAVE OTHER TYPES OF BOARDS THAT WOULD LOOK AT THESE TYPES OF THINGS SUCH AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE ASKING FOR. SO NOT EVERYTHING IS CUT AND DRIED. THERE ARE SHADES OF GRAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: DO WE HAVE ANYONE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >>THE CLERK: NO ONE IS REGISTERED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? LET'S MOVE TO CLOSE. >>CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. GRANDOFF HAD A FINAL REBUTTAL. BEFORE YOU CLOSE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. GRANDOFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: ONE MOMENT, MR. GUDES. I NEED TO ASK MY CLIENT. I JUST SPOKE TO VINCENT. HE JUST WANTS TO POINT OUT, AGAIN, ST. LOUIS, THIS IS FORMING ST. JOHN, SAINT CONRAD, A MULTITUDE OF DRIVEWAYS. WE ARE NOT AFFECTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A DETRIMENTAL WAY. I BELIEVE WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID HAS BEEN SAID, AND THE WILLIAMS RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL TODAY OVER THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION SO THEY CAN MOVE ON WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MR. MIRANDA, MR. MANISCALCO SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? IT'S MOVED. WHO WOULD LIKE TO -- >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I MOVE TO OVERTURN THE DENIAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. I MOVE TO OVERTURN THIS DENIAL WHICH IS REVIEW HEARING NUMBER 80, FILE DE 1-21-213-C. I MOVE TO OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF THE DESIGN EXCEPTION APPLICATION DE 1-21-213 BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PETITION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE GENERAL RULES SET FORTH IN SECTION 27-60. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND? >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. CITRO. ROLL CALL. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: NO. >>BILL CARLSON: >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH DINGFELDER AND MANISCALCO VOTING NO AND CARLSON BEING ABSENT AT VOTE. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. COTTON, ARE YOU STILL THERE, SIR? >>ERIC COTTON: YES, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'LL TAKE THE GAVEL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THE HEARING THAT JUST HAPPENED, SIR, I THINK STAFF NEEDS TO GO OUT, REEVALUATE THE OVERLAY IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND SEE WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T, HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BRING BACK TO THIS COUNCIL. I WOULD SAY WAIT ABOUT 60 TO 90 DAYS. >>ERIC COTTON: WE ACTUALLY HAVE A STAFF REPORT DUE ON 11-4, AND ASSESS IT, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A REPORT FOR YOU ALL THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. 11-4. >>ERIC COTTON: IT WILL GO INTO GREATER DETAIL. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AS A FOLLOW-UP TO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, PERHAPS THE PROBLEM IS, IT MIGHT BE TOO WIDE A BRUSH THAT THIS PARTICULAR USE OF ALLEY IS BEING PROPOSED. MAYBE THERE'S SOME STREETS THAT ARE MORE ATTUNED TO IT, AND WOULD WORK BETTER WITH IT, AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER STREETS THAT WON'T. BUT SOME OF THESE, BY THE WAY, SOME OF THESE STREETS ARE NOT ONLY GETTING REPLACED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE GETTING REPLACED WITH TWO FAMILIES, AND THREE FAMILIES HOMES. AND, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF DUPLEXES OR TRIPLEXES SIDE BY SIDE AND THEN YOU HAVE A LOT MORE ISSUES OUT THERE ON THE STREET, ALONG THE DRIVEWAYS, ET CETERA. SO MAYBE WE NEED TO USE MORE OF A SCALPEL INSTEAD OF A BROAD BRUSH APPROACH. BUT I STILL THINK THERE'S SOME REAL GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO USE THOSE ALLEYS. AND THE CAC IS PAYING TO CLEAN UP THOSE ALLEYS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: BUT IT CAN STILL CLEAN UP THE ALLEY. BUT I THINK ALSO WITH THAT, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE RULES, THE COMMUNITIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE BUILDING, AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME, AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT'S DOWN THE ROAD. SO IF YOU KNOW TO KNOW, YOU HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT. WHEN OUT DON'T KNOW, YOU RUN INTO THESE PROBLEMS. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING, SIR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. CHAIR, I AGREE WITH JOHN -- WITH COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, THERE IS GOING TO COME A TIME WHEN PARKING IS GOING TO BECOME AN ISSUE, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE AND I WAS HOPING THAT MOBILITY WOULD COME BACK WITH SOME SORT OF ANSWER, THAT IN THE FUTURE, MORE CITIES, MORE STREETS IN THE CITY OF TAMPA ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PARKING ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET OR THE OTHER. AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT MAY FORCE THE ISSUE BUT MAY MOVE ALONG THE ISSUE THAT RESIDENTS MAY WANT TO HAVE THE GARAGE BY THE ALLEY. ACCESSIBLE BILL BY THE ALLEY. AND I DO AGREE, WE ARE LOOKING AT THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT DOWN THE ROAD AS FAR AS PARKING GOES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: COMMON GUDES MADE A MOTION. MIRANDA SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AND TO ADD TO DISCUSSION TO THE NOVEMBER 4th STAFF REPORT FROM MR. COTTON? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, MR. COTTON. >>CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE: CITY ATTORNEY'S' OFFICE. ITEM NUMBER 81 IS A PETITION FAILED BY GLENDA LAFAYE, THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4502 WEST BALLAST POINT BOULEVARD, TO SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION DENYING THE EXTENDED FAMILY RESIDENT USE FOR SECTION 27-132. EARLIER COUNCIL WAS PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE PROCEDURES FOR TODAY'S REVIEW AS WELL AS MOTIONS AND RELEVANT CODE SECTION. FOR PURPOSES OF TODAY'S HEARING, CITY COUNCIL AS A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW, YOUR DECISION IS NOT LIMITED TO THE RECORD CREATED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. INSTEAD YOU CAN TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, TAKE NEW EVIDENCE AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON THE APPLICATION IN THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN 27-132, AND 27-129. MR. COTTON WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RELIEF. AFTER HEARING ALL THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED INTO THE RECORD AT TODAY'S HEARING CITY COUNCIL MAY UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND THEREBY DENY THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION, OR COUNCIL MAY OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND THEREBY APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION. AND WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. COTTON. THANK YOU. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF YOU CAN HAVE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE ANY EX PARTE WRITTEN DOCUMENTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO, MR. CITRO. APPROVED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: AND IF THERE ARE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. I SEE NONE. >>ERIC COTTON: MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN PLEASE? YOU SHOULD SEE THE PowerPoint ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. AS MS. PETTIS-MACKLE INDICATED, THIS IS A REVIEW. THE APPLICANT IS GLENDA LAFAYE OF HILL, WARD, HENDERSON, 4502 WEST BALLAST POINT BOULEVARD, RS-50, AND THE REQUEST FOR EXTENDED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO ON THE SCREEN NOW ARE THE STANDARD FOR THE EXTENDED ZONING RESIDENCE. FIRST THE MAXIMUM 500 TO 600 SQUARE FEET, AND THE REASON WHY THE APPLICANT IS BEFORE YOU, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A SECONDARY RESIDENCE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE WHICH IS THE STRUCTURE, EXTENDED FAMILY RESIDENCE, ABOUT 2100 SQUARE FEET. THE ACTUAL HOUSE BEING BUILT IS AROUND 5,000. AS PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF AN STENTEDED FAMILY RESIDENCE IS 600 SQUARE FEET. SO IT'S AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 250% OVER WHAT'S ALLOWED. THAT'S THE REASON WHY STAFF DID DENY THE REQUEST. THE PROPERTY IN RED AT THE CORNER OF BALLAST POINT BOULEVARD, MAT HAN AT AN -- MANHATTAN TO THE EAST, AND BALANCE HAST POINT, THIS IS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF. THE SECONDARY RESIDENCY UNDERSTAND IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, ACCESS INSIDE THE STRUCTURE. THEY HAVE ONE COMMON DOOR AND THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO LIVE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND I BELIEVE THE DAUGHTER TO LIVE ON THE GROUND FLOOR. THIS IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED, TAKING PICTURES IT'S A ONE-STORY HOME. AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST, WHICH IS ON THE OPPOSITE CORNER. AND THIS IS THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COTTON? ALL RIGHT. THE APPLICANT. MR. GRANDOFF. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: MY NAME IS JOHN GRANDOFF, ADDRESS IS SUITE 3700 BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA. AND THIS AFTERNOON, I HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTING GLENDA LAFAYE AND HER DAUGHTER DENNIS NIXON STANDING BEHIND ME. MR. COTTON SUMMARIZED THE APPLICATION VERY THOROUGHLY. WE MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR AN EXTENDED FAMILY RESIDENCE. GLENDA SIMPLY WANTS HER DAUGHTER DENISE TO LIVE WITH HER AND THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ZONING CODE IS BEHIND THE TIMES, AND WE ARE IN AN ERA NOW WHEN DAUGHTERS LIVE WITH MOTHERS IN THEIR TWILIGHT YEARS AND IT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE, AND THAT'S SIMPLY WHAT MY CLIENTS WANT TO DO. THEY HAVE HAD A HOUSE DESIGNED. ONE CORRECTION I HAVE, IT WILL BE SIDE BY SIDE, NOT ONE LIVING ON ONE FLOOR AND ONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BASICALLY YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY WORKING HOME ON THIS CORNER. HERE IS HESPERIDES, BALLAST POINT BOULEVARD, AND A COMMON ALCOVE. YOU COME IN OFF THE PORCH AND THEN DENISE WILL GO TO HER RESIDENCE AND GLENDA WILL GO TO HER RESIDENCE, AND THE PARKING, ACCESS TO THE GARAGE WILL BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HESPERIDES. I'M LOOKING SOUTH. HESPERIDES IS TO THE EAST. THIS IS TO THE NORTH. GIVES YOU MORE PERSPECTIVE. WESTSHORE BOULEVARD IS OVER THIS WAY. SO WE SIMPLY DO NOT MEET THAT 600-FOOT LIMIT, AND MR. COTTON DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE IT. I HAVE DONE SEVERAL OF THESE. MOST RECENTLY ONE ON BAYSHORE BAY VILLA FOR GLENDA BARLOW. THEY SENT OUT -- IN THIS APPLICATION, WE SENT OUT NOTICES TWICE. FIRST TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION, AND THEN TWICE FOR THIS HEARING. WE POSTED NOTICES. WE HAVE HAD NO OBJECTIONS. THEY HAVE WALKED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TALKED TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND I WILL CLOSE BY AN E-MAIL FROM A YOUNG LADY NAMED STEPHANIE POYNOR WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF T.H.A.N., AND I AM GOING TO PARAPHRASE. SHE SENT THIS E-MAIL TO MY OFFICE. GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR. I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. THIS IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF THINKING OUT OF THE BOX OUR CITY NEEDS. THIS IS A HUGE LOT, 70 BY 150 FEET ON THE CORNER. REFUSING TO ALLOW THIS HOME JUST DOESN'T MAE SENSE. NO ONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OPPOSED IT FOR THE ZONING PROCESS. NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK. I'M ASSUMING NONE OF THE ABUTTING NEIGHBORS FOUND IT AN ISSUE. I WOULD NEVER SPEAK AGAINST THOSE WHO QUO BE DIRECTED BY AN ISSUE BUT IF SHE DON'T SHOW UP I SUPPORT IT. VERY COLORFUL SUPPORT. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER TO ADD. AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU GRANT THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR GLENDA AND FOR HER DAUGHTER DENISE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. GRANDOFF, AS I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE, THIS GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT NECESSARILY THE FAMILY. MY MAJOR CONCERN IS THIS. IS IT GOING TO BE ONE ELECTRICAL PANEL, ONE ELECTRICAL METER ON THIS BUILDING? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: LET ME ADD TO MR. CITRO'S QUESTION. GLENDA HAS FILED THE PROPER AFFIDAVIT THAT'S REQUIRED, AND THE ZONING DEPARTMENT VERIFIED THE STATUS OF THE BUILDING ON A REGULAR BASIS AND AUDITS THE SPECIAL USE APPROVAL. >>JOHNDINGFELDER: RIGHT. SO MR. CITRO AND I ARE ON THE SAME PATH, BUT WE MIGHT HAVE DIVERGED IN THE CONCLUSION. DO WE HAVE LEGAL ON THE LINE? >>CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE: YES, I'M HERE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CAMARIA? SO JUST TO CLARIFY, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MS. LAFAYE AND HER DAUGHTER ARE AWARE OF THIS, IF THEY HAD TOP GO AND SELL IT SOME DAY, AND THE NEXT BUYER WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SU-1 CONDITIONS OF BEING AN EXTENDED FAMILY WITH THE SPLIT USE. YOU COULDN'T HAVE AN INVESTOR COME ALONG AND BUY IT AND THEN HAVE TWO APARTMENTS TO RENT, OR TWO SIDE BY SIDE HOMES TO RENT. IS THAT CORRECT? UNDER THE CURRENT CODE. >>CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YES, THAT'S CORRECT. BUT IT'S ALSO IN SACS SUBSECTION E THAT I PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN 132, INTENTION OF THE USE FOR TEMPORARY NEEDS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: RIGHT. WHICH FURTHER IS WHAT MR. GRANDOFF SAID, THAT ANY FUTURE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN, APPLY, AND APPLY, AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>CAMARIA PETTIS-MACKLE: RIGHT. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I AGREE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND I THINK I KNOW MS. LAFAYE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE SHE WAS ABUNDANTLY AWARE OF THAT. NOT THAT I WOULDN'T MACH ANYBODY AWARE OF THAT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE SHE WAS AWARE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IN FACT, LET ME SPEAK ON WHAT I KNOW. ONCE YOU HAVE ONE METER WITH TWO INDIVIDUALS, WELL INTENDED, IN THIS CASE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WHOEVER BUYS THAT HOUSE WILL NOW HAVE A SEPARATE PERSON LIVING THERE, BECAUSE IT'S A BENEFIT OF THE BEAR, SO HE OR SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY TAX ON RENTAL PROPERTY. AND I'M JUST GOING TO USE A NUMBER. IF IT'S $1,000 A YEAR, TAX ON A PROPERTY, THEN MAYBE IT SHOULD BE $4 THAT YOU. SO IN ORDER TO SAVE $3,000, THEY DON'T CALL FOR ANOTHER METER. AND YOU CAN'T HAVE ANOTHER METER ANYWAY. IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. THAT MEANS ALL OVER THE CITY, AS WE SPEAK TODAY, OF PEOPLE WITH THE SCHOOL, THE CITIES -- WE SIT BACK AND WATCH IT HAPPEN. AND HOW DO WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM? WELL, YOU SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY GOING AND HAVING A MEETING WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE, WITH ANYBODY AT ALL, AND THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING SOMEBODY ELSE'S TAXES BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES ARE NOT PAYING TAXES. RENTAL PROPERTIES AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAVE A DIFFERENT TAX BASE. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IN THIS CASE, THE POSSIBILITY DOES EXIST THAT IF SOMEBODY BUYS THAT HOUSE, AND UNDERSTAND GOVERNMENT, COULD HAPPEN. I AM NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BUT IT COULD. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> NO ONE ELSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> YES. WE HAVE STEPHANIE POYNOR. PLEASE UNMUTE YOURSELF AND TURN ON YOUR VIDEO. >> CAN YOU SEE ME? OKAY. CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WE SEE YOU NOW. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN. YOU KNOW, I DREAM AND HOLLER WHEN SOMEBODY DOES SOMETHING BUT IT MAKES IN A SENSE JUST BECAUSE THESE LADIES WANT TO LIVE IN SEPARATE DWELLINGS WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT. OBVIOUSLY IT CANNOT BE A DUPLEX LATER ON BECAUSE IT'S ON THE SAME METER. I LOVE MY MOTHER-IN-LAW VERY, VERY MUCH, AND IF I COULD PUT HER ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITH ME, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT IF SHE WAS BREATHING MY AIR INSIDE MY HOUSE, NOT SO GREAT. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND MR. MIRANDA MADE A POINT ABOUT PEOPLE HAVING RENTAL. IT'S THE SAME THING WHETHER IT'S 600 SQUARE FEET OR 2200 SQUARE FEET. IT'S TIME FOR THE CITY TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS RULE AND MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT IT. EVERYTHING ABOUT AFFORDBLE HOUSING DOES SET MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSING IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK INTO. AND I THINK UNLIKE THE LAST CASE, THE LAST CASE WAS A NEW RULE IN PLACE, AND THERE'S THE PROBLEM. THIS IS AN OLD RULE THAT PROBABLY WAS LIKE ALL THE OTHER LAND USE CODES THAT WE ARE RUNNING INTO THAT HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE DARK AGES, AND NOW WE ARE NEEDLING -- NEEDING TO PUT MULTI-GENERATION ON THE SAME PROPERTY. AND IF WE CONTINUE TO STICK OUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND NOT MOVE FORWARD, THEN WHAT GOOD DOES IT DO US AS A CITY? IF THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE NICE BIG DEVELOPERS THEY WOULD BE PUTTING EIGHT UNITS ON THIS LOT. THEY HAVE GOT A HUGE LOT. THERE'S NO REASON FOR THIS EXCEPT SHE NEEDS TO WHICH HAD TEN DRIVEWAY TO NINE FEET PER CODE. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I SAW IN THE FILE. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MR. GRANDOFF? >>JOHN GRANDOFF: I COULDN'T ADD ANYTHING AT THIS POINT OR SAY AND I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA MOVED, CITRO SECONDED TO CLOSE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION GRANTED. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: FILE NUMBER SU-1-21-46-C, I MOVE TO OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DENIAL OF SPECIAL USE APPLICATION SU-1-21-46 BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PETITION IS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL STANDARD SET FORTH IN SECTION 27-129 AND SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH IN 27-132. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. CITRO. ROLL CALL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH CARLSON BEING ABSENT AT VOTE. >>JOHN GRANDOFF: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS AFTERNOON, GENTLEMEN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, THE APPLICANT FOR 82 AND SOME OF THE EXPERT TESTIMONY, MR. SHELBY WENT DOWN TO TALK TO THEM AND WE KNOW THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY LONG, THEY HAVE A LOT OF EXPERT WITNESSES AND EXPERTS TO TESTIFY. SO I ASKED IF WE COULD MOVE WITH OUR QUASI, GET OUR STAFF OUT OF THE WAY. SO I AM GOING TO GET STAFF OUT OF THE WAY. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS AND THEN WE'LL GET TO NUMBER 82. SO WE WILL GO THROUGH A COVID UPDATE. I APOLOGIZE TO STAFF. WE HAD A TIME CERTAIN FOR 1:30 AND THAT KIND OF GOT MOVED. WE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. ITEM NUMBER 82. CHIEF OF STAFF OR CHIEF TRIPP. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 85. WE DEALT REQUEST 84 THIS MORNING. STAFF KIND OF GOT OUT OF THE WAY. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 878. MR. MASSEY, I BELIEVE. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? THEY ARE ALL IN THE ELEVATOR ON THE WAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR. I BELIEVE MR. DELGADO, CHIEF BENNETT. ON THE WAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE WILL LET THEM GET SITUATED AND THEN TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: FIVE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT. (CITY COUNCIL RECESS). (CITY COUNCIL RECESS). >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >> DINGFELDER? CITRO? >>JOSEPH CITRO: HERE. >> VIERA? MIRANDA? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HERE. >>THE CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. ALL RIGHT, I THINK CHIEF BENNETT WILL COME AFTER A WHILE. GO TO ITEM NUMBER 85. CHIEF, ARE YOU READY? IF YOU CAN GIVE THE COVID UPDATE? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY THEN. >>CHIEF TRIPP: BARBARA TRIPP, TAMPA FIRE RESCUE. COVID UPDATE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE STILL TESTING. WE HAVE THREE SITES WITHIN THE CITY OF TAMPA, AL LOPEZ CURRENTLY HAS TESTED OVER 54,000 SINCE WE STARTED THE PROGRAM. AL BARNES HAS TESTED A LITTLE OVER 20,000. AND CURRENTLY, LEE DAVIS SITE HAS TESTED OVER 500,000. CURRENTLY, WE STILL ARE GIVING THE VACCINES AT THE DAVIS CLINIC. THEY HAVE GIVEN A LITTLE OVER 600. WE'RE STILL DOING THE LEE DAVIS CLINIC AS WELL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDERS. THE STATE NUMBERS OR COUNTY NUMBERS RIGHT NOW JUST A LITTLE ABOVE 5%. AS FAR AS THE STATE, LITTLE UNDER 4%. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF FOR COVID? CHIEF BENNETT. >>JOHN BENNETT: GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. JOHN BENNETT, CHIEF OF STAFF. I WANT TO AUGMENT CHIEF TRIPP'S REPORT ABOUT COVID-19 FROM TWO ASPECTS. ONE, INTERNALLY, WE'VE BEEN MONITORING OUR STAFF CLOSE TO 4800 PERSONNEL VERY CLOSELY, AND THE NUMBERS ARE REALLY TURNING OUT WELL BASED ON THE POLICY THAT'S BEEN IMPLEMENTED NOW FOR ABOUT 40 DAYS. REALLY GREAT OUTCOMES. WHEN THE VARIANT WAS REALLY IN ITS HIGH STATUS, IF YOU WILL, IN THE COUNTY, WE SAW A LOT OF INTERNAL CONCERNS WITH THAT, AND THE NUMBERS ARE DWINDLING DOWN. AND THEY ARE REALLY IN A GOOD SPOT. SO THE HEALTH OF THE PERSONNEL IS VERY IMPORTANT. THE OTHER THING, TOO, I JUST WANTED TO THANK COUNCIL FOR THEIR SUPPORT ON WORKING WITH THE UNIONS AND THE MOUs THAT WERE ADDED TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS. I GET A LOT OF GOOD FEEDBACK FROM THE UNIONS AND HOW WE MANAGE THIS AS COLLABORATIVELY AS POSSIBLE. COUNCIL IS A BIG PART OF THAT. SO I WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT INTERNAL UPDATE ON COVID. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SINCE THE CHIEF IS ALREADY HERE, ITEM 85, CHIEF TRIPP. CHIEF DELGADO. >> JUST TO INTRODUCE ITEM 85, WE'VE GOT MYSELF. CHIEF DELGADO HAD TO STEP OUT FOR SOMETHING HE'S WORKING ON. I HAVE MORRIS MASSEY FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. WE SENT IN WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A COMPREHENSIVE MEMO ON ITEM 85. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CONTENT OF THAT MEMO, WE'RE HERE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE. BUT IN GENERAL, THE ADMINISTRATION IS REQUESTING TIME FOR SOME OF THE DATA TO SETTLE BEFORE WE WOULD EXAMINE THE IDEA OF ADDING ANY FEES TO THE COMMUNITY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >>LUIS VIERA: WAS ANYONE ELSE GOING TO SPEAK? THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. I READ THE MEMO, AND I DIDN'T MOTION FOR THIS. COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER DID. I THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS. YOU ALL ARE COMING BACK. DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WE DO A MOTION FOR YOU TO COME BACK MAY 6 OF NEXT YEAR? >>JOHN BENNETT: WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE WOULD REACH OUT TO COUNCIL AND LET THEM KNOW WHEN WE FEEL WE'RE AT A POINT WHETHER THESE TYPE OF RESOURCES ARE NECESSARY, AND WE THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOMEWHERE AROUND 18 MONTHS FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. >>LUIS VIERA: WE REALLY GOT -- I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT A BAILOUT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, WE GOT A REAL GOOD INFUSION WITH THE FEDERAL ARPA MONEY, 82 MILLION OR SO OVER TWO YEARS, A LOT OF WHICH WILL GO TO FIRST RESPONDERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO BE IN A REAL CRUNCH. AND THAT MONEY REALLY, REALLY HELPED US A GREAT DEAL. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT COUNCIL. I'M FINE WITH HAVING A TIME SET FOR THEM TO COME BACK AND -- >>JOHN BENNETT: I THINK TO BUILD ON COUNCILMAN VIERA'S POINT -- I WON'T SPEAK FOR CHIEF TRIPP -- JUST FROM THE ADMINISTRATION'S POINT OF VIEW, COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE 30 POSITIONS THAT WERE PUT IN THIS BUDGET, PLUS ANOTHER 27 POSITIONS THROUGH THE GRANT. SO CHIEF TRIPP AND OUR HUMAN RESOURCES ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO GET THOSE 57 NEW BODIES IN TAMPA FIRE OUT ON THE STREET. AND BETWEEN THAT AND THE CONSULTANT WE'RE USING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND OUR DATA AND THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO WORK ON THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP COLLABORATIVELY WITH COUNCIL OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. ONCE THAT SETTLES, WE'LL KNOW WHETHER WE NEED THE THINGS THAT SOME SORT OF IMPACT FEE WOULD BE RELEVANT FOR. BUT RIGHT NOW, TO DO THAT STUDY WOULD BE, IN OUR OPINION, PREMATURE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER WAS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. HE HAD TO LEAVE FOR THE DAY BECAUSE HE HAD ANOTHER MEETING. I WOULD SUGGEST, CHIEF, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THAT YOU TOUCH BASE WITH THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THAT WAY HE KNOWS THE STEPS TO TAKE SINCE HE'S NOT HERE. >>JOHN BENNETT: EXCELLENT POINT, CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE TALKED WITH COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER OFF-LINE BETWEEN -- IN A CONVERSATION I SHARED TOGETHER LAST NIGHT, COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER ASKED IF WE COULD MEET OFF-LINE AND DISCUSS THIS AS MORE OF A CONTINUUM AND WE WELCOME THAT. WE DEFINITELY WANT TO WORK WITH COUNCIL BOTH IN THE PUBLIC AND ONE ON ONE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THAT'S FINE, SIR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT WILL CONCLUDE THAT. WE TOOK CARE OF 86. WE TOOK CARE OF 87. 88, MR. MASSEY. >>MORRIS MASSEY: MORRIS MASSEY, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY HERE IN CONNECTION WITH A REPORT THAT COUNCIL HAD ASKED FOR REGARDING NONPROFITS THAT -- ADDRESSED AS CITY PROPERT AND REGISTERED AGENT AS CITY EMPLOYEE. I PROVIDED A MEMO TO YOU ALL ON THAT. THERE ARE FOUR FOR-PROFIT THAT I DISCOVERED BASED ON MY REVIEW OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE. ONE IS ONE TAMPA INC. THE OTHER -- GO THROUGH THIS IN A ROW. THE OTHER ONE IS THE MEMORIAL -- CEMETERY PRESERVATION AND MAINTENANCE SOCIETY INC. THEN YOU HAVE THE YBOR CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. THE CIVILIAN VOLUNTEERS ASSISTING POLICE INC. ALMOST ALL THESE CASES, WE DO OPERATE THEM IN THE SUNSHINE. PEOPLE, THE PUBLIC ARE INVITED. MINUTES ARE KEPT. PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS ARE PROVIDED. IN ALL THESE INSTANCES, THERE'S NO CITY FUNDS USED FOR THESE CORPORATIONS. THEY ARE SELF-SUPPORTING. WE DO PROVIDE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANCE AND MEETING SPACE FOR THEM. REALLY, THAT'S THE ONLY ASSISTANCE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING. THEY ARE MORE OR LESS SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS FOR VARIOUS MATTERS, YCDC SUPPORTS, OBVIOUSLY THE REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS IN YBOR. ONE TAMPA HAS BEEN SET UP AS A KIND OF PHILANTHROPIC ARM TO HELP SUPPORT SOME OF THE STRATEGIC EFFORTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY IN THIS ADMINISTRATION, BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING AND WORKING ON, THE MEMORIAL CEMETERY SOCIETY WAS SET UP. IT'S JUST BEEN FORMED AS A SHELL AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN THE EVENT THAT WE FINISH WITH THE FORECLOSURE OF THAT SO THAT WOULD BE THE ENTITY THAT WOULD TAKE TITLE TO THAT PROPERTY AND OPERATE AND MAINTAIN IT WITH THE HOPES THAT WE WOULD GET COMMUNITY MEMBERS INVOLVED AND ACTUALLY BE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE CEMETERY. THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY PURPOSES OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: OKAY. MR. CARLSON WAS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. HE ALSO HAD TO STEP OUT FOR A SPECIAL MEETING. I SUGGEST, MR. MORRIS, IF YOU HAVEN'T CONTACTED, YOU TOUCHED BASE WHAT YOU RELAY TO US TODAY. >>MORRIS MASSEY: I'LL BE HAPPY TO CONTACT OFF-LINE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM NUMBER 89, MR. SHELBY, WE'LL TAKE UP ON NOVEMBER 4. ITEM NUMBER 89, WERE WE TAKING THAT UP ON NOVEMBER 4. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I BELIEVE THERE IS A PRESENTATION. >>LaCHONE DOCK: LaCHONE DOCK HERE WITH CITY PLANNING. I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION, IF I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN, PLEASE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: GENTLEMEN, WE HAVEN'T SEEN LaCHONE IN A LONG, LONG TIME. >>JOSEPH CITRO: IT'S GOOD TO SEE HER TODAY. >>LaCHONE DOCK: THANK YOU SO MUCH COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE IT. CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN NOW? >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE CAN SEE IT. WE NEED TO YOU BLOW IT UP A LITTLE BIT. >>LaCHONE DOCK: I APOLOGIZE, COUNCIL. CAN YOU SEE A FULL SCREEN? >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE'VE GOT IT NOW. >>THE CLERK: WE SEE THE PREVIEW SCREEN LaCHONE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE CAN SEE IT. CAN WE GO WITH THAT RIGHT NOW, MADAM CLERK? MS. DOCK, GO WITH WHAT YOU HAVE. WE'RE PRESSED FOR TIME. WE HAVE A BIG HEARING RIGHT AFTER. >>LaCHONE DOCK: I APOLOGIZE. I'LL SHOW IT TO YOU IN THIS MODE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCIL. I KNOW YOU HAVE A BUSY AGENDA TODAY. I'M HERE BEFORE TO YOU PRESENT THE PRESENTATION ON TEXT AMENDMENT CYCLES. SO THIS STARTED, COUNCIL, WITH A MOTION FROM COUNCIL TO STAFF. STAFF WAS REQUIRED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH OPTIONS REGARDING TEXT AMENDMENT CYCLES. THIS WAS A CONCERN OF COUNCIL, AND IT STEMMED WITH THE INABILITY TO PROCESS TEXT AMENDMENTS OUT OF CYCLE. SO STAFF CAME TO COUNCIL WITH A COUPLE OF OPTIONS REGARDING PROCESS IN TEXT AMENDMENTS. ONE OPTION THAT STAFF OFFERED FOR COUNCIL WAS TO PROCESS TWO PUBLICLY INITIATED CYCLES AND PROCESS TWO PRIVATELY INITIATED CYCLES. AT THAT TIME, COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO WORK WITH COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER. SOME BACK WITH ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS. AND WHAT YOU'LL HAVE PRESENTED FOR YOU TODAY IS THE OPTION THAT STAFF IS BRINGING BEFORE YOU FOR PROCESSING REGARDING THOSE AMENDMENTS. AND I'LL REVIEW WITH YOU SHORTLY. WHAT I'LL DO IS REVIEW ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND REGARDING THAT REUEST, DISCUSS SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WITH PROCESSING THE TEXT AMENDMENTS. ALSO REVIEW WITH YOU OUR PROPOSAL AND THE OUTREACH CONDUCTED, AND THEN THE SCHEDULING. SO THIS STARTED IN JANUARY, AS MENTIONED, WHEN COUNCIL MADE THE FIRST MOTION FOR COUNCIL -- FOR STAFF TO COME BACK AND REPORT ON THOSE OPTIONS. WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE OPTION PRESENTED BY STAFF. WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN THE TWO EXISTING TEXT AMENDMENT CYCLES, AND THESE ARE AMENDMENTS WHICH ARE PROCESSED IN JANUARY AND JULY OF EVERY YEAR. WE'RE PROPOSING TO ALLOW FOR A MID CYCLE AMENDMENTS, AND THESE ARE AMENDMENTS FOR NARROWLY TAILORED, TIME-SENSITIVE EDITS WHICH CANNOT WAIT FOR THE AMENDMENT CYCLES. AND THEN ALSO TO PROCESS ONLY PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENTS. SO, CURRENTLY, IN OUR PROCESS, SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE IS THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO PROCESS AN AMENDMENT. EITHER THERE IS A PRIVATELY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH IS INITIAED BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN, OR YOU CAN SUBMIT A REQUEST. IT CAN BE PROCESSED AS A PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENT, I SHOULD SAY. A PUBLICLY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT IS DIRECTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, CITY COUNCIL, OR THE MAYOR. SO WHAT HAPPENS CURRENTLY IS WHEN THE AMENDMENTS ARE PROCESSED, THERE OFTENTIMES IS CONFUSION REGARDING THE ORIGINATION OF THE AMENDMENT. IS IT PRIVATELY INITIATED OR PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENT? SO WE'RE LOOKING TO CREATE THAT CONSISTENCY IN THE PROCESS. WITH WHAT'S PROPOSED. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC AS PART OF FEEDBACK OF REVIEWING THIS WAS TO INCLUDE IN THE PRESENTATION A TYPICAL PROCESSING SCHEDULE FOR TEXT AMENDMENT. YOU SEE BEFORE YOU THE SCHEDULE AND THE TIMELINE. JUST KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE SCHEDULE IS DEPENDENT UPON BOTH CITY COUNCIL'S CALENDAR AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CALENDAR. WHEN WE APPROACH TIME FRAMES, AS WE ARE NOW AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR WHERE WE'RE APPROACHING THE HOLIDAYS, THAT COULD EXTEND THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU SEE IN THE SCHEDULE. BUT IT GIVES AN IDEA OF THE TIMELINE. FOR PROCESSING THE AMENDMENTS. SO WHAT ARE WE LOOKING TO ACHIEVE? WE'RE LOOKING TO PROVIDE THAT CONSISTENCY IN THE PROCESS WITH MAINTAINING THE TWICE A YEAR PROCESSING. SO WE WOULD STILL HAVE PROCESSING EVERY JANUARY AND EVERY JULY OF EACH YEAR, BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO PROCESS ONLY THE PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENT. WE'RE STILL LOOKING TO ADD THE ALLOWANCES FOR THOSE MID CYCLE AMENDMENTS FOR THOSE TIME-SENSITIVE EDITS. SO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD DO SEVERAL THINGS. THE CHANGE PROPOSES TO PROCESS ONLY THE PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENTS. WE'RE LOOKING AT IT BECOMING EFFECTIVE THE JULY 2022 CYCLE. THE FINAL CYCLE FOR PRIVATELY INITIATED AMENDMENTS WOULD BE JANUARY. WE'RE REALIZING THAT A LOT OF LAND USE DECISIONS ARE MADE BASED UPON THE CURRENT CODE, SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALLOWING ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, AND THIS IS WHERE WE CAME WITH THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF JULY, JUST TO ALLOW THAT TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE OF THE CHANGE. WE WOULD PROCESS ONLY THE PUBLICLY INITIATED AMENDMENTS ON THOSE CYCLES. THIS WOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR THOSE OUT-OF-CYCLE AMENDMENTS. SO PUBLIC OUTREACH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED, AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS WOULD GO TO THE SAME PROCESS AS ANY OTHER TEXT AMENDMENT. WE HELD A PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING IN SEPTEMBER AND I REVIEWED THE SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE MOVING FORWARD. BUT AT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, THIS WILL BE PROCESSED AS A PUBLICLY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT. SO OFTENTIMES, COUNCIL, I MENTION PUBLIC OUTREACH OR I MENTION PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING WAS HELD. I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THE WAYS IN WHICH WE PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC FOR OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE METHODS THAT WE ACTUALLY ADVERTISE THE MEETINGS SO THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE WE'RE HOLDING A MEETING. SO VERY IMPORTANT, THE EFFECTIVE DATE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'RE LOOKING FOR THIS TO BECOME EFFECTIVE WITH THAT JULY CYCLE, THE FINAL CYCLE OF THE PRIVATELY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENTS WOULD BE JANUARY. SO TO DATE, WE HELD THE PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING. WE HAVE THE COUNCIL WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED ON SEPTEMBER 23rd AND WE'RE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH THIS ITEM. AND BASED UPON YOUR DIRECTION, COUNCIL, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 8, AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK BEFORE YOU IN DECEMBER FOR FIRST READING. ALL OF THE HEARINGS THAT WE HAVE LEFT ON THE SCHEDULE, THEY ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT AT THIS POINT, COUNCIL, WE WOULD NEED YOUR DIRECTION IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD AND TAKE THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION COUNCIL. I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: WE JUST NEED A MOTION TO TRANSMIT THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR SEND IT -- HOW DOES IT NEED TO BE? >>ORLANDO GUDES: I THINK MR. SHELBY WILL JUMP IN AND GIVE US GUIDANCE HERE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WELL, THE CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED TO ME, AND I CONFIRMED WITH MS. DOCK THIS MORNING, IS COUNCIL I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS AGENDA PACKET FOR TODAY HAS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO MS. DOCK AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT PERHAPS TO KEEP IT ONLINE AND ON TRACK TO HAVE -- PERHAPS CONTINUE THIS ITEM OF REVIEWING AND TRANSMITTING THE DRAFTED LANGUAGE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HAVE IT BROUGHT BACK ON NOVEMBER 4th JUST UNDER A STAFF REPORT, AND THEN COUNCIL WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO SEE BEFORE YOU SEND IT OUT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I WOULD THINK WE WOULD NEED THE LANGUAGE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE SOMETHING. >>LaCHONE DOCK: IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN GUDES AND COUNCIL, LaCHONE DOCK. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD POINT YOU RAISE, MR. SHELBY. I HAVEN'T READ TO SEE WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY SIGNING OFF ON AND THE PUBLIC HASN'T SEEN IT. I WOULD GATHER THIS COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S CHANGED, BUT I THINK MS. DOCK WANTED TO ADDRESS IT WITH COUNCIL. >>LaCHONE DOCK: YES, COUNCILMAN GUDES AND CHAIR, COUNCIL THANK YOU. LaCHONE DOCK. TYPICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE COME BEFORE YOU AT A WORKSHOP. AT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WE WOULD THEN, IF IT IS COUNCIL'S DESIRE, WE THEN MOVE TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE LANGUAGE. AND THEN WE COME BACK TO COUNCIL. BY THE TIME WE COME TO COUNCIL AT FIRST READING, WE HAVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME. SO WHEN WE HOLD A WORKSHOP, WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL. THE REQUEST COULD CHANGE. THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED COULD CHANGE. SO WE DON'T HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME. SO IF WE HAVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WHICH WE WILL HAVE FOR YOU BY FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION, THAT'S NORMALLY WHEN WE WOULD PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT DRAFT ORDINANCE. WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY IS THE WORKSHOP. IT WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED ON A WORKSHOP DATE. IN SEPTEMBER. IT JUST NEVER MADE IT TO THAT ITEM. COUNCIL, YOUR CALENDAR WAS VERY BUSY FOR SEPTEMBER. SO WE WERE ON THE AGENDA, JUST NEVER GOT TO OUR ITEM, SO IT WAS MOVED TO TODAY. BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NORMAL WORKSHOP. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MS. DOCK, MY QUESTION IS, WILL THE LANGUAGE BE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? >>LaCHONE DOCK: THE LANGUAGE IS NOT PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THEY RECEIVE THE SAME PRESENTATION THAT COUNCIL RECEIVED TODAY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I SEE. SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION -- SO THE PUBLIC WILL NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE DRAFT UNTIL -- AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT SEE THE DRAFT. THEY'LL SEE THE CONCEPTS AND THEY, I GUESS, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON -- RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE CONCEPTS. >>LaCHONE DOCK: IT ACTUALLY IS THE SAME PROCESS WE NORMALLY DO WITH ALL TEXT AMENDMENTS. THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THE DRAFT LANGUAGE. IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE. WE HAVE IT ON OUR WEBSITE. BUT THIS IS THE NORMAL PROCESS AND THE NORMAL STEPS THAT WE TAKE ON AN AMENDMENT. COUNCIL GIVING DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD TODAY, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A DRAFT ORDINANCE TO DO SO. YOU MAY REMEMBER, COUNCIL, WHEN WE CAME BEFORE YOU WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AT THE POINT OF WORKSHOP, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE DRAFT ORDINANCE PREPARED. SO WE CAME BACK BY FIRST READING AND WE HAD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF IT'S AVAILABLE TODAY ON THE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT ACTUALLY SEE THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE, AND THE PROCESS HAS CONTINUED THIS WAY UP UNTIL THIS POINT, THEN THERE REALLY IS NO REASON TO HOLD THIS UP, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE -- IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION THAT ULTIMATELY WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT WHEN YOU SEND THINGS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING YOU A RECOMMENDATION ON? BUT THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE COULD HAVE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF AND MS. DOCK DOWN THE ROAD. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WELL, YOU'RE THE CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. YOU RAISED A VALID POINT. SO I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD PROCEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE AND GET DONE WILL GET DONE. IF YOU DON'T THINK IT'S PROPER THE WAY THIS IS GOING, THEN YOU NEED TO ADDRESS IT AND LET COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW AND MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD IF WE NEED TO CHANGE SOMETHING. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I UNDERSTAND, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND MAYBE THERE DOES NEED CLEAR DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF OF HOW IT WANTS TO CONDUCT THESE SORT OF TEXT AMENDMENTS. BUT THAT'S TIED TO THE INFORMATION WE TALKED ABOUT WITH ITEM NUMBER 40 AS WELL WITH THE PROCEDURES MANUAL. I'LL GET TO WORK WITH STAFF AND KEEP AT YOUR DIRECTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: AT MY DIRECTION. THANK YOU, SIR. ALSO, MY OTHER CONCERN, WE TALK ABOUT COMMUNICATION. LOOK AT OUR LAST CASE BEFORE THAT COMMUNICATION. COUNTY DOES. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T DO IT. THE COUNTY PUTS BIG SIGNS ON THE CORNERS. PEOPLE DRIVE BY. PEOPLE LOOK AT THEM TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T DO THAT. IT'S A WAY TO COMMUNICATE TO PEOPLE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: AGAINST THE LAW. >>ORLANDO GUDES: AGAINST THE LAW. SOMEBODY TELL THE COUNTY IT'S AGAINST THE LAW? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL YOU IT'S AGAINST THE LAW TO PUT A SIGN UP. USUALLY WHEN YOU RUN FOR OFFICE, YOU'VE GOT TO PUT IT IN THE YARD AND YOU CAN'T PUT IT IN THE WAY. THEY PUT IT RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW TO PUT A SIGN ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY I'M GOING TO CHANGE THE LAW, BUT WE CLOSE ONE EYE AND DRIVE, CLOSE THE OTHER EYE AND DRIVE, SO YOU ONLY HAVE ONE EYE. DEPENDS WHICH CORNER YOU'RE LOOKING AT. I AGREE WITH YOU HUNDRED PERCENT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE NEED TO SEE WHY THEY CAN DO SOMETHING AND WE CAN'T. I'M JUST SAYING AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION, WHAT THEY ARE DOING, IT'S WORKING. BECAUSE WHEN THEY HAVE A MEETING AND PEOPLE SEE THE SIGNS, PEOPLE ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS. IF IT'S WRONG, OKAY, IT'S WRONG, BUT WE NEED TO SEE WHY IT'S WRONG, SOMETHING WE NEED TO FIX OR WHATEVER. I'M JUST SAYING THEIR COMMUNICATION TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS TO THEIR MEETINGS, PEOPLE SEE THOSE SIGNS, THEY READ IT. OH, WHAT IS THAT? IT'S IMPORTANT. THEY GO TO THE MEETINGS. JUST AN FYI. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ON THE OTHER SIDE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF SIGNS PUT UP ON THE SAME CORNERS ILLEGALLY AND NO ONE DOES TOO MUCH ABOUT IT. I WANT TO SAY THE OTHER SIDE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I GOETTSCHA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I THINK AT LEAST TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT CHAPTER 27 IS, THE STAFF OUGHT TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: OKAY. SO WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE THIS ITEM, MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHAT MS. DOCK IS ASKING FOR YOU IS TO KEEP THE TIMELINE AND SEEK A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THEN BRING IT BACK FOR FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION TO ACCEPT MS. DOCK'S RECOMMENDATION. MR. CITRO HAS MOVED IT. MR. MANISCALCO HAS SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU, MS. DOCK. >>LaCHONE DOCK: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. THE BIG GRANDDADDY OF THE DAY, ITEM NUMBER 82. GENTLEMEN, HOLD ON. WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERT TESTIMONY AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK. MAYBE 15 PEOPLE. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG ONE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: HOW ABOUT A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? >>JOSEPH CITRO: SO MOVED. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>MARTIN SHELBY: DO YOU WANT TO SWEAR IN EVERYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR? IF I MAY INQUIRE, MR. CHAIRMAN, HOW MANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS DO WE HAVE ONLINE? >>ORLANDO GUDES: MADAM CLERK WANTS THEM ALL SWORN IN. >>THE CLERK: I HAVE EIGHT REGISTERED SPEAKERS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HOW MANY ON THE SECOND FLOOR? MS. DEBBIE THERE? >> YES, I'M HERE. WE HAVE 9 SPEAKERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN, DID YOU WANT THEM SWORN IN DOWN STAIRS ALL AT THE SAME TIME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YEAH. WHO DO WE HAVE TO SWEAR IN? DEBBIE CAN SWEAR THEM IN. [OATH ADMINISTERED] DOES ANYBODY NEED TO FRESHEN UP BEFORE WE BEGIN? BECAUSE IT WILL BE A LONG ONE, GENTLEMEN. GOT THEM ALL SWORN IN? >> YES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF THE PEOPLE ON THE SECOND FLOOR COULD BE REMINDED JUST TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT THEY HAVE BEEN SWORN. DO YOU, MS. JOHNSON-VELEZ WANT ME TO INQUIRE AT THE OUTSET WITH REGARD TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. BEFORE WE BEGIN, I THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO GIVE SOME TIME TOWARDS THE SUBJECT OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, IT HAS BEEN CONTINUED AND COUNCIL DOES HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH E-MAIL TO YOUR MAILBOXES. AND THERE ARE PROCESSES IN ORDER TO GET THOSE INTO THE RECORD, BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS JUST TO INQUIRE OF THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE PRESENT, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE, THAT THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO ASK THAT COUNCIL MAKE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE ALL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE UP UNTIL THIS POINT AT CITY COUNCIL. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO, RECEIVE AND FILE. MR. MIRANDA. -- MR. MANISCALCO MADE THE MOTION. MR. MIRANDA SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >>MARTIN SHELBY: THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO DO, COUNCIL, IS TO INQUIRE OF YOU IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY SITE VISITS THAT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THIS HEARING TO PUT PARTIES ON NOTICE THAT YOU, IN FACT, DID VISIT THE SITE. IF THAT'S THE CASE, WOULD YOU JUST PLEASE RECOGNIZE WHETHER OR NOT YOU DID THAT. I SEE NO RESPONSE TO THAT. NOW, WITH REGARD TO YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, COUNCIL, I'D LIKE TO INQUIRE, IF YOU'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT ANY WRITTEN MATERIAL THAT CAME IN THAT IS EX PARTE, DID IT HAVE AN IMPRESSION UPON YOU THAT YOU WISH TO STATE WHAT THAT WAS THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? SO I'M GOING TO ASK EACH OF YOU FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, BASED ON YOUR ABILITY TO REVIEW THE RECORD, TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AS YOU HEAR IT IN THE HEARING, BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ARE YOU EACH WILLING TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL WITH REGARD TO THE HEARING YOU'RE ABOUT TO HEAR TODAY? I'LL INQUIRE OF EACH OF YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER VIERA? >>LUIS VIERA: I'M FINE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU CAN BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. >>LUIS VIERA: [INAUDIBLE] >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL MEMBER CARLSON? >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THIS ITEM IS BEFORE YOU PURSUANT TO 27-61 OF THE CITY CODE ON A PETITION FILED BY MULTIPLE PETITIONERS SEEKING REVIEW OF A DECISION ON AN AB 1 SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SPECIFICALLY AB 1-21-20 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1202 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET. IT WAS A DECISION MADE ADMINISTRATIVELY BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. I HAVE PROVIDED COUNCIL WITH PROPOSED HEARING PROCEDURES FOR TODAY'S HEARING AS WELL AS SAMPLE MOTIONS. YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE GENERAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ALL SPECIAL USES PURSUANT TO 27-129. THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THE SPECIAL RESTAURANT USE FOUND IN SECTION 27-132, AND ALSO SECTION 27-130 WHICH ALLOWS FOR CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR CASE. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT 27-130 SINCE IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU SEE VERY OFTEN. IF YOU'LL FLIP TO THE THIRD -- ACTUALLY, IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT'S INCLUDED, YOU'LL SEE THAT 27-130, IT'S ENTITLED CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS AND PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION A, DECISION MAKERS ON SPECIAL USE PERMITS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TOO MUCH THE GRANT OF ANY SPECIAL USE PERMIT SUCH CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CODE IN THE PARTICULAR CASE. SO IN THIS CASE, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DID, IN FACT, ATTACH SOME CONDITIONS TO THE GRANT OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT BASED UPON HIS DETERMINATION AND THE RECORD THAT HE HAD BEFORE HIM. SO PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-61-J-3, CITY COUNCIL WILL APPLY A DENOVA STANDARD OF REVIEW TO THIS PETITION. THIS MEANS THAT YOU'RE NOT LIMITED TO THE RECORD CREATED DURING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REVIEW. INSTEAD, YOU CAN TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE, AND MAKE A DECISION BASED UPON THE APPLICATION MEETING THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR ALL SPECIAL USES, AGAIN IN SECTION 27-129, THE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR THE RESTAURANT USE IN SECTION 27-132, AND THE NEED TO ATTACH CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-130 SHOULD YOU FIND THAT TO BE THE CASE. THE MATERIALS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA ITEM INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INITIAL APPLICATION FOR THE AB 1 SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THE STAFF REPORT, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S WRITTEN DECISION, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW, AND AN AFFIDAVIT ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICATION FILED WITH THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUESTED AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AB 1 FOR SPECIAL RESTAURANT, BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES ONLY. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING, CITY COUNCIL MAY AFFIRM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE AB PERMIT AS CONDITIONED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. IF COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE APPLICATION DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA. CITY COUNCIL MAY ALSO MOVE TO AFFIRM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION IF YOU FIND THAT PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED -- I'M SORRY. YOU MAY MOVE TO AFFIRM THE APPROVAL AND ATTACH DIFFERENT OR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO THOSE ATTACHED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IF YOU FIND THAT THE PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THESE CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. FINALLY, CITY COUNCIL MAY MOVE TO OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND DENY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT IF YOU FIND THAT THE PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA IN 27-129 OR 27-132. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF COUNCIL HAS THEM OF ME AT THIS TIME. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: IF I MAY ASK OUR LEGAL ATTORNEY, THE PUBLIC LISTENING TO THIS, EXPLAIN WHAT AN SRX COP, OR 2 COP LICENSE IS. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THOSE ARE STATE-ISSUED LICENSES, THEREFORE THE SPECIAL RESTAURANT USE. SRX IS NOW SFS WITH THE STATE. THOSE ARE LICENSES THAT THE OPERATOR WOULD NEED TO HAVE IN ORDER TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT UNDER OUR CODE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL, IN PREPARATION FOR THIS HEARING, THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW IN THE SENSE THAT THE PETITIONER WHO HAS MADE THIS APPLICATION SEEKING THIS REVIEW IS REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL, THEY ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ALSO HERE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO PARTICIPATE THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE. HEARING TODAY, WE HAVE WORKED WITH BOTH COUNCIL TO PREPARE A PROCESS AND TO VET IT WITH THEM AND ALSO TO BE ABLE TO HAVE COUNCIL ADOPT IT AS PART OF THE HEARING TO ENSURE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE NECESSARY DUE PROCESS AFFORDED TO BOTH PARTIES. IF THERE IS ANY HOUSE KEEPING IN TERMS OF AN OBJECTION OR A PROBLEM WITH THIS, I THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU, AND WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK AND HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO COUNCIL IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING. SO IF THEY ARE AVAILABLE AND THEY WANT TO ADDRESS COUNCIL FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY NOW. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THAT WOULD BE MS. HATLEY AND MR. CRAMER OR MS. ICERMAN, WHOEVER IS DOWN ON TWO. MS. HATLEY IS COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. CRAMER IS COUNSEL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. [ENCODER DROP] >>ORLANDO GUDES: -- YOU HEARD FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THIS CASE. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE ASSESSMENT SHE'S JUST GIVEN YOU? >> PAMELA JO HATLEY. I REPRESENT THE PETITIONERS. WE HAD A CONFERENCE CALL ON OCTOBER 14 WHERE WE ALL DISCUSSED THE PROCEDURES, AND I TOOK DETAILED NOTES DURING THAT CONFERENCE CALL. IT INCLUDED THE CITY ATTORNEYS AND THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENTS. AND ACCORDING TO MY DETAILED NOTES, THE PROCEDURES THAT YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED THAT WE WERE ALL PROVIDED ARE CONSISTENT AND ACCURATE WITH OUR AGREEMENT IN THAT CONFERENCE CALL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I SEE MR. CRAMER IN THE BACKGROUND. MR. CRAMER. MR. CRAMER? >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. JAKE CRAMER, 401 EAST JACKSON STREET, NUMBER 2100, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS. I AGREE WITH MS. HATLEY. I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THIS MORNING. MS. SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ AND I SPOKE ABOUT THOSE. AFTER HEARING HER DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO YOU JUST NOW, WE'RE IN FULL AGREEMENT AMONGST THE PARTIES ON THOSE DIRECTIONS. THANK YOU FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. I WOULD ASK THAT COUNCIL ACCEPT THE PROCEDURES AS PRESENTED AND FOLLOW ACCORDINGLY. AND THE CONDUCT OF THE HEARING. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO HAS MOVED IT. MR. VIERA SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO ERIC COTTON FOR PRESENTATION BY STAFF. >>ERIC COTTON: MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN FOR THE PowerPoint. IT'S LATE. I'LL GO THROUGH THIS RELATIVELY QUICKLY. AS MS. JOHNSON VELEZ SAID, THIS IS A PETITION FOR REVIEW FOR AB 1-21-20 FOR PROPERTY AT 1202 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET. THE PETITION FOR REVIEW APPLICANT ARE THE RESIDENCES AT FRANKLIN STREET CONDO ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON COMMUNITY -- AND CITY LOFTS ASSOCIATION. ALREADY INDICATED, PAMELA JO HATLEY IS THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS. THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IT'S AT THE CORNER OF ROYAL AND NORTH FRANKLIN. IT IS A LANDMARK SITE. THESE ARE HISTORICALLY LANDMARK SITES. THIS IS THE ARLINGTON CONDOMINIUM, I BELIEVE. THIS IS THE OTHER CONDO THAT'S INVOLVED AND THEN THE STREET, THE RESIDENCES ON FRANKLIN STREET I BELIEVE ARE HERE. THIS IS THE SPECIAL USE CRITERIA UNDER 27-132 FOR A SPECIAL RESTAURANT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOLLOW CHAPTER 14, GENERALLY 7 A.M. TO 3 A.M. IT'S ONLY APPROVABLE WITH AN SRX, A RESTAURANT LICENSE, A ONE COP OR TWO COP, A ONE COP IS BEER ONLY. A TWO COP IS BEER AND WINE. THE SRX LICENSE ALLOWS FOR FULL ALCOHOL WITH THE RESTAURANT. YOU HAVE TO MEET THE 5149 BY THE STATE REGULATIONS. OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND IS ALLOWED UNTIL 11 P.M., AND THERE IS NO -- YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY ALCOHOL SALES IN THE PARKING AREA OR LOADING SPACES. THIS IS THE CURRENT APPROVAL FOR THE SITE. OCCUPANCY LOAD OF 271 PERSONS. ROUGHLY THE SAME INSIDE AND OUTSIDE. THE OUTSIDE IS A ROOFTOP. THE CONDITIONS WE PLACED ON IT THROUGH THE LAST APPROVAL, THE ONE THAT'S UNDER THE PETITION FOR REVIEW WAS NO AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP AFTER 10 P.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 11 P.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS NEED TO BE CLOSED AT 10 P.M. ON SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND AFTER 11 P.M. AND AT 11 P.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. ANY VIDEO EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOFTOP, IF THEY HAD TVs OR WHATEVER HAVE TO BE MUTED. THE ONLY TIME THEY COULD EXCEED THE TIME FRAME FOR THE NOISE WOULD BE ON NEW YEAR'S EVE. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO -- AMPLIFIED SOUND TO 2 A.M. ON JANUARY 1st. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA HAS A QUESTION. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: FOR CLARITY SO THE PEOPLE WATCHING THIS CAN UNDERSTAND. WHEN YOU SAID YOU CAN'T SERVE LIQUOR IN THESE AREAS, CAN YOU CARRY IT OUT AND DRINK IT IN THOSE AREAS? >>ERIC COTTON: NO, SIR. GOING BACK TO THE SLIDE, THE SRX LICENSE WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO SELL TO GO. THEY CANNOT LEAVE THE AREA THAT'S APPROVED FOR THE ALCOHOL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THAT MEANS THEY CAN'T DRINK IT OUTSIDE THE PREMISES OF WHATEVER THE STRUCTURE IS, YOU CAN'T EVEN GO TO THE SIDEWALK TO DRINK IT, CORRECT? >>ERIC COTTON: CORRECT. UNLESS THEY WERE TO ACHIEVE A SIDEWALK CAFE PERMIT, WHICH IS A SEPARATE PROCESS, NOT A PART OF THIS. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU. >>ERIC COTTON: YOU'RE WELCOME. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN IN QUESTION. THIS IS THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE STRUCTURE. THIS USED TO BE THE FLY BAR, WHICH WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2005. THIS IS THE SITE IN QUESTION. THIS PARKING LOT DOES NOT BELONG TO THE RESTAURANT ITSELF. HOWEVER, IN THE CBD DISTRICTS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PARKING AS A RESTAURANT. IT'S EXEMPT USE FOR PARKING. I'LL GO BACK TO THIS ONE. THIS IS THE HISTORY OF THE ALCOHOL APPROVALS. IN 2005, COUNCIL APPROVED BUT THEN WAS A 4(COP) R, FULL ALCOHOL IN A RESTAURANT. 2006 GRANTED LANDMARK STATUS BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS A LANDMARK BUILDING. IN 2014, THE CITY SIGNED OFF ON THEIR STATE LICENSE TO ALLOW SALES ON THE ROOFTOP. HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL WET ZONING BACK IN 2005 DID NOT ALLOW FOR THAT. IN 2020, HEIGHT OF COVID, THEY WERE SUSPENDED FOR 30 DAYS FOR VIOLATING THE COVID REGULATION REGARDING MASKS AND THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES, INCLUDING NOISE AND PUBLIC INTOXICATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THEY CAME BACK IN JANUARY -- THEY WERE APPROVED ALL VENUE RESTAURANT. PERMISSION TO HAVE SALES ON THE ROOFTOP BUT ALSO PLACED LIMITATIONS ON THE RESTAURANT ITSELF FOR THE HOURS OF OPERATION WHICH -- I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT MY NOTES. RELATIVELY EARLY, 8:00 I BELIEVE FOR ROOFTOP AND 10:00 FOR THE RESTAURANT. I CAN VERIFY IF YOU LIKE. THEN 2021 IN JUNE, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REQUEST, TO COME IN AS A SPECIAL RESTAURANT WHICH NOW HAS THE CONDITIONS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ON THERE. WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE REQUEST, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS. PRIOR TO COVID, WHICH IS THE YEAR BEFORE -- ROUGHLY A YEAR BEFORE THE COVID OUTBREAK AND SHUTTING DOWN OF BUSINESSES, THERE WERE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT NOISE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THERE WERE ONLY SEVEN COMPLAINTS FOR THE RESTAURANT BETWEEN MAY 5th OF 2019 AND MARCH 10 OF 2020. NOW, BETWEEN THE MONTH OF COVID BEFORE THEY WERE SHUT DOWN AND CITY COUNCIL ENDED UP SUSPENDING THE REQUEST, 14 COMPLAINTS IN A 30 DAY PERIOD VERSUS A ROUGHLY NINE MONTH PERIOD ONLY SEVEN COMPLAINTS. SO IN CONCLUSION, THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BELIEVES THAT THE REQUEST BEFORE COUNCIL, THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON THIS LATEST APPLICATION ARE SUFFICIENT, IF THEY VIOLATE THE NOISE ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 14, THEN WE WOULD TAKE THEM BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A SUSPENSION THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESSES INITIATED THROUGH CHAPTER 14. COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE APPROVAL PROCESS THAT I WENT THROUGH? >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COTTON? ALL RIGHT, SIR. WE'LL HAVE THE FIRST PRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE. YOU HAVE 15 MINUTES. >> PAMELA JO HATLEY. I REPRESENT THE PETITIONERS THAT ARE NAMED IN THE PETITION. THE PETITIONERS ARE PROPERTY OWNERS AND ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT SURROUND 1202 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE THE OVERHEAD, BUT I'M SHOWING -- WELL, I'D LIKE TO SHOW AN AERIAL. THIS IS IT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HERE AND THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTIES ARE HERE. THIS IS THE RESIDENCE OF FRANKLIN STREET. HERE, THIS IS THE TOWNHOMES, CITY LOFT TOWNHOMES AND HERE IS THE ARLINGTON CONDOMINIUM. COUNCIL, I CANNOT EMPHASIZE STRONGLY ENOUGH THE TRAUMA THE FORMER ESTABLISHMENT AT THIS PROPERTY INFLICTED ON THE RESIDENCES AND BUSINESSES THAT SURROUND IT. THE FACT WITNESSES HERE WITH ME TODAY WILL DESCRIBE THEIR EXPERIENCE, BUT IT WAS A NIGHTMARE FOR THIS COMMUNITY. I'VE SUBMITTED PHOTOS AS EVIDENCE THAT SHOW THE CROWDING INSIDE THE RESTAURANT AND OUTSIDE THE RESTAURANT DURING THE COVID REGULATIONS, AND I THINK YOU'VE SEEN THOSE BEFORE. JUNE OF 2020, AND THEN IN DECEMBER OF 2020, THE CITY SUSPENDED THE AB SPECIAL USE PERMIT AFTER HEARING EVIDENCE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE MARSHAL AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT DISPLAYED FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE CITY'S COVID REGULATIONS, NOISE REGULATIONS AND THE BUILDING'S CAPACITY LIMITS. ALSO DESCRIPTIONS OF UTTER DISRESPECT FOR SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF THEIR OWN PROPERTIES. IN PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE I SUBMITTED, YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF IT. THERE IS A COPY OF THE INTENT TO REVOKE THE AB SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT DESCRIBES THE REPEATED VIOLATIONS AND THE REASON FOR FOR THE SUSPENDING OF THE AB SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NOW, IN FEBRUARY 2021, THE CITY GRANTED THE OWNER A NEW AB SPECIAL USE PERMIT, BUT THE CITY PLACED RESTRICTIONS ON IT. THERE'S A COPY OF THAT APPROVAL LETTER ALSO IN THE PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE THAT I SUBMITTED, AND YOU CAN READ THOSE CONDITIONS, SPECIAL CONDITIONS. THE PETITIONERS DID NOT SEEK REVIEW OF THAT PERMIT BECAUSE THEY FELT THOSE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ADDRESSED THEIR CONCERNS AND WOULD PROTECT THE COMMUNITY. BUT THE OWNER DID NOT LIKE THOSE CONDITIONS. SO IT APPROVED -- IT APPLIED AGAIN FOR A NEW SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH THE CITY GRANTED IN JUNE OF 2021. THAT IS THE PERMIT UNDER REVIEW TODAY. THAT PERMIT DID NOT IMPOSE THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THE FEBRUARY SPECIAL USE PERMIT. NOW, IN GRANTING AN AB SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT THIS PROPERTY, CONSIDERATION REALLY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT IT IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES. FIRST RESPONDERS LIVE THERE. MEDICAL PERSONNEL LIVE THERE. THEY SLEEP THERE. THESE ARE THEIR HOMES. AND THEY WERE VERY, VERY AFFECTED BY WHAT WENT ON AT THIS PROPERTY. THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE POLICY 9.3.6 RECOGNIZES THAT ESTABLISHMENTS LICENSED TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MAY HAVE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS ON NEIGHBORHOODS. THE TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES SPECIAL USE APPLICANTS TO MEET CERTAIN GENERAL STANDARDS. HERE, THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED BY ITS OWN ACTIONS THAT IT WILL NOT MEET THOSE STANDARDS. IT WILL NOT ENSURE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE. IT WILL NOT OPERATE ACCORDING TO THE PLAN IT SUBMITTED. IT WILL NOT COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S REGULATIONS, AND IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. AGAIN, I CANNOT EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THE TRAUMA AND THE TERROR THAT WAS INFLICTED ON THIS COMMUNITY BY THIS ESTABLISHMENT. THE COMMUNITY IS, FRANKLY, TERRIFIED THAT IF THE OWNER IS ALLOWED TO REOPEN WITHOUT THOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, THAT IT WILL BE THE SAME NIGHTMARE ALL OVER AGAIN. THERE ARE FACT WITNESSES TO FOLLOW. JENNIFER JONES FROM THE ARLINGTON CONDOMINIUM WILL SPEAK FIRST AND THEN FERNANDO PEREZ FROM THE CITY LOFT TOWNHOMES AND SCOTT TANKEL FROM THE RESIDENTS OF FRANKLIN STREET WILL SPEAK TO THEIR EXPERIENCES WITH THIS VENUE. BUT WE ASK THAT IF YOU UPHOLD THIS DECISION TO APPROVE THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, THAT YOU WOULD ATTACH THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE PERMIT THAT WAS GRANTED IN FEBRUARY. THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL PROTECT THIS COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS JENNIFER JONES. I LIVE AT 1229 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, WHICH IS THE ARLINGTON ACROSS FRANKLIN STREET FROM MOLE AND ALSO REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNERS SITUATION TODAY. THE SITUATION CREATED BY MOLE LAST YEAR, THE COUNCIL HEARD TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES TALKING ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE ESTABLISHMENT. ONE OF THE EXAMPLES THAT STANDS OUT IN MY MIND WAS TUESDAY NIGHT AT 12:30 IN THE MORNING, THE DEEJAY THEY HAD ON THE ROOF USED AN AIR HORN OVER THE PA SYSTEM. AND THAT WAS OBVIOUSLY SHOCKING TO WAKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO AN AIR HORN RIGHT OUTSIDE YOUR RESIDENTS. I CANNOT DESCRIBE HOW LOUD IT WAS. YOU'LL HEAR FROM A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT THEY EXPEIENCED AS FAR AS CROWDS, CROWD NOISES, DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR, FIGHTS, FIGHTS IN THE PARKING LOT AND REALLY WHAT WE SAW WAS AN ESCALATION OF VIOLENCE THAT MOST CONCERNED US BASED ON THE PATRONS THAT WERE EXITING THIS ESTABLISHMENT. WE KEPT SEEING ACCIDENTS HAPPENING IN THE PARKING LOT AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING. THE FIGHTS WERE SO LOUD THEY WERE DRAWING OUR RESIDENTS OUT ONTO OUR FRONT PORCHES AT 2:00 IN THE MORNING. I REMEMBER THINKING SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET SHOT. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE DIDN'T WANT HAPPENING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE WERE VERY GRATEFUL THAT THIS COUNCIL SUSPENDED THEIR LICENSE AND SHUT THEM DOWN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE TRIED TO DO IS BE PROACTIVE AND MEET WITH MR. DAHMER AND WE DID. SEVERAL REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT THIS SITUATION HAPPENING WITH MOLE. THEY WERE INFORMED AT THAT TIME THAT MOLE WAS AT ITS MOST PROFITABLE WHEN IT WAS OPERATING AS A NIGHTCLUB. THAT'S REALLY THE PROBLEM. THIS WAS A RESTAURANT, AND THEY WERE OPERATING AS A NIGHTCLUB. THAT'S WHAT WE CAN'T HAVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO OUR HOMES. MR. DAHMER ALSO OWNS BELLOW DOWN OR IS INVOLVED IN THE OWNERSHIP OF BELLOW DOWN THE STREET AT 900 NORTH FRANKLIN. THAT'S ABOUT THREE BLOCKS AWAY FROM US. BELLOW IS STARTING TO DO THE SAME SORTS OF THINGS WE SAW AT MOLE, USING PROMOTERS, USING THE NIGHTCLUB TYPE OPERATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED RECENTLY THERE I EXPERIENCED MYSELF. I WAS WALKING MY DOG. IT WAS AUGUST 28, 7:30 AT NIGHT, STILL LIGHT OUT ON THE STREET. I SAW SOME PEOPLE EXITING MOLE WITH A VERY INEBRIATED YOUNG LADY WHO FELL ONTO THE SIDEWALK. SHE WAS CARRIED INTO THE STREET. SHE BLOCKED THE INTERSECTION. SHE HAD HER CLOTHES ABOVE HER WAIST. SHE WAS JOINED ON THE OTHER SIDE FROM ANOTHER CROWD OF PEOPLE AND A FIGHT BROKE OUT. YOU CAN IMAGINE THE MELEE IN THE STREETS. THEN I HEAR GUNSHOTS, BANG, BANG BANG. I HIT THE GROUND, COVER MY DOG, AFRAID I'LL GET SHOT. I CALLED 911 AS DID EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE AREA. THIS WAS A CROWDED STREET AT 7:30 ON A SATURDAY NIGHT. WHILE I'M ON THE PHONE WITH 911 OPERATOR, ANOTHER FIVE SHOTS RANG OUT, BANG, BANG, BANG, BANG BANG. THAT HAPPENED AUGUST 28 IN THE 900 BLOCK OF FRANKLIN. THAT'S WHAT WE CAN'T HAVE OUTSIDE OUR HOMES ON OUR DOORSTEPS. WE CANNOT HAVE A NIGHTCLUB ESTABLISHMENT OPERATING IN THAT MOLE PLACE. WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD TO HAVE A GREAT COMMUNITY. IT IS A LOVELY HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO MAINTAIN. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING THIS COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS OPERATOR WHO HAS CONTINUED TO SHOW THAT HE'S GOING TO CONTINUE THIS BEHAVIOR, JUST LIKE HE IS AT BELLOW RIGHT NOW, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO OPERATE IN THAT MANNER AT THE MOLE ESTABLISHMENT AT 1202. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MAY I ASK A QUESTION? MS. JONES, THANK YOU. ALL OF US RECEIVED FROM SOME PERIOD OF TIME TO SOME PERIOD OF TIME ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN. WE HAVE FAILED IN A WAY BECAUSE OF THE LAWS THE WAY THEY ARE WRITTEN, RESTRICT US TO DO TOO MUCH MORE. I CAN ALSO SAY THAT, IS THIS THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS DOING THIS NOW THAT OWNS BELLOW'S, THAT OWNS THE PRIOR ESTABLISHMENT? >> YES, SIR. MR. DAHMER OWNS THE PROPERTY AT 1202. -- SOME SORT OF FEEDBACK. MR. DAHMER WAS INVOLVED IN THE OPERATIONS AT 1202 WHEN IT WAS MOLE AND ABUELA. MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE GENTLEMEN MANAGING THAT RESTAURANT AND ALSO INVOLVED IN THE OWNERSHIP OF BELLOW. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THE OTHER PROPERTY, BELLOW, SAME THING IS HAPPENING NOW? >> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE OBSERVED AS RESIDENTS YES. WE'RE SEEING THEM USE PROMOTERS. THEY ARE DRAWING IN THESE NIGHTCLUB TYPES OF CROWDS. AND THE CROWDS, THE POLICE ARE HAVING TO COME TO DISPERSE THE CROWDS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. WE'RE SEEING FIGHTS BREAK OUT. AGAIN, FIGHTS TO THE POINT OF GUNSHOTS IS WHAT I SAW PERSONALLY ON THAT 900 BLOCK OF FRANKLIN ON AUGUST 28. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I WISH I HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE OWNER. I WISH THAT ALCOHOL ZONINGS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE LAND, THAT THEY WERE A LICENSE YOU COULD REVOKE BECAUSE OF WRONGDOING. THE LEGISLATURE SET UP THESE THINGS AND I'M NOT BLAMING ANOTHER GOVERNMENT. I THINK THAT ANYONE HERE, ANY ATTORNEY CAN TELL YOU WHAT IT IS. WHEN YOU ZONE ANY PART, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AN SRX LICENSE, BUT WHEN YOU ZONE A PROPERTY FOR A WET ZONING, IT'S FOR LIFE. THE LAND GOES WITH IT. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, MS. JONES. >> YES, SIR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: IF I MAY ASK YOU A QUESTION. IN ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER IT BE ONE LOCATION OR THE OTHER, THE TIMES THAT THESE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE OPEN, IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING? I ANSWER MY OWN QUESTION, YES, BECAUSE ONCE YOU GO PAST A CERTAIN TIME, THERE IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ELEMENT THAT VISITS THESE ESTABLISHMENTS. BUT WOULD YOU SUGGEST KEEPING THESE ESTABLISHMENTS -- NOT TO GO LATER AND KEEP EARLIER, WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE CODES THAT WE HAVE? >> YES, SIR. I THINK THAT WOULD HELP. AS MS. HATLEY POINTED OUT, NONE OF THE RESIDENTS OBJECTED TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE IN PERMIT NUMBER 2029. WE FELT LIKE THAT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED US. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PERMIT DID WAS IMPOSE OUR RESTRICTIONS -- HOUR RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATIONS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD BELIEVES THAT IF THE ESTABLISHMENT IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE LATER, THAT'S GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROBLEM OF THEM OPERATING AS A NIGHTCLUB. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THE ESTABLISHMENT -- THE BUILDING IN WHICH YOU'RE LIVING AND YOU REPRESENT THE OWNERS THERE, HOW MANY UNITS ARE THERE? >> THERE ARE 11 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND I BELIEVE TEN COMMERCIAL LIVE/WORK UNITS. WE HAVE RIGHT NOW APPROXIMATELY 20 RESIDENTS. >>JOSEPH CITRO: HOW CLOSE ARE YOU TO THE PROXIMITY OF THIS RESTAURANT? >> I LIVE ON THE VERY FRONT CORNER, SO I AM THE CLOSEST OF ANYBODY. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, MS. JONES. NEXT SPEAKER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS FERNANDO PEREZ. I LIVE AT 1212 NORTH FRANKLIN WITH MY WIFE. WE'VE LIVED THERE FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS. OUR HOME IS DIRECTLY NORTH OF MOLE. MY BEDROOM WINDOWS ARE ABOUT 60 FEET FROM THEIR ROOFTOP. MY FRONT DOOR IS ABOUT 60 FEET FROM THEIR FRONT DOOR. IF YOU'VE BEEN TO THE AREA, YOU KNOW THAT OUR LITTLE AREA OF DOWNTOWN IS A VERY UNIQUE RESIDENTIAL AREA, WHICH SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND WHICH IS THREATENED. LAST DECEMBER WE WERE HERE. I TESTIFIED AT THAT TIME, AND YOU HEARD ALL THE TESTIMONY ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON WITH MOLE. ONE THING I DO WANT TO MENTION BEFORE I GO FORWARD IS I WAS SURPRISED BY THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO YOU JUST NOW THAT THERE WERE ONLY 14 NOISE COMPLAINTS IN MAY OF LAST YEAR. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE CITY ATTORNEY LAST YEAR REPORTED OVER 300 CALLS DURING THE MONTH OF MAY LAST YEAR. I CAN TELL YOU THAT DURING THAT MONTH AND PRIOR TO MAY I MYSELF AND MY WIFE CALLED AND MADE NOISE COMPLAINTS OVER SEVEN TIMES FROM THE TIME THAT MOLE OPENED BECAUSE THE NOISE PROBLEM STARTED JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THEY OPENED UP. YOU ALSO KNOW, LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TESTIFIED, OF THE NIGHTMARE THAT WE LIVED THROUGH. POUNDING MUSIC THAT WOULD WAKE YOU UP. THE BASS BEAT WAKING YOU UP 3:00, 4:00 IN THE MORNING. CARS GOING BY, POPPING THEIR ENGINES AND REVVING THEIR ENGINES. SEX ACTS ON THE STREET. DRUG USE ON THE STREET. PEOPLE URINATING AND DEFECATING ON OUR PROPERTY. THIS IS WHAT ALL OF THIS BROUGHT. AND THIS IS WHY WE APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL BACK THEN AND WHY CITY COUNCIL SAW FIT TO SUSPEND THE LICENSE. LIKE IT'S BEEN REPORTED TO YOU, THEY THEN APPLIED FOR ANOTHER LICENSE. THAT LICENSE WAS GRANTED WITH A LOT OF CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS THAT WE AS HOMEOWNERS FELT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED US, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THE SHENANIGANS THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON. THE OWNERS OF MOLE DIDN'T LIKE THAT, SO THEY APPLIED FOR THE LICENSE THAT IS UNDER REVIEW TODAY. THAT LICENSE, UNFORTUNATELY, WAS ISSUED WITH NONE OF THOSE SAFEGUARDS. SO WE AS OWNERS FELT OUR PROBLEMS ARE GOING TO START ONCE AGAIN. SO LIKE MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT IF YOU CHOOSE TO KEEP THIS LICENSE IN PLACE, THAT YOU ATTACH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED ON THE PREVIOUS LICENSE. NOW, I KNOW AT THE LAST HEARING THE ATTORNEY FOR MR. DAHMER ARGUED THAT, WELL, WE'VE GOT NEW OWNER -- WELL, NEW PEOPLE NOW AND THE BAD APPLES ARE GONE, LIKE YOU'VE HEARD HERE BEFORE TODAY, DON'T BUY INTO THAT. MR. DAHMER HAS BEEN INVOLVED WITH FRANKLIN MANOR. YOU HAD TO SHUT THEM DOWN. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY WERE CITED FOR FIRE CODE VIOLATIONS AND UNDERAGE DRINKING. MR. DAHMER WAS INVOLVED WITH MOLE. YOU SHOULD THAT DOWN. HE'S NOW INVOLVED WITH BELLOW. I'LL ALSO ADD THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE MANAGING MOLE DURING ALL OF THE PROBLEMS THAT SHUT THEM DOWN LAST YEAR ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MANAGING BELLOW AT THIS TIME. SO THIS IS A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. LIKE YOU MENTIONED JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO, THE UNFORTUNATE THING HERE IS THAT WHATEVER GOES OR DOESN'T GO ON THIS LICENSE RUNS WITH THE LAND. SO EVEN IF WE HAVE SOMEONE NOW WHO IS WILLING TO GO IN AND OPERATE A RESTAURANT AND EVEN IF THAT PERSON WERE WILLING TO DO EVERYTHING TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF SIX MONTHS FROM NOW OR EIGHT MONTHS FROM NOW THAT PERSON LEAVES, THIS GOES BACK INTO SOMETHING BEING OPERATED BY MR. DAHMER, YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT HE WILL DO EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER TO VIOLATE OR EXPLOIT WHATEVER IS OR IS NOT IN THIS LICENSE. SO FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE REALLY BEGGING YOU, AS OUR LAST HOPE, TO LOOK OUT FOR US AND TO PROTECT US. AND IF YOU AGREE THAT THEY CAN HAVE THIS LICENSE TO REQUEST THAT ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED IN THE PREVIOUS LICENSE BE ADDED TO THIS LICENSE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS? >>JOSEPH CITRO: I'LL ASK ONE, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. I'M ALWAYS IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND. WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT AND IDEA OF COMMON GROUND? AND, AGAIN, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT I WISH I HAD THE AVAILABILITY TO GO TO A RESTAURANT, GO TO A NICE FINE BAR, GO TO THE ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS IN WHICH YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE WANT IT TO BE A NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WHAT IS THE COMMON GROUND? >> WELL, LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THE INDIVIDUAL WHO WANTS TO OPEN UP AN ESTABLISHMENT THERE, HE'S GOING TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. HIS NAME IS ASSAD YUSUPOV. I'VE SPOKEN TO HIM. WE HAD A MEETING FOR ANY INTERESTED RESIDENTS, LIKE ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO. HE TOLD US WHAT HIS VISION WAS FOR THAT RESTAURANT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS HE MENTIONED AT THAT MEETING WAS THAT REALLY THE ONLY THING HE WANTED IS HE WANTED THE ABILITY TO HAVE A COUPLE OF TVs ON THE ROOF BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE OLD LICENSE THAT WE WANT YOU TO -- THAT HAS THE CONDITIONS WE WANT SAYS NO AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE ROOF. HE SAID, WELL, THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT ME FROM HAVING A COUPLE OF TVs BEHIND THE BAR AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I NEED. WELL, WE FELT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK WITH. AND SO WE WERE HEADING IN THAT DIRECTION, BUT THAT DIDN'T PAN OUT. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING GOING ON. WE WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN BE ABLE TO WALK OUT OF OUR HOUSE AND GO GRAB A FINE MEAL NEXT DOOR OR SOMETHING ON THE WAY TO THE PERFORMING ARTS CENTER, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO OR THREE BLOCKS AWAY. THAT'S WHAT WE HAD WITH FLY BAR FOR OVER TEN YEARS. BUT DIFFERENT OWNER WITH FLY BAR, AN OWNER WHO WAS VERY RESPONSIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY NAYSAYERS, BUT WE ALSO, BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THIS GROUP, WE HAVE TO PROTECT OURSELVES. AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WE'RE LIKE A DOG THAT'S BEEN KICKED. WE'RE VERY GUN SHY. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ORLANDO GUDES: BASICALLY -- >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: CHAIRMAN, MAY I SAY ONE THING IN MR. PEREZ, I THINK YOU'RE A GREAT INDIVIDUAL. YOU CAN WITHSTAND MUCH MORE THAN I COULD. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WHEN YOU RENT OUT PROPERTIES RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES I'M TALKING ABOUT, NOT THIS TYPE OF PROPERTY, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLAINS ABOUT LOUD MUSIC IN YOUR AREA AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, YOU KNOW WHO THEY GO AFTER? EVEN IF THERE'S GARBAGE ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S NOT THE RESIDENTS, THEY GO AFTER THE OWNER, NOT THE RESIDENTS. CODE ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES WHO'S CREATING THE PROBLEM WHEN YOU HAVE RENTAL PROPERTY. SORRY, THE WAY THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN, IN THIS CASE, ALCOHOL GOES WITH THE LAND. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT AND UNRAVEL THAT, IT TAKES 15,000 PHILADELPHIA LAWYERS TO DO THAT. AND WE ONLY GOT ONE SHOT AT GETTING THIS RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR ASKING QUESTIONS AS ANY WITNESS. IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE TO EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM THEM BASED ON THEIR EXPERIENCE AND BASED ON WHAT THEY TESTIFY AND YOU CAN DO THAT WITH ANY WITNESS. IT'S TO YOUR ADVANTAGE TO DO SO. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO BE VERY CONSCIOUS, IF YOU CAN, OF REFRAINING FROM MAKING ANY CONCLUSIONS UNTIL YOU HEAR ALL THE WITNESSES JUST SO THAT YOU HAVE A TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY PASS JUDGMENT ON THE EVIDENCE AS YOU HEAR IT BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE WHOLE CASE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU, THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTIONS AND JUST TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT MAKING ANY CONCLUSORY STATEMENTS, NOT TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE, BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, JUST TO REMIND YOU WHAT YOUR ROLE IS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE IN EVIDENCE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ANY ADDRESS -- I JUST MADE REFERENCE TO HOW LAWS ARE APPLIED DIFFERENTLY IN SOCIETY. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY MORE WITNESSES? >> THIS IS PAMELA JO HATLEY FOR THE PETITIONERS. WE HAVE ONE MORE WITNESS. SCOTT TANKEL. HE'S ONLINE APPEARING REMOTELY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MADAM DEPUTY CLERK, DO WE HAVE HIM? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CAN YOU HEAR ME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES, SIR, WE CAN HEAR YOU. TURN YOUR CAMERA ON TO BE SWORN IN SIR. >>THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT-HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> I DO. >>THE CLERK: THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS SCOTT TANKEL. I LIVE 1108 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET. I AM THE BOARD PRESIDENT OF THE RESIDENTS OF FRANKLIN STREET. WE ARE A 40 UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX JUST 40 FEET SOUTH. MANY OF OUR BALCONIES ACTUALLY EXTEND AND LOOK OVER THE ROOFTOP. THE RESIDENTS OF THE BUILDING INDIVIDUALS DOCTORS NURSES FIRST RESPONDERS AND PROFESSIONALS WHO HAVE EACH SUFFERED AS A RESULT OF MOLE ABUELA. OUR COMMUNITY STRONGLY OPPOSES ANY PERMIT THAT WOULD ENABLE THE RESTAURANT TO BEHAVE IN A MANNER OTHER THAN WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE WHICH IS A RESTAURANT. MOLE ABUELA IS LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A NUMBER OF OTHER CONDOMINIUM COMPLEXES AS YOU HEARD. THESE PROPERTIES CONSIST OF OVER 100 RESIDENTS WHO PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN HARMONY WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT THAT WAS OPERATING THERE PRIOR TO MOLE Y ABUELA. ALTHOUGH IT INITIAL OPENED AS A RESTAURANT IT TRANSITIONED TO A NIGHTCLUB BECAUSE THAT WAS MORE PROFITABLE. YOU CAN BET THAT ANY RULES THAT DON'T PREVENT THEM FROM OPERATING IN SUCH A MANNER THEY WILL EXPLOIT THAT. THE RESIDENTS OF OUR CONDOMINIUM HAVE SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE CHAOS THAT MOLE PERPETRATED UPON OUR COMMUNITY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT ALREADY. IT INVOLVED UNRULY AND DRUNKEN BEHAVIOR, FIGHTS AND VIOLENCE OUTSIDE OUR DOORS, OUR RESIDENTS WERE TOO TIMID TO WALK THEIR DOORS AT NIGHT AS A RESULT OF THE CROWD MOLE WAS APPEALING TO. WE SUFFERED FROM MUSIC AND BASS BLARING FROM MOLE'S ROOFTOP AND INSIDE THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT, AMPLIFIED SOUND SYSTEMS THAT WERE SCREAMING FROM THE ROOFTOP. WHAT RESTAURANT INVOLVES PEOPLE SCREAMING FROM A ROOFTOP? THERE WAS PUBLIC URINATION ON THE TREES AND OUTSIDE ON OUR BUILDING BECAUSE WHEN MOLE Y ABUELA WAS OPERATING AS AN ALCOHOL-FOCUSED ESTABLISHMENT, THE RESTAURANT'S RESTROOMS, WHICH THERE ARE ONLY TWO, DO NOT SUFFICE. PEOPLE WILL FIND THEIR OWN WAY. THERE WERE DISREGARDS FOR THE COVID ORDINANCE, DRUG USE, STREET RACING, TRASH STREWN THROUGHOUT THE STREETS, TPD AND THE FIRE MARSHAL, THEY HAVE DOCUMENTED THIS, CODE ENFORCEMENT. TAKEN PRIOR TESTIMONY. MOLE'S LIQUOR LICENSE WAS PREVIOUSLY SUSPENDED. THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: GIVE YOU 30 SECONDS SIR. >> UNLESS THERE ARE EXTREMELY STRICT CONDITIONS ON THEIR OPERATION. THESE CONDITIONS WERE ALREADY PLACED UPON MOLE. AB 1-2029. AS YOU HEARD ALREADY, OUR BUILDINGS DID NOT OBJECT TO THAT. WE FELT LIKE WE COULD SLEEP AT NIGHT AS A RESULT OF THOSE CONDITIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. >> -- NO RESTAURANT COULD OBJECT TO THESE TYPES OF CONDITIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. DINGFELDER, HE'S PRESENT, MADAM DEPUTY CLERK. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I JUST WALKED IN WHATEVER TIME IT IS, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO SHOW FOR THE RECORD THAT I'VE BEEN WATCHING AND LISTENING TO THESE PROCEEDINGS SINCE THEY BEGAN JUST REMOTELY. BUT I'VE HEARD THE EVIDENCE SO FAR. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. COTTON. MR. COTTON STILL THERE? >>ERIC COTTON: YES, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. AS IT RELATES TO THE LICENSING, RESTAURANT NIGHTCLUB, IS THERE SUCH A LICENSE OR JUST AN OPERATION? >>ERIC COTTON: NO, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A RESTAURANT AND A NIGHTCLUB IN CHAPTER 27. MOLE, THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL THAT THEY WERE OPERATING UNDER, THE AB 1-14, 69 OR WHATEVER, WAS FOR A RESTAURANT. SO THAT'S WHAT THEIR APPROVAL WAS FOR. THEY WERE NOT APPROVED AS A NIGHTCLUB. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR FROM PETITIONERS IS NIGHTCLUB ACTIVITY IS -- SEEMS TO BE THE PROBLEM. SO THE LICENSING THEY ARE APPLYING FOR NOW DOES NOT STATE ANY TYPE OF NIGHTCLUB, CORRECT, SIR? >>ERIC COTTON: CORRECT. THE LAST APPROVAL WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT FOR THIS PETITION FOR REVIEW TODAY WAS AS A RESTAURANT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. I'LL WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE AND THEN I'LL ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO RESTRICTIONS. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PETITIONER WITH HER 15 MINUTES. WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION BY THE OWNER, WHO HAS 15 MINUTES OR REPRESENTATIVE. WOULD THAT BE MR. CRAMER? I DID ORDER DINNER FOR US. THERE'S DINNER COMING FOR US. I KNOW WE DIDN'T REALLY GET A CHANCE TO EAT TODAY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CREMER, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN. >> YES, I'VE. JAKE CREMER WITH STEARNS WEAVER MILLER, 401 EAST JACKSON STREET. COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE AGREE, THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER. WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RESIDENTS' FEEDBACK ON OUR MOST RECENT APPLICATION. WE HAD ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO I CAN REPORT WE HAD PROBABLY THE MOST PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY MEETING IN TERMS OF CIVILITY AND FEEDBACK ON AN APPLICATION, THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COMMUNITY MEETING THAT I'VE BEEN TO IN A LONG TIME. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE PRESENTING SOME REVISED CONDITIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE LAST OPENING COMMENT ALSO I'LL MAKE AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MY PARTNER, JESSICA, TO RUN THROUGH OUR PROPOSAL IS THAT WE'RE HERE TODAY, OUR DECISION, ALL OF US COLLABORATIVELY ARE MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THE PROPERTY. WE'RE NOT HERE TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT INDIVIDUALS. WE'RE FOCUSED ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE ALREADY HAVE A PERMIT IN PLACE ON THIS PROPERTY. WE'RE ASKING FOR RELATIVELY MINOR CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY SO THAT WE CAN GET A GOOD QUALITY OPERATOR IN. AND HE'S HERE TODAY TO SPEAK TO YOU. FIRST, I'LL LET JESSICA RUN THROUGH OUR PROPOSAL. THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS. JESSICA ICERMAN WITH STEARNS, WEAVER MILLER. I'LL GO AHEAD AND POINT OUT AGAIN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, THIS IS THE OLD FLY BAR MOLE Y ABUELA PROPERTY. IT IS IN DOWNTOWN TAMPA. IT IS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. BOTH ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, WHICH, AS YOU ARE VERY WELL AWARE, IS A VERY INTENSE DISTRICT, WHICH HAS A LOT OF LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY ADJACENT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DISCUSS TODAY IS THE MISCONCEPTIONS. FIRST, THIS ESTABLISHMENT WILL BE A NIGHTCLUB. THIS ESTABLISHMENT WILL NOT BE A NIGHTCLUB. WE APPLIED FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERMIT THAT WAS OPERATED UNDER MOLE Y ABUELA AND A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERMIT THAN THE 2020 APPROVAL, WHICH IS THIS PERMIT, WHICH IS BEING CONSIDERED TODAY. WE SPECIFICALLY APPLIED FOR A RESTAURANT PERMIT. THAT IS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THE NIGHTCLUB PERMIT. THIS MEANS THAT THIS ESTABLISHMENT MUST BE OPERATED AS A RESTAURANT AS DEFINED IN YOUR CODE, AND THAT REQUIRES 51% SALES IN FOOD WITH ANNUAL REPORTS OF THOSE SALES PROVIDED BOTH TO THE CITY AND TO THE STATE. THE ESTABLISHMENT ALSO HAS STRICT HOURS OF OPERATION WHICH DO NOT COINCIDE WITH NIGHTCLUB HOURS. I'LL GO THROUGH WHAT THOSE HOURS ARE WITH YOU VERY SHORTLY. WE ALSO HAVE PROPOSED A CONDITION TO PROHIBIT ANY DEEJAYS. AS YOU HEARD, NOISE AND THE THUMPING NOISES FROM DEEJAYS WAS A SERIOUS CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND WE DO NOT TAKE THAT LIGHTLY, SO WE ARE ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO PLACE A CONDITION TO NOT ALLOW DEEJAYS ON THE PROPERTY. THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL ALSO HAVE A DECIBEL LIMIT FOR ALL AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP AND LIMITED PERMITTED HOURS ON THE ROOFTOP FOR AMPLIFIED SOUND. AND THIS, AGAIN, IS DUE TO THE NUMEROUS NOISE COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS. THE NEXT MISCONCEPTION I WANT TO DISCUSS IS THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT WILL OPERATE BY THE SAME BAD ACTORS. AS MR. CREMER POINTED OUT, THIS PERMIT RUNS WITH THE LAND. IT'S NOT WHO OWNS IT. IT'S NOT WHO OPERATES IT. IT'S REALLY THE LAND AND WE NEED CONDITIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SATISFACTORY FOR ANY OPERATOR TO COME IN AND SUCCESSFULLY RUN A RESTAURANT AND ANY OWNER DOWN THE ROAD. BUT BECAUSE THE BAD ACTORS ARE SUCH AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS CASE AND HAVE BEEN RAISED SEVERAL TIMES, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT, MR. DAHMER, HAS SEVERED ALL TIES WITH THE BAD ACTORS WHO WERE THE OPERATORS OF MOLE Y ABUELA. THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE PROPOSED CONDITIONS TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE OPERATIONS THAT WERE ANYTHING LIKE MOLE Y ABUELA WITH THE LIMITED HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE NO DEEJAY REQUIREMENTS, THE SOUND REINSTRUCTIONS, ET CETERA, AND ALSO IN AN EFFORT TO REBUILD TRUST, WE HAVE ENGAGED THE OPERATOR OF HAIKU, WHICH IS A SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANT OPERATING DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW TO OPERATE THIS PROPOSED LOCATION. THESE ARE SOME QUICK RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE MR. ASADYUSUPOV COME UP AND GIVE A REVIEW OF HIS RESTAURANT. >> ASAD YUSUPOV, OPERATOR OF HAIKU, SWEET FISH, EDEN, AND THIS IS THE CONCEPT FOR BORN AND BRAISE, WHICH IS THE NAME WE'RE THINKING ABOUT GOING WITH AT THE FORMER MOLE Y ABUELA. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ADDED A ROOFTOP PERGOLA -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CREMER, HAVE ALL YOUR WITNESSES BEEN SWORN? >> YES, SIR, THEY HAVE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. >> AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ADDED A ROOFTOP PERGOLA. THAT'S GOING TO HELP A LOT WITH THE SOUND ABATEMENT ISSUES. THE INTERIOR AND THE DESIGN THAT WE WENT WITH, AS YOU CAN SEE BASED ON THE RENDERINGS IS A VERY HIGH-END RESTAURANT. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION OR DESIRE TO DO A NIGHTCLUB, AND I DO WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR. THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAVE HERE IS LIKE A HIGH-END AMERICAN RESTAURANT. >> HE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. MR. COTTON SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS APPLICATION, WHICH IS WHETHER A WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR, AB 1-21-20 IS A SPECIAL RESTAURANT APPLICATION. THE PRIOR 2020 APPLICATION WAS FOR A SMALL VENUE AND THE MOLE Y ABUELA PERMIT WAS ACTUALLY UNDER A BAR LICENSE. SO THIS IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PERMIT WITH SPECIAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON IT. IT WILL NOT OPERATE AS A NIGHTCLUB. SO WE HAVE TALKED A LOT ABOUT CONDITIONS. SO, AGAIN, AFTER THE AB 1-21-20 PERMIT WAS APPROVED, IT IMPOSED SEVEN CONDITIONS. WE HELD A COMMUNITY MEETING, AND WE HAVE NOW -- WE ARE OFFERING TO AMEND THREE OF THOSE CONDITIONS AND IMPOSE FIVE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS. I'D LIKE TO WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE. AND TODAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A BINDER FROM OUR OFFICE WITH THIS PRESENTATION. IT IS TAB 1, IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG, IF YOU CAN'T READ THE TEXT QUITE WELL HERE. SO THE FIRST THREE AMENDED CONDITIONS WE ARE PROPOSING INSTEAD OF HAVING HOURS OF OPERATION TO FOLLOW CHAPTER 14, WHICH WOULD ALLOW A RESTAURANT TO STAY OPEN UNTIL 3 A.M., WE ARE PROPOSING TO RESTRICT THAT TO 11 P.M. SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND MIDNIGHT ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS. ADDITIONALLY, ON NUMBER FOUR, WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD AND/OR LIVE MUSIC. IN ADDITION TO NO AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP AFTER 10 P.M. ON SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 11 P.M. ON FRIDAY OR SATURDAY, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING NO LIVE MUSIC. AND ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE VIDEO EQUIPMENT, WE ARE CLARIFYING THAT THE VIDEO EQUIPMENT MUST BE MUTED AFTER THOSE NOISE HOURS OF OPERATION. FOR THE FIVE ADDED CONDITIONS, WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCLUDE A CONDITION TO NOTE, CLARIFY AND REEMPHASIZE THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT MAY NOT OPERATE AS A BAR OR A LOUNGE AS DEFINED IN SECTION 27-43. ADDITIONALLY, THE ESTABLISHMENT MAY NOT OPERATE AS A NIGHTCLUB AS DEFINED IN SECTION 27-43 AND DEEJAYS ARE NOT PERMITTED. ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE CLARIFYING THAT LIVE BANDS WHICH ARE ACCESSORY TO THE RESTAURANT OPERATIONS AND COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS WITHIN THIS PERMIT ARE PERMITTED. AGAIN, THOSE WOULD BE A BAND THAT PLAY LIKE A PIANO OR ACOUSTIC GUITAR, WHO ARE PLAYING WHILE TH RESTAURANT PATRONS ARE EATING THEIR BRUNCH, LUNCH, DINNER. IT IS NOT A LIVE BAND WHERE YOU GO TO THE FACILITY TO WATCH THE LIVE BAND. IT MUST BE AN ACCESSORY TO THE RESTAURANT. OUR PROPOSED CONDITION NUMBER 11 IS UTILIZING NOISE-LIMITING EQUIPMENT AND LIMITING THAT NOISE TO 71 DECIBELS. AND YOU WILL HEAR FROM OUR NOISE EXPERT VERY SHORTLY ABOUT OUR 7. AND ALSO CLARIFYING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT MUST COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE 3, WHICH IS THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED. JUST AS A VERY QUICK LOOK, YOU CAN SEE OUR PROPOSED ACTIVITY HOUR RESTRICTIONS ARE AT MOST 11 P.M. FOR THE HOURS OF OPERATION, BUT PRIOR TO THAT AT 10 P.M., THE ROOFTOP NOISE MUST CLOSE. ALL DOORS, WINDOWS, SLIDING PANELS MUST CLOSE. ALL VIDEO EQUIPMENT MUST BE DONE BY 10 P.M. AND ON FRIDAYS AND SATURDAYS YOU ADD AN HOUR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NEW YEAR'S EVE TO 2 A.M. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR NOISE EXPERT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GARY UVILERA. A PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND TECHNOLOGY IN TAMPA. AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN. IF YOU GO TO THE PROJECTOR, YOU'LL SEE THAT I CONDUCTED A REVIEW OF THE FACILITY, INCLUDING THE ROOFTOP AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I REVIEWED THE CONDITIONS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THOSE INCLUDED IN THE PERMIT. IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE LIMITATION ON HOURS OF OPERATION, AS WELL AS THE SOUND LEVEL LIMITS WHEN OPERATING WILL BE PROTECTIVE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE. PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE INSTALLATION AND USE OF AUTOMAIC VOLUME CONTROLLERS REPRESENTS A PROVEN TECHNOLOGY AND A COMMITMENT TO GO BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE PERMIT AND FOUND WITHIN THE CODE THAT CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN BY MUSICIANS OR OTHERS. YOU HAVE SEEN PICTURES FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS. THIS DIAGRAM TURNS THOSE INTO DISTANCES, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CLOSEST DISTANCE IS 43 FEET TO THE SOUTH. TO THE NORTHEAST IT'S 88 FEET. FROM 60 TO 122 FEET AWAY FROMRE- THE BUILDING, BE IT THE ROOFTOP OR THE FLOOR. YOU HEARD MS. ICERMAN SAY THAT THE SOUND LEVEL LIMIT IMPOSED BY THE PROPOSED REVISED CONDITIONS WILL BE 71 DECIBELS AS AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED BY THE ELECTRONIC CONTROLLER. SO NOISE DISSIPATES WITH DISTANCE UNDER WHAT'S CALLED THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW. AND AS SUCH, IF THE SOUND LEVEL ON THE ROOF OR ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE BUILDING IS 71 DECIBELS, THEN THE LEVELS RECEIVED OUTSIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES SHOWN HERE WOULD DECREASE TO BETWEEN 44 AND 35 DECIBELS. THAT'S AT THE OUTSIDE. INSIDE, THE LEVELS WOULD BE LOWER BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS USED TO BUILD THESE BUILDINGS. AND IN COMPARISON, 50 DECIBELS IS TYPICALLY PRESENT INSIDE AN URBAN RESIDENCE AND ALSO OUTSIDE A QUIET RESIDENTIAL SUBURB. SO, IN FACT, APPLICATION OF THESE CRITERIA WOULD RESULT IN SOUND LEVELS INSIDE THAT ARE NOT PERCEPTIBLE. BY COMPARISON, THE NOISE LEVELS EXPERIENCED BY OTHER FACILITIES IN TAMPA ARE MUCH CLOSER, AND THE RESTRICTIONS ARE COMPARABLE, BUT IN OTHER CASES, ONGOING UNTIL 3 A.M. SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. SO, IN CONCLUSION, AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET, MY OPINION IS THAT A SET OF CONDITIONS HAS BEEN CRAFTED THAT WOULD BE PROTECTIVE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CONFORM WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE, AND NOT CREATE -- OR I SHOULD SAY AND CREATE REASONABLE LEVELS OF SOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO THE FACILITY. THANK YOU. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK A QUESTION, SIR? I'M NOT GOING TO. I'M NOT A SOUND EXPERT. YOU ARE. SO THEN I'M ASSUMING BY THE WAY I READ SOME OF THESE THINGS THE WORD "IF" AND THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER, THAT YOU HAVE NOT CREATED, YOU HAVE NOT IN ESSENCE MEASURED THE 80 FEET AND HAD ANY SOUND AT 60 DECIBELS TO SEE IF IT REACHED. THESE ARE ASSUMPTIONS ON YOUR PART BASED ON PRIOR BUILDINGS THAT YOU'VE DONE, IS THAT CORRECT, OR NOT? YOU HAVE NOT TESTED THIS BUILDING OUT AT DIFFERENT LEVELS AT DIFFERENT DISTANCES FROM WHERE THE SOUND COULD BE COMING FROM, AM I CORRECT OR NOT? >> YOU'RE CORRECT. WE HAVE NOT TESTED SOUND LEVELS IN OR ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING. HOWEVER, THE BASIS FOR MY CONCLUSION IS, AS I SAID, LAWS OF PHYSICS, SOUND AND NOISE IS RADIANT ENERGY. AND AS IT RADIATES OUT AWAY FROM THE SOURCE, IT DISSIPATES IN INTENSITY BECAUSE IT'S SPREADING ACROSS A LARGER AREA. AND THAT'S WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW OF PHYSICS. AND AS A RESULT, EVERY TIME YOU DOUBLE THE DISTANCE FROM THE NOISE SOURCE, THE LEVEL WILL DECREASE BY ABOUT 6 DECIBELS. NOW, OTHER FACTORS COULD CAUSE IT TO DECREASE MORE. THE PRESENCE OF VEGETATION, SOUND ABSORPTION MATERIAL, ET CETERA. BUT JUST PASSING THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE, THAT IS THE DISSIPATION THAT OCCURS, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS IN MY REPORT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I CAN ALSO TESTIFY THAT SOMETIMES IF A STADIUM, A BIG STADIUM THERE ON THE CORNER OF TAMPA BAY BOULEVARD AND DALE MABRY, SOMETIMES THEY HAVE CONCERTS THERE, 40, 50,000 PEOPLE THERE, AND THE COMPLAINTS I GET ARE MOSTLY NOT FROM WEST TAMPA. THEY ARE FROM SOUTH TAMPA ON THE OTHER SIDE OF KENNEDY BOULEVARD BECAUSE THERE'S AN UPSWING IN THE WIND. THEY GET THE SOUND, NOT WEST TAMPA. WHEN THERE ARE EVENTS AT ANOTHER PLACE CLOSER TO THE WATERFRONT ON THE RIVER, I GET COMPLAINTS FROM THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH BECAUSE EVIDENTLY SOUND TRAVELS BETTER WHEN THERE IS A BODY OF WATER. I DON'T KNOW. THESE ARE THE COMPLAINTS I GET. EITHER I TELL MYSELF I'M CRAZY OR THEY ARE MISDIALING THE NUMBER. I'M NOT QUESTIONING YOU, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE EXPERT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT SOUND SOMETIMES TRAVELS LONGER AND FURTHER BECAUSE OF THE UPSWING, DEPENDING HOW THE MOVE IS COMING AND WHAT DIRECTION THE WIND IS BLOWING. >> ACKNOWLEDGED. HAVING SAID THAT, REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT A CONCERT AT RAYMOND JAMES STADIUM, YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT 115 TO 120-DECIBEL. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MINIMUM. >> INTENSITY. AT THE THRESHOLD OF PAIN, SERIOUSLY. SO AS A RESULT, THE AMOUNT OF DISTANCE IT TAKES 130 DECIBELS TO DROP DOWN TO 40 OR 50 IS APPROACHING MILES, NOT FEET. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING WHAT YOU'RE SEEING. WE SAW THE SAME THING IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AT THE AMPHITHEATER. AND I WAS ON EPC'S TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEN THEIR RULES WERE BEING REWRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO THE AMPHITHEATER ISSUES, AND THAT WAS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'VE EXPERIENCED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO AND THEN MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOSEPH CITRO: AS COUNCILMAN MIRANDA HAS STATED, YOU ARE THE EXPERT, BUT YOU SAID YOU HADN'T TESTED THE SOUND THAT IS COMING FROM THE ROOFTOP. DID YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ECHOING THAT WILL HAPPEN BOUNCING OFF ALL THESE TALL BUILDINGS SURROUNDING THAT PROPERTY? >> YES, BUT, AGAIN -- >>JOSEPH CITRO: I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT YOU TALK ABOUT THE EFFECT OF TRAVELING DISTACES. WELL, THERE'S BUILDINGS VERY CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ECHOING THAT WILL BE GOING ON WITH THAT. PLEASE PROCEED. >> IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 100, 110-DECIBEL SOUND LEVELS, I WOULD AGREE. BUT LET ME ADVISE YOU THAT 71 DECIBELS IS LESS THAN YOU'RE HEARING RIGHT NOW. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THAT'S IF THE OWNERS OR THE PROPOSED OWNERS STICK TO THE 75 DECIBELS. >> THE CONDITION PROPOSED BY THE OWNER, MR. CREMER'S FIRM, INCLUDES THE REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL AUTOMATIC NOISE LIMITING CONTROLLERS THAT CANNOT BE TAMPERED WITH AND CANNOT BE OVERRIDDEN. AND IN SO DOING, YOU THEN -- THAT PROVIDES YOU WITH ASSURANCE THAT THE DECIBEL LEVELS WON'T GET TO 100 OR 75 OR 80 BECAUSE THEY ARE FIXED, JUST LIKE CRUISE CONTROL ON YOUR CAR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I HOPE THAT IS TRUE, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S SOME YOUNG MILLENNIAL OUT THERE, GEGY OR C THAT WILL OVERRIDE THAT WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, SIR. I HAD I THINK TWO BASIC QUESTIONS. SOMEBODY SAID EARLIER, I THINK IT WAS SOMEBODY ON YOUR TEAM PERHAPS. THEY SHOWED A PICTURE OF A PERGOLA AND THEY SAID THIS SHOULD HELP WITH THE NOISE. AND THEN AS THEY SHOWED A WOODEN SLATTED STRUCTURE. AND THAT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THAT ISSUE? >> NO, WE ADDRESSED IT RATHER FROM THE CONTROL THE SOURCE POINT AS COMPARED TO TRYING TO CONSTRUCT A BARRIER OR SOME SORT OF ABSORPTIVE APPROACH. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A WOODEN SLATTED PERGOLA IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE SOUND MITIGATION? >> I WOULD NOT CALL IT A NOISE BARRIER NO. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. MY OTHER QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE BANDS, AS LONG AS THEY ARE USING ELECTRONIC AMPLIFIED EQUIPMENT, THAT PERHAPS THESE DEVICES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONTROL THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT CAME TO MIND WITH ME WAS DRUMS. BECAUSE THE CONDITION, THE PROPOSED CONDITION SAYS LIVE BANDS, AND I THINK A LIVE BAND MIGHT HAVE A DRUMMER AND HOW DO YOU CONTROL A DRUM? AM I ON THE RIGHT TRACK THERE? WOULDN'T IT BE HARD TO CONTROL A DRUM WITH ONE OF THESE DEVICES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR A SET OF DRUMS. >> IT DEPENDS ON THE SET OF DRUMS YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I KNOW THERE ARE ELECTRONIC DRUMS. >> RIGHT. AND THEY WOULD BE CONTROLLED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THEY WILL BE CONTROLLABLE BUT I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T GO CLUBBING ANYMORE. NEVER DID REALLY. JUST SQUARE. BUT ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT, WHOEVER IS ON YOUR TEAM, JAKE, JUST THROW IT OUT THERE THAT DRUMS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCERN BECAUSE I DON'T REALLY SEE A TRADITIONAL DRUM SET AS BEING CONTROLLABLE. THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO CALL UP CYNTHIA SPIDELL, OUR EXPERT PLANNER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA SPIDELL, A PLANNER WITH STEARNS WEAVER AT 401 EAST JACKSON STREET. I HAVE BEEN SWORN. COMPLETE PLANNING REPORT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU FOR THE RECORD. I WON'T GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT. HOWEVER, I JUST WANTED TO STATE FOR THE RECORD MY CONCLUSION FROM ANALYZING THE PROPOSED USE FOR CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE COMP PLAN AND YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPERTY AS CONDITIONED THROUGH THE SPECIAL USE 1 PERMIT HAS ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED CONSISTENCY AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CURRENT AND FUTURE SURROUNDING USES AND BALANCES PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH PUBLIC INTERESTS. ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AGREED TO BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY VOLUNTARILY DEMONSTRATES AN EXCEEDING WILLINGNESS TO SATISFY NEIGHBORHOODS' CONCERNS ABOVE AND BEYOND CITY REGULATIONS AND OTHER COMPARABLE ESTABLISHMENTS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MS. SPIDELL, DID YOU DO A COMPARABLE ANALYSIS ON THE PRIOR TENANT AND THEIR USES, SPECIFICALLY THE ONES THAT WERE COMPLAINED ABOUT BY THE NEIGHBORING -- THE NEIGHBORS ALONG THAT STREET? >> NO. WHAT I DID WAS I LOOKED AT THE CURRENT APPROVAL, THE LATEST ONE FROM JUNE AND COMPARED THAT WITH OTHER COMPARABLES, SPECIFICALLY NINE OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS WITH SIMILAR APPROVALS AND SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS AND JUST COMPARED THEIR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH THE ONES FROM THE JUNE PERMIT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU'RE SAYING EVEN WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT YOU THINK IT'S COMPLETELY CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE -- >> THE WAY STAFF APPROVED IT IN JUNE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: INCLUDING THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND THE WHOLE NINE YARDS? >> CORRECT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: 3:00 IN THE MORNING. >> NO. THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO DO A 3:00 IN THE MORNING WITH THE JUNE APPROVAL. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THEN THAT WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE JUNE APPROVAL. >> CORRECT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHICH ARE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE SEEING HERE TONIGHT. >> YES, EXPANDED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> JESSICA ICERMAN FOR THE RECORD. WE HEARD A LOT OF TALK TODAY ABOUT THE PRIOR APPROVAL AND CURRENT APPROVAL. ON SLIDES 21 AND 22 IN YOUR BINDER, THERE IS A HANDY CHART THAT HAS -- I'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT IT ON THE PROJECTOR -- IT HAS THE PRIOR APPROVAL'S CONDITIONS AS WELL AS WITH OUR IMPOSED AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THESE ARE GRAYED OUT BECAUSE THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME, AND THAT CONDITION IS THE REQUIREMENT TO OPERATE AS A RESTAURANT. HERE, THIS IS THE PRIOR APPROVAL'S HOURS OF OPERATION AND YOU CAN DIRECTLY COMPARE IT WITH WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION. IN ADDITION, YOU CAN SEE, AGAIN, WE HAVE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL HOURS AND COUNCIL MEMBER DINGFELDER, WE WOULD NOT OBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THERE SHALL BE NO DRUMS ALLOWED ON THE ROOFTOP. >> THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MADAM CLERK, THAT'S THEIR TIME, CORRECT? ALL RIGHT. GENTLEMEN, IT'S AFTER 5:00. WE'VE GOT STILL CROSS AND WE'VE GOT PUBLIC COMMENT, WHICH WE HAVE A TON OF PUBLIC COMMENT, CORRECT? >>THE CLERK: I HAVE -- [INAUDIBLE] >>ORLANDO GUDES: HOW MANY DO WE HAVE ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >>MARTIN SHELBY: LATEST COUNT BESIDES THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: IT'S AFTER 5, GENTLEMEN. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND BREAK FOR A RECESS AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. 15 MINUTES, 15, 20 MINUTES GOOD. >>MARTIN SHELBY: 15 MINUTES. [ SOUNDING GAVEL ] [RECESS] >>ORLANDO GUDES: COUNCIL IS BACK IN SESSION. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >> MANISCALCO? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HERE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: HERE. >>LUIS VIERA: HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HERE. >>THE CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. WE LEFT OFF, WE'LL START OUT WITH THE CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE PETITIONER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF ANY. >> PAMELA JO HATLEY FOR THE PETITIONERS, I HAVE NO CROSS-EXAMINATION. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: PAMELA, MR. DINGFELDER HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU. YOU'RE RECOGNIZED, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: JUST REPEATING WHAT I SAID EARLIER, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD. I LISTENED TO ALL THE TESTIMONY EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T IN THE ROOM. I HEARD IT ON MY CELL PHONE. MS. HATLEY, ALL OF THIS BEGS THE QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS FEEL ABOUT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN TERMS OF -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT LINES UP EXACTLY WIT WHAT YOU ALL WERE LOOKING FOR AND THAT SORT OF THING. >> WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS, AND THERE ARE IMPORTANT STICKING POINTS. SO WE'RE NOT THERE YET. I'LL ADDRESS MORE ON REBUTTAL, I SUPPOSE, PROCEDURALLY THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BUT AS WE PRESENTED IN OUR PRINCIPAL CASE, THE PETITIONERS ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PLACED ON THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FROM FEBRUARY 2021. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHAT'S THE DELTA? WHAT'S THE GAP BETWEEN THE TWO? OR YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT IN YOUR CLOSING? >> WELL, SPECIFICALLY THE ROOFTOP IS PROBLEMATIC AND SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP IS VERY PROBLEMATIC. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? WE'LL GO TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: CROSS-EXAMINATION IS THE REQUEST. IS THERE ANY CROSS-EXAMINATION? >> JAKE CREMER FOR THE RECORD, NO CROSS-EXAMINATION ON OUR SIDE. THANK YOU. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, MR. CREMER, IN A SENSE OF FAIRNESS, I HAVE TO ASK ONE QUESTION, AND THEN I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ANOTHER ONE. DOES THE PETITIONER, DOES THE% PROPERTY OWNER HAVE ANY VESTED INTEREST AND/OR RELATED IN ANY SHAPE OR MANNER BY BLOOD OR BY MARRIAGE TO THE POTENTIAL PROPRIETOR SIGNING A LEASE FOR THIS? >> NO. NO, SIR, NO INTEREST OTHER THAN THE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. THERE'S NO FAMILY RELATIONSHIP OR BLOOD RELATIONSHIP, ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PURE BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING, OUR GOAL IS TO GO OUT AND TRY TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY SPECIFICALLY BY FINDING A SUCCESSFUL OPERATOR WITH EXPERIENCE IN DOWNTOWN. SO THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT ON THIS OPERATOR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: AGAIN, AS I DID WITH THE OTHER SIDE, WHAT IS THE COMMON GROUND HERE? IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE COMMON GROUND IN YOUR OPINION? >> YES, SIR, IT IS. I THINK WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS EVEN IN THE HALLWAY HERE TO TRY TO FIND WHETHER THERE'S ANY OTHER COMMON GROUND, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED AS STAFF'S APPROVED CONDITIONS PLUS THE ADDITIONAL REVISIONS AND THE FIVE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WE PRESENTED, I BELIEVE THAT IS THE COMMON GROUND AFTER OUR COMMUNITY MEETING. WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 25 PEOPLE AT THAT MEETING, COUNCILMAN, AND, AGAIN, IT WAS A GREAT MEETING. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE ADDITIONS WE ARE PROPOSING CAME FROM A COMMENT IN THAT MEETING. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THE REASON WHY I ASK THAT IS A VERY GOOD MENTOR OF MINE BOB BARRYCOT ONCE TOLD TWO PEOPLE THEY NEED TO GO OUT IN THE HALLWAY AND SOLVE IT THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE THE ANSWER THEY ARE GOING TO RECEIVE. I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ELSE? I GUESS WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. MY NAME IS JOHN McDONALD. I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. I RESIDE AT NORTH FRANKLIN ABOUT 60 FEET AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. I'M IN OPPOSITION OF APPROVING THE CURRENT PROPOSAL REQUESTED BY THE OPERATOR. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE LANDOWNER, NOTHING AGAINST THE OPERATOR. I'M SURE THEY ARE GREAT PEOPLE, AND I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST AND CAN'T DEBATE THE SOUND EXPERT, BUT I WELCOME YOU ALL TO COME AND HANG OUT AT MY HOUSE, PERHAPS CRAWL IN BED FOR AN EVENING. I CHOSE TO LIVE IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. I LOVE IT. IT'S GREAT. I'M EXCITED ABOUT A POSSIBLE RESTAURANT COMING. I UNDERSTAND. I ACCEPT NOISES. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS DIFFERENT THAN LIVING PERHAPS ON THE END OF DAVIS ISLAND OR UP IN PASCO COUNTY ON A RURAL PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT LETTING THIS GO WITHOUT THE FINE POINTS ADDRESSED OR THE Is DOTTED AND THE Ts CROSSED. I ALWAYS LEARNED THAT TRUST BUT VERIFY. SO I HATE TO ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH AND THEN SOME MACHINE JUST LIKE COUNCILMAN BROUGHT UP, THAT SOME MILLENNIAL CAN MANIPULATE. WHY DON'T YOU GIVE ME THE CONTROLS ACROSS THE STREET WHILE I'M SLEEPING AND MAYBE I'D TRUST THAT. I'M NOT SURE THAT A SOUND EXPERT CAN VERIFY OR CONVINCE ME THAT A DECIBEL OF XYZ IS GOING TO BE APPROPRIATE AND IF IT'S GOT THIS GOVERNOR ON IT AND SO FORTH, I ALREADY DEAL WITH WHAT IS NOISE -- NOISES OF DOWNTOWN THAT I CAN'T DEAL WITH. IT'S OUT OF MY CONTROL. THIS IS IN MY CONTROL. I WELCOME AN OPERATOR TO COME IN THERE AND SERVE GREAT FOOD. HAVE COCKTAILS, HAVE BANDS EVEN, BUT WITHIN LIMITATION AND A REASONABLENESS. SO THE TERM THAT REALLY STUCK WITH ME TODAY, WHAT IS THE COMMON GROUND? AND THEN ONE I ALWAYS THINK OF IS REASONABLENESS. WE AS RESIDENTS WANT TO HAVE CONTROL. WE WANT THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONTROL AND ASKING COUNCIL TODAY TO HELP US HAVE THAT CONTROL BY NOT OPENING UP THE GATE, IF YOU WILL, AND OFFERING MORE THAN WHAT IS REALLY REASONABLE. OUR UNIQUE LITTLE PART OF DOWNTOWN IS IN ESSENCE DEFINED AS BEING IN THE URBAN CORE, LIVE, WORK, AND ENTERTAIN AND SO FORTH, BUT WE ARE A UNIQUE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE NATION THAT ARE CALLED UNIQUE, IN MY OPINION, MAKE UP A SPECIAL PART OF THE URBAN CORE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. PLEASE CONSIDER US AS RESIDENTS AND IF YOU WOULD ALLOW FOR A BAND TO PLAY ON THE ROOFTOP OF YOUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, KIND OF KEEP THAT IN YOUR MIND. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING THIS EVENING. WE APPRECIATE THAT. >> NO PROBLEM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL. I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. MY NAME IS LUCIANO PRIETO. 1106 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET SINCE DECEMBER 1st, 1986. IN 2005, MY SON AND I DEVELOPED THE RESIDENCES OF FRANKLIN STREET. I CURRENTLY LIVE AT 1108 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET UNIT 705 WHICH IS ON THE CORNER RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE BUILDING. AFTER LISTENING TO EVERYTHING TODAY, MY COMMENTS, I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY TODAY OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WHEN FLY BAR CAME THERE, LESLIE SHERAW WAS VERY RESPECTFUL. THERE WERE NO ROOFTOPS IN TAMPA. SHE BROUGHT THAT CONCEPT FROM SAN FRANCISCO WITH HER. SHE HAD A FLY BAR IN SAN FRANCISCO. AND SHE WAS VERY RESPECTFUL. THE ONLY NOISE ON THE ROOFTOP IS WHEN SHE'D PROJECT LIGHTNING GAMES ON THE TOWNHOMES ACROSS THE PARKING LOT, SO THERE WAS -- THERE WAS THE SOUND OF THE ANNOUNCER BUT THAT NEVER LASTED PAST 9:00. THE SOUND EXPERT WAS INTERESTING. THE QUESTION IS, WHO IS GOING TO POLICE THAT AND HOW DO YOU POLICE IT? AND I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THINGS HAVE TO BE CONSTANTLY POLICED. I CAN TELL YOU DURING THE TIMES THAT THIS BECAME A BAR AND DURING THE COVID, IT WAS AWFUL. AND I'M AT THE TOP UNIT, SO I DO HAVE SOME PROTECTION, BUT THE MUSIC WAS AWFUL. AND EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON IN THE STREET WAS EXACTLY WHAT EVERYBODY SAID. SO WHAT WAS -- WHAT I ALSO LEARNED TODAY IS THE ZONING, AND I NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, IS CONNECTED TO THE LAND AND NOT THE OPERATOR. SO FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE OPERATOR. I FIND HIM TO BE HONEST IN TRYING TO PUT A CONCEPT TOGETHER THAT I WOULD THOROUGHLY ENJOY BEING ABLE TO GO OUT TO DINNER AGAIN, WALK ACROSS THE STREET AND HAVE A GREAT DINNER. BUT LET ME GET BACK TO THE ROOFTOP NOISE, WHICH IS -- THAT'S THE ISSUE AT THE END OF THE DAY BECAUSE THE FLY BAR HAD MUSIC, BUT IT WAS DOWNSTAIRS INSIDE. THEY HAD JAZZ. I THINK ABOUT 9:00 AND GO UNTIL 11:00, BUT IT WAS INSIDE. IT WAS NOT ON THE ROOFTOP. AND WHAT PLACE IN THIS TOWN, WHAT RESTAURANT IN THIS TOWN ALLOWS ROOFTOP MUSIC, THAT HAS ROOFTOP MUSIC? ALL THE EXAMPLES THAT THE EXPERTS CITED -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: 30 SECONDS. >> -- THEY WERE ALL INSIDE. ANYWAY, I JUST -- THAT IS THE PARTICULAR ISSUE. THE FEBRUARY RESTRAINTS I WOULD SUPPORT. OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD NOT SUPPORT WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING PROPOSED BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO POLICE THAT. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY MORE SPEAKERS ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >> CHAIRMAN, DEBBIE MERCER, THERE ARE NO MORE SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO SECURITY FOR HELPING US OUT THIS EVENING. MADAM DEPUTY CLERK, WE HAVE HOW MANY REGISTERED CALLERS? >>THE CLERK: [MICROPHONE NOT ON] >>ORLANDO GUDES: WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN. IF YOU WOULD ALL RAISE YOUR HANDS TO BE SWORN, PLEASE. >>THE CLERK: PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO. >>THE CLERK: THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WHO DO YOU HAVE UP FIRST? MR. MASON. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS LASSITER MASON. IN 2007, I PURCHASED UNIT A AT THE ARLINGTON CONDOMINIUM AT 1229 NORTH FRANKLIN. UNIT A IS ALMOST RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE LOCATION IN QUESTION. LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND I'LL BE BRIEF TONIGHT, I'M ONE OF THE ORIGINAL INVESTORS IN THE ARLINGTON AND THE NORTH FRANKLIN HISTORIC DISTRICT. BEFORE WE ALL GOT TOGETHER AND RISKED INVESTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE WAS NOTHING THERE. IT WAS DEAD. WE LED THE CHARGE. WE INVESTED BECAUSE WE HAD FAITH AND ENVISIONED IT COULD BE A GREAT, QUIET RESIDENTIAL GEM JUST ON THE EDGE OF DOWNTOWN. WE DID THAT AND THEN OTHERS CAME. AND THEY INVESTED IN THIS VISION. AND WE ENDED UP WITH A GREAT, QUIET, RESIDENTIAL GEM JUST ON THE EDGE OF TOWN. THE APPEAL WAS THAT IT WAS NOT YBOR CITY. I'VE OWNED PROPERTY IN YBOR AND SOLD IT BECAUSE OF THE STRUGGLE OF MANAGING TENANTS IN YBOR. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AGAIN. IF MOLE WANTS TO OPEN A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY RESTAURANT WITH OCCASIONAL LIVE MUSIC, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE IT. HOWEVER, IF THEY WANT AN YBOR-STYLE CLUB WITH DEEJAYS, THUMPING BASS UNTIL LATE IN THE MORNING AND DRUNKS OUT ON THE STREET, THEY CAN GO TO YBOR. YBOR WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM FOR THAT. JUST DON'T DO IT HERE. DON'T DO IT IF YOU ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE MASTER BEDROOM OF THE CONDO I OWN. DON'T DO IT IF YOU ARE LITERALL SURROUNDED BY DOZENS AND DOZENS OF OTHER RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH OCCUPANTS THAT WANT TO BE ABLE TO SLEEP AT NIGHT SO THEY CAN GO TO WORK IN THE MORNING AND EARN MONEY TO PAY THEIR PROPERTY TAXES. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE RISING ASPIRATIONS OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD TRAMPLE THE RIGHTS OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AND RESIDENTS THAT TOOK RISKS TO INVEST IN THE NORTH FRANKLIN HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT HAVE BEEN QUIETLY COEXISTING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR YEARS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANKS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. DAN TRAUGOTT. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M DAN TRAUGOTT. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE DOWNTOWN RIVER ARTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I WANTED TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TONIGHT, I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS THAT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE ASKING FOR CONDITIONS AND SO FORTH. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE AREA AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DOWNTOWN, OF COURSE, HAS BECOME A DENSE RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND THERE ARE BUSINESSES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FIT WELL WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES THAT FIT WELL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT THEY ARE GOOD COMMUNITY PARTNERS. I'VE SPOKEN SEVERAL TIMES WITH ASAD, THE OWNER -- OR THE PROSPECTIVE LESSEE OF THE BUILDING. I THINK HE HAS A GREAT PLAN. I THINK I COULD TRUST HIM TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WHAT DOES CONCERN ME, THOUGH, IS THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OF COURSE, IS ASKING FOR CONDITIONS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT ASAD HAS ACTUALLY STATED THAT HE WOULD OPERATE UNDER. AND, OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT THESE CONDITIONS WOULD GO WITH THE BUILDING. I DON'T WANT TO JINX ASAD IN WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO, BUT WHAT IF WHAT HE'S DOING DOESN'T WORK OUT AND HE HAS TO LEAVE IN A FEW YEARS AND A NEW OPERATOR COMES IN AND THE NEW OPERATOR WOULD WORK UNDER THE DIFFERENT SET OF CONDITIONS THAT ARE ACTUALLY PERMITTED IN WHATEVER YOU MIGHT APPROVE TONIGHT. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO SHARE MY SCREEN OR IS THAT NOT SOMETHING THAT I CAN -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES, YOU CAN DO THAT. >> YES, OKAY. THIS PARTICULAR -- ARE YOU SEEING THE MAP? SO THE SOUND ENGINEER CAME IN A WHILE AGO AND SHOWED YOU A TECHNICAL SCHEMATIC. THIS MAP SHOWS MOLE WHICH IS THE BUILDING IN THE CENTER OF THE MAP AND THEN THE LARGE BUILDING AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MAP IS THE RESIDENCES OF FRANKLIN. IF YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A NOTATION THERE THAT THERE'S ONLY 31 FEET OF DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ROOF OF MOLE, THE MOLE BUILDING AND FRANKLIN STREET BUSINESS BEDROOMS. THAT'S THEIR ACTUAL BEDROOM WINDOWS THERE, 31 FEET AWAY FROM THE ROOF OF MOLE. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT ANY OPERATOR THAT GOES IN HERE BE A RESPONSIBLE BUSINESS OWNER AND RECOGNIZES THAT PEOPLE ARE SLEEPING RIGHT THERE 31 FEET AWAY FROM THE ROOFTOP. ALSO, PLEASE LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING STREETS AND OTHER BUSINESSES AND BUILDINGS AROUND THERE. THESE ARE ALL HARD SURFACES. THE AUDIO ENGINEER THAT CAME IN TALKED ABOUT DISSIPATION OF SOUND OVER CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF DISTANCE AND SO FORTH. BUT AS COUNCILMAN CITRO, I THINK, POINTED OUT, DOWNTOWN IS ALL HARD SURFACES. NOISE ECHOS AROUND AND IT TRAVELS AND COMES FROM DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AND SO FORTH AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY DISSIPATE BOUNCING AROUND. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU'RE RECOGNIZED SIR. >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES, MR. TRAUGOTT, THIS IS MARTIN SHELBY, THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY, I JUST WOULD REQUEST OF YOU, IF YOU WANT WHAT YOU SHARED YOUR SCREEN TO BE PART OF THE RECORD, THAT YOU DO SUBMIT IT WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE END OF THIS MEETING TO COUNCIL, QUASI-SUBMISSIONS@TAMPAGOV.NET. THE INSTRUCTIONS ARE ON THE CITY COUNCIL WEB PAGE AT TAMPA.GOV/CITY COUNCIL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. WINSBERG. >> THANK YOU. I LIVE AT 1229 FRANKLIN, WHERE THE 76 FEET -- I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAID. I WANT TO REITERATE A COUPLE OF POINTS, MOST IMPORTANTLY THE POINT ABOUT THE ZONING CHANGES THAT ADHERE TO THE BUILDING. THE CONCERN IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT THE INTENDED OWNER HERE WOULD BE A DISTURBANCE, BUT THAT WE WOULD BE GRANTING PRIVILEGES THAT WOULD ALLOW FUTURE OWNERS IN PERPETUITY TO CREATE DISTURBANCES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO IT WAS EXTREMELY LOUD, AND UNPLEASANT HERE A YEAR AGO OR WHATEVER IT WAS, BEFORE THEY WERE SHUT DOWN. I WOULD ALSO WANT TO REITERATE THE POINT ABOUT THE THEORY THAT THERE CAN BE DEVICES ON THE ROOFS THAT COULD KEEP THE VOLUME LOW. THE PHRASE TRUST BUT VERIFY IS A PEACEFUL ONE THERE. THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING TO GIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AN ABILITY TO VERIFY. THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ON THEM TO ENSURE WAS HAPPENING. WHICH DOESN'T SEEM PARTICULARLY RELIABLE TO ME FOR THE RESTAURANT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ALL I HAVE TO ADD. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. MR. YEE. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ROBERT YEE. I RESIDE AT 1218 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, WHICH IS IN THE CITY LOFTS. MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS DOWN HERE FOR OVER 12 YEARS. WE LOVED HAVING FLY BAR THERE. THEY WERE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. RESPONSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ENJOYED GOING OVER THERE TO EAT OCCASIONALLY. YOU ALREADY HEARD ALL THE TRAUMA AND TERROR WE EXPERIENCED WITH MOLE Y ABUELA. EVEN THOUGH I ATTENDED THE MEETING WITH MR. ASAD A WEEK AND A HALF OR SO AGO, WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT WHAT HE TOLD US COULD COME TO FRUITION IF HE WAS GOING TO BE THE OPERATOR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT. AS MR. PEREZ HAD POINTED OUT THAT MR. ASAD PASSED ON US AREN'T IN WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED NOW. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. I'LL RELY ON OUR ATTORNEY TO POINT THOSE OUT. WHAT I WILL SAY, IS I HAD SOMETHING I WAS GOING TO READ YOU BUT I WON'T REHASH ALL THE TRAUMA WE'VE EXPERIENCED LAST YEAR PRIOR TO YOU SHUTTING THEM DOWN. I DID HAVE SOME CONDITIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU TO IMPOSE ON THEM. ONE OF THEM WAS NO OUTDOOR MUSIC OF ANY KIND AND SPECIFICALLY NO MUSIC ON THE ROOFTOP DECK. WE HAVE NO WAY OF POLICING THAT. WHEN IT GETS LOUD, WE CALL THE POLICE, THEY COME, THEY TURN IT DOWN FOR A WHILE. FIVE MINUTES LATER IT'S BACK UP% WE CAN'T RUN AROUND WITH DECIBEL METERS. THE POLICE COME. THEY DON'T HAVE A DECIBEL METER. I CAN TELL YOU THAT MR. COTTON HAD SAID THERE ARE ONLY SEVEN CALLS FOR ASSISTANCE. I BELIEVE OVER 300 LAST MAY. NOT ONE SINGLE CITATION WAS ISSUED AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THE POLICE DIDN'T DO IT. THEY HAD A SQUAD ON-SITE. TAMPA FIRE RESCUE OR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SHUT THEM DOWN. ANY EVENT, WE WOULD LIKE NO ROOFTOP MUSIC AT ALL AND ALSO A CONDITION TO ALLOW THEM TO FUNCTION AS A RESTAURANT WITH OPERATING HOURS CONSISTENT WITH THE RESTAURANT. I DON'T BELIEVE SERVING ALCOHOL AFTER 10:30, 11:00 AT NIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH A RESTAURANT. AGAIN, I WILL REEMPHASIZE, PLEASE, NO ROOFTOP MUSIC AT ALL. NO OUTSIDE MUSIC. I CAN'T IMAGINE SOMEBODY WANTING TO EAT AND HAVE A NICE DINNER AND HAVING LOUD MUSIC. MAYBE I'M TOO OLD FOR THIS. ANY RATE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. IS THAT IT, MADAM CLERK? >>THE CLERK: YES, THAT WILL CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS? >>MARTIN SHELBY: IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN. MARTIN SHELBY. THANK YOU. IF THE STAFF HAS ANY COMMENTS, NOW WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME. IT WOULD ALSO BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. AGAIN, A REMINDER THEN BEFORE REBUTTAL, COUNCIL SHOULD AT LEAST TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE ALL ITS QUESTIONS ANSWERED SO THE ATTORNEYS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE LAST WORD BEFORE COUNCIL DELIBERATES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. MR. COTTON -- MS. JOHNSON VELEZ, YOU'RE UP FIRST AND THEN MR. COTTON. >> [MICROPHONE NOT ON] [MICROPHONE NOT ON] >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I'LL START OVER. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ, SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. I WANT TO PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY SAYING I HAVE ONLY JUST LOOKED THIS AFTERNOON FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS INCLUDE IN THE BINDERS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO YOU AND THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN THIS AFTERNOON. SO I HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A CHANCE TO FULLY DIGEST THEM. BUT I WILL SAY WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED CONDITION 11 AND 12 WITH REGARD TO THE NOISE LIMITING EQUIPMENT AND COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 14, AND THAT'S ON PAGE 21 BEHIND TAB 1, SO SEVERAL THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT STANDARDS ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY CODE. IF YOU'LL RECALL, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE PAST YEAR SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NOISE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND YOU DO HAVE A NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT'S IN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING RIGHT NOW. SECOND READING IS COMING UP ON NOVEMBER 4th. BUT THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHERE THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED, DOES NOT UTILIZE A DECIBEL LEVEL STANDARD TO MEASURE NOISE. THEY USE A PLAINLY AUDIBLE STANDARD, WHICH IS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE CITY. SO I BELIEVE IT WILL BE PROBLEMATIC TO ESTABLISH ANY TYPE OF DECIBEL LEVEL WHETHER IT'S BASED ON SOUND-LIMITING EQUIPMENT OR OTHERWISE BASED ON A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AND SITE PLAN BY SITE PLAN. YOU'LL RECALL THAT WE'VE SAID EVERY TIME WE'VE BEEN BEFORE TO YOU DISCUSS THE NOISE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO PROVIDE A PREDICTABLE AND UNDERSTANDABLE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO NOISE AND THIS PROPOSAL SPECIFICALLY CONDITION NUMBER 11 IS JUST NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH THAT COUNCIL HAS BEEN TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THESE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE COTTON HAS ANY FURTHER COMMENTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I THINK MR. DINGFELDER HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS SUSAN. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT DOWNTOWN AND THE REASONABLE, WHAT IS IT, A REASONABLE -- >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: REASONABLE LOUD AND RAUCOUS, MEASURED IN THIS AREA BY PLAINLY AUDIBLE STANDARD. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THE FLIP SIDE IS WHEN WE DO PDs, WE OFTEN VARY FROM OUR -- THE LOCAL STANDARD IN A LOT OF WAYS. I KNOW THIS ISN'T A PD, BUT IT'S A SPECIAL USE, I GUESS. I DON'T KNOW. IF THEY'VE GOT THE METERS AND THEY ARE USING THE METERS ELSEWHERE, WE'RE STILL GOING TO USE METERS ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY RIGHT? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THE METERS ARE USED IN THE YBOR DISTRICT AND IN THE ARENA DISTRICT, WHICH ARE THE ONLY TWO AREAS IN THE CITY CURRENTLY BY CODE -- WELL, THE CHANNEL DISTRICT STILL, BUT YOU'RE HALFWAY ON YOUR WAY TO TAKING THAT OUT OF THE STANDARD. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO AREAS WHERE TPD OFFICERS WOULD EVEN HAVE A DECIBEL METER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BUT THAT'S NOT THAT FAR AWAY, NEITHER YBOR -- NEITHER YBOR NOR THE ARENA DISTRICT IS NOT THAT FAR AWAY. AND IF TPD HAS THE EQUIPMENT, AND IT'S AN ISSUE OVER HERE, THEN THEY COULD DO IT. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S FEASIBLE. I DON'T THINK -- I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S NEW TAMPA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. HALL A METER ALL THE WAY OUT TO NEW TAMPA. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HALF A MILE. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, WHICH I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON, IS TRADITIONALLY WHEN WE HAVE CONDITIONS WE WOULD LIKE SOMEBODY TO USE AND ACCEPT, WE KIND OF POLITELY FROM THIS DAIS ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY ARE WILLING TO -- RIGHT, JOE -- IF THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT CERTAIN HOURS OF OPERATION OR NOISE LIMITATIONS OR LIGHT AND THAT SORT OF THING. I THINK WE'VE BEEN INSTRUCTED IN THE PAST NOT TO IMPOSE THOSE CONDITIONS WITHOUT SOME SORT OF APPROVAL -- EXPRESSED APPROVAL FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN FRONT OF US, THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AM I REMEMBERING CORRECTLY? I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED, IF WE DON'T GET AGREEMENT, ARE WE IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN SAY -- LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FINE WITH THIS, IF WE PUT THE CONDITIONS ON THAT THEY HAD BEFORE, X, Y AND Z, WHICH IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT I'M SEEING THEM OFFER TONIGHT. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ANSWER ON THE FLY -- NO PUN INTENDED -- THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT AND GET BACK TO US BEFORE WE DELIBERATE. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SO IS YOUR QUESTION ONE SET OF CONDITIONS OR THE OTHER OR SOME COMBINATION? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I KNOW WE CAN ALWAYS ASK THE OWNER TO ACCEPT CERTAIN CONDITIONS, BUT IF THEY RESPECTFULLY DECLINE, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT POSITION WE'RE IN AT THAT POINT. CAN WE STILL IMPOSE THOSE CONDITIONS THAT THEY RESPECTFULLY DECLINE, OR DO WE JUST DROP BACK TO THE ONES THEY HAVE OFFERED? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY, HERE'S MY COMMON GROUND. IF THIS OWNER MAY HAVE SET ANY TYPE OF CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, CAN WE GIVE THEM A TRIAL PERIOD? LET'S SAY -- HANG ON MARTY, I SEE YOU GOING LIKE THIS. JUST HYPOTHETICALLY SAYING BECAUSE OF THE PAST HISTORY AND PEOPLE ARE FEARFUL, CAN WE GIVE SOME SORT OF TRIAL PERIOD, A YEAR, TWO YEARS, AND THEN THEY COME BACK TO US AND SAY, WE'VE BEEN GOOD. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. THAT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THE NEIGHBORS SAY, YES, THEY HAVE BEEN. I'M JUST ASKING. DO WE HAVE THAT WITHIN OUR POWER? >>MARTIN SHELBY: YOU USED TO. WHEN I FIRST CAME ON, WE DID HAVE THAT. AFTER A YEAR'S PERIOD, MAYBE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD RECALL WHO HAVE BEEN HERE, THAT WAS AMENDED OUT OF THE CODE BECAUSE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY WOULD COME BACK AFTER THE YEAR AND YOU'D HAVE A PROCESS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO COME BACK. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I WOULDN'T SAY IT WOULD BE A GIVEN. AGAIN, IF THEY PLAYED NICE WITH THE NEIGHBORS. THAT'S MY COMMON GROUND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: BOTTOM LINE, WHAT I HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER AND FROM PUBLIC COMMENT, SEEMS TO BE MAKING SURE IT'S NOT A NIGHTCLUB ESTABLISHMENT, THAT IT IS A TRUE RESTAURANT, 5149 DOING MORE FOOD THAN ALCOHOL, PER SE, WHICH IS THE RULE, AND IT'S MANAGED AS A RESTAURANT, PER SE, BUT IT MAYBE HAS SOME LIKE JAZZ WHEN YOU'RE EATING. WHAT I'M HEARING, MAKING SURE IT IS NOT A NIGHTCLUB ESTABLISHMENT AND NO AMPLIFIED MUSIC SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP. SEEMS TO BE THE GENERAL CONCERN THIS TIME. MR. COTTON, IT COMES BACK TO WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT NIGHTCLUB VERSUS RESTAURANT. >>ERIC COTTON: YES, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS COUNCIL COULD PUT ON THAT AND ALSO PERTAINING TO THE ROOFTOP. >>ERIC COTTON: ERIC COTTON, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. SPECIAL RESTAURANT, WHICH WAS THE LAST APPROVAL THAT WAS GRANTED TO THEM, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT LICENSE FROM THE STATE. SO THEY HAVE TO EACH YEAR, ANYBODY WITH A RESTAURANT DESIGNATION FILED WITH THE CITY, THEIR RECEIPTS AND THEIR COMMERCIAL INSURANCE SAYING THAT WE HAVE 51% FOOD, 49% ALCOHOL OR WHATEVER THAT IS, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T GO, THEY DON'T CHANGE THE PERCENTAGES. ON TOP OF THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING A LICENSE FROM THE STATE THAT REQUIRES THEM TO BE A RESTAURANT, THEY ALSO HAVE THAT FILING REQUIREMENT WITH THE STATE AND THEY CAN ALSO GET AUDITED BY THE STATE. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE CITY DOESN'T AUDIT PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE IN VIOLATION. IF THEY WERE TO FILE WITH THE CITY TO SAY THEY WERE AT 60% ALCOHOL, WE WOULD TAKE THEM THROUGH CHAPTER -- SECTION 314 AND WE RUN THEM THROUGH THE SUSPENSION PROCESS SORT OF LIKE WHAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE WHEN PEOPLE DON'T COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS. I HAVEN'T DONE ALCOHOL IN A LONG TIME. THIS IS SORT OF NEW TO ME AGAIN. I HAVEN'T CHECKED THE CODE SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE SECTION IS. BUT IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH THE CODE, WE WOULD BRING THEM BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. IT'S THE SAME WITH ANY -- HOWEVER THIS TURNS OUT TONIGHT WITH THE CONDITIONS, IF THEY VIOLATE THOSE CONDITIONS, THEY WILL COME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL AS AN ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHERE COUNCIL HAS THAT ABILITY. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THE NEIGHBOR, IF THE APPLICANT FROM THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, MOLE Y ABUELA WOULD BE OKAY WITH HAVING NO SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP. THEY'VE HEARD THE DISCUSSION TONIGHT, AND I KNOW ON WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING ORIGINALLY, IT WAS NO AMPLIFIED OUTDOOR SOUND OR LIVE MUSIC AFTER 10:00, SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, 11 ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE WILLING TO CHANGE THAT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THEM AS YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS NOW. >>ORLANDO GUDES: BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T GO WITH THE LAND, PER SE. >>ERIC COTTON: IT RUNS WITH THE LAND, SPECIAL USE RUNS WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THAT WOULD GIVE THE CONDITION ON THEM SAYING, HEY, YOU'VE TOLD US YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OUTDOOR MUSIC ON THE ROOFTOP. THAT MEANS WHETHER IT BE THE PROPOSED PERSON OR SOMEBODY FIVE OR TEN YEARS FROM NOW, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THAT SAME APPROVAL THEY ARE WORKING WITH, THEY CAN'T HAVE OUTDOOR MUSIC OR OUTDOOR SOUND. REMEMBER, THE APPROVAL, WHATEVER HAPPENS TONIGHT, THAT WILL RUN WITH THE LAND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE NIGHT LIFE. EVEN WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, USUALLY HOURS OF A NIGHTCLUB START ABOUT 10:00. AND THE KNIT CLUB IS MORE LUCRATIVE THAN THE RESTAURANT A LOT OF TIMES BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN IS MAKING SURE THE NIGHTCLUB ISSUE AND THE ROOFTOP. MR. MIRANDA, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND THIS HAS NO BEARING ON THE VOTE ON ALCOHO, BUT I NEED TO KNOW THE CAPACITY VERSUS THE SQUARE FOOT DOWNSTAIRS AND THE CAPACITY AND SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE ROOFTOP. WHAT'S THE CAPACITY? NO ONE HAS TALKED ABOUT CAPACITY. NO ONE HAS TALKED ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE. I JUST WANT TO KNOW, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF WHAT LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT RESTAURANTS AND BAR MANAGEMENT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT SOMETIME IN '74, EITHER SPICOLA, CHILLURA -- ONE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE OTHER BARGES, COPELAND, DUNCAN, PLANT, FREEMAN AND MIRANDA. THE WHOLE BOARD WOULD COME AROUND HAVE THE AUDITS, THE CITY WOULD DO THE AUDITS AND EACH ONE WOULD COME IN EITHER WITH A CHECK IN HAND TO PAY THE FINE BECAUSE THE AUDIT DIDN'T MATCH. THEY WOULD ACTUALLY DO AN AUDIT OF YOUR 60/40, AND THAT WAS DONE BY US AND THE STATE. AND THEN WE FOUND OUT THAT REALLY WE CHANGED THE ORDINANCE 41/49 SOMETIME IN '79 OR '76. THAT'S HOW IT BECAME WHAT IT IS TODAY. THAT MANY YEARS IT'S BEEN IN EFFECT. NOW I SEE NO ONE. I SEEING AT LEAST ONE AND A HALF TIMES THIS WHOLE BUILDING, THIRD FLOOR FILLED WITH INDIVIDUALS WITH A CHECK IN THEIR HAND OR ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. THOSE THINGS ARE GONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S BEING DONE. I DON'T KNOW -- WE DON'T DO THE AUDITS, I GUESS. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I'M NOT ASKING FOR THAT. IT'S GOT TO BE A SYSTEM. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SORRY TO INTERRUPT. HERE IS THE APPLICATION. IT SAYS INDOOR AB SALES AREA. I'M READING EXHIBIT B-2 MR. SHELBY. 3386 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS, OUTDOOR AB SALES AREA. I ASSUME THAT'S UPSTAIRS. 3386 TOTAL 6772 SQUARE FEET. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NOW I'M GETTING A BETTER PICTURE. THE LITTLE I KNOW ABOUT RESTAURANTS, IF YOU CALL GROSS SALES, THAT'S AFTER YOU PUT IN THE COST OF GOODS AND THE COST OF -- THEN YOU HAVE NET SALES. AND THAT NUMBER VARIES ABOUT TEN TIMES THE DIFFERENCE. I KNOW, I BELIEVE I KNOW WHAT THE GROSS SALES IS ON ALCOHOL, WHAT THE GROSS SALES IS ON FOOD IN ORDER SQUARE FOOT, 7600 SQUARE FOOT, WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE PAYMENTS ON IT. I CAN GIVE YOU A BALLPARK. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THERE. WHAT I'M SAYING, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE -- I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT WILL BE HELD AGAINST THIS TRIBUNAL HERE TODAY. I'M NOT GOING THERE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I ALREADY KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'M NOT GOING THERE. THAT'S ALL. I'M LIKE YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M REVIEWING IN MY OWN THOUGHTS THE UPSTAIRS. NOISE DOESN'T TRAVEL TOO WELL IN A CLOSED BUILDING. IT DOESN'T TRAVEL AT ALL. IT BOUNCES OFF THE WALL AND COMES BACK AT YOU. IF THE DOORS ARE CLOSED AND WINDOWS ARE CLOSED, I'M SURE THEY'VE GOT AIR-CONDITIONING AND ALL THAT, UPSTAIRS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM BEGINS BECAUSE NOISE TRAVELS DEPENDING ON HOW THE WIND BLOWS OR WHAT DIRECTION AND WHAT HEIGHT. WIND SOMETIMES FALLS DOWN. WIND SOMETIMES PICKS UP. DEPENDS HOW IT GOES. SO THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THE UPSTAIRS, NOT THE DOWN STAIRS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GOING ONCE, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >>ERIC COTTON: MR. MIRANDA DID ASK WHAT THE OCCUPANCY IS. PER THE CURRENT APPROVAL THEY WERE APPROVED FOR TOTAL OF 271 PERSONS, 155 INDOOR. AND 116 OUTDOOR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: IF I KNEW THE HOURS OF OPERATION, WHICH I DON'T, I KNOW WHAT TIME THEY ARE OPEN, BUT THE HOURS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE DOORS OPEN AT 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'LL GET ANYBODY IN UNTIL 6:00. I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE EITHER. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MS. JOHNSON VELEZ. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. I DID WANT TO ADDRESS MR. DINGFELDER'S COMMENTS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON JUST FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT AND ESTABLISHING DIFFERENT SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS LIKE WE DO SOMETIMES FOR PDs. WHILE THAT MAY BE TRUE FOR A PD, THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT ARE INVOLVED SPECIFICALLY WITH NOISE ARE DIFFERENT. IT'S TPD CAN ONLY GO BY CHAPTER 14. THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE WHEN THEY GET A CALL AT MIDNIGHT. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC SITE PLAN AND THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT ANY DECIBEL LEVEL THAT MIGHT BE ESTABLISHED TO A SITE PLAN WOULD BE. ALL THEY HAVE TO GO BY IS WHAT'S SET FORTH IN THE CODE UNDER CHAPTER 14. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC FROM AN ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT TO SET FORTH DECIBEL LEVEL STANDARDS IN THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN OR ANY SITE PLAN FOR THAT MATTER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HOW ABOUT MY OTHER QUESTION? >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I'M LOOKING UNDER THE CODE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT PROCEDURES FOR THESE S-1 PERMITS. SO WHAT IT PROVIDES IS THAT IF THE APPLICATION IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE TERMS AND REQUIREMENT OF THE CHAPTER OR IF SPECIFIED CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS THAT YOU MIGHT PROVIDE UNDER SECTION 27-130 WOULD RESULT IN CONFORMITY, THEN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR SHALL GRANT THE SPECIAL USE. SO IN THIS CASE, MR. COTTON FELT THAT THERE WERE SOME CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS THAT WERE REQUIRED AND THOSE ARE THE ONES HE ATTACHED. AS I TOLD YOU EARLIER, COUNCIL MAY ATTACH ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO 27-130 IF THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE FOR THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE CODE SECTION GOES ON TO SAY IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY OR IF THE APPLICANT WILL NOT COMPLY WITH SPECIFIED CONDITIONS, THEN THE APPLICATION SHALL BE DENIED. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU ARE -- MAY CONSIDER IMPOSING UPON THEM. IF NOT, THEN IT APPEARS THE CODE WOULD DIRECT YOU TO DENY THE APPLICATION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WOULD NO AMPLIFIED SOUND ON THE ROOFTOP BE A PART OF THE CONDITION? >>SSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: IF COUNCIL BELIEVED THAT IS NECESSARY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN ORDER TO MEET THE PURPOSES OF THE CODE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I MOVE ON? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL HAVE REBUTTAL FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: FIVE MINUTES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES, SIR. FIVE MINUTES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THEY WENT TO DINNER. >> THEY ARE EATING THEIR PIZZA. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CREMER. >> COUNCIL, I DIDN'T FORGET ABOUT YOU. JAKE CREMER. FIRST, I'D LIKE OUR SOUND EXPERT TO SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION ABOUT THE CONDITION CONCERNING LIMITING THE SOUND LEVEL OR THE INTENSITY OF AMPLIFIED MUSIC ON THE ROOF. IN COMMUNITY NOISE ORDINANCES AROUND THE COUNTRY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, PINELLAS, EVEN FORMERLY IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, THERE WAS A MAGICAL AND VISIBLE LINE AT YOUR PROPERTY LINE WHERE NOISE FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY COULD NOT EXCEED A GIVEN DECIBEL LEVEL AND A MEASUREMENT IN EXCESS OF THAT LEVEL RESULTED IN A VIOLATION OF THE CODE, OR IN THE CASE OF EPC, THEIR RULES. HERE, WITH THE AUTOMATIC NOISE CONTROL EQUIPMENT WE'RE SPECIFYING IN THE CONDITION, WE'RE DOING THE OPPOSITE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE SAYING AT THE LOUD SPEAKER, PUT A SOUND LEVEL METER AT THE LOUD SPEAKER AND IT WILL NOT BE MORE THAN 71 DECIBELS. AND THE UNIT WILL CONTROL THAT AUTOMATICALLY SO THAT ONCE IT IS SET AND CALIBRATED BY THE INSTALLATION TECHNICIAN, IT CAN'T BE OVERRIDDEN. AND AS I SAID, YOU ARE NOW LIMITING THE SOURCE RATHER THAN ADDRESSING THE RECEPTOR. >> JAKE CREMER AGAIN FOR THE RECORD. WAS THERE A QUESTION? >>ORLANDO GUDES: QUESTION FOR THE EXPERT. CERTAIN SONGS HAVE DIFFERENT SOUND LEVELS OF BASS AND SO FORTH. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS DEVICE WILL CONTROL THAT? >> YES, IT WILL. IT'S SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO CONTROL BASS AS WELL AS TOTAL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. >> COUNCIL, JAKE CREMER AGAIN FOR THE RECORD. IN CLOSING, THE PETITIONER HAS THE BURDEN IN THIS CASE, AS YOUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED IN THE BEGINNING. THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY EXPERT TESTIMONY ON HOW OUR PROPOSAL WILL NOT MEET THE STANDARDS OF YOUR CODE. YOU'VE HEARD FROM OUR SOUND EXPERT. YOU'VE HEARD FROM OUR LAND PLANNING EXPERT ABOUT HOW WE'LL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CODE. YOUR OWN EXPERT STAFF, EVEN WITHOUT OUR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, APPROVED THIS APPLICATION. AND THAT WAS WITHIN THEIR EXPERTISE TO DO THAT. IN 2005, FLY BAR WAS APPROVED, AND IN OUR COMMUNITY MEETING, A NUMBER OF VOICES SAID THAT FLY BAR HAD SOME SMALL SPEAKERS ON THE ROOFTOP. WHAT WE'VE HEARD TO SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS, WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS HAS THAT OPERATION TRANSFORMED AND BECAME MOLE AND ESSENTIALLY BECAME A NIGHTCLUB, THAT IS WHEN THE PROBLEMS AROSE. AND THEN THEY GOT WORSE DURING COVID. WHAT WE HAVE NOT HEARD IS THAT THERE WERE ISSUES WITH A FLY BAR-TYPE OPERATION ON THE ROOF. WHEN WE LOOKED AT OTHER OPERATIONS AROUND TAMPA, COMPARATIVELY WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED, THIS WOULD BE THE MOST RESTRICTED RESTAURANT OPERATION APPROVED BY COUNCIL IN THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS. SO WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO TRY TO GET THERE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO QUITE GET THERE, BUT WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IN OUR ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, THAT TRULY IS THE MIDDLE GROUND HERE. WHAT I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE PETITIONERS IS ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT THEY BELIEVE WOULD BE HELPFUL OTHER THAN NO ROOFTOP. AND FOR US, THAT'S JUST A BRIDGE TOO FAR. FOR EXAMPLE, AS PROPOSED, THAT WOULD NOT EVEN ALLOW US TO HAVE A TELEVISION SET WITH THE SPEAKERS TO PLAY A FOOTBALL GAME. WITH THAT, I WOULD JUST ASK YOU, REMEMBER, WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION TODAY BASED ON THIS PROPERTY, THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND THE TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD AND NOT SUPPOSITIONS ABOUT WHETHER AND WHO WILL OR WON'T COMPLY WITH THE CODE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. CREMER? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER. >> THE BULLPEN IS RUNNING THIN. >> THANK YOU. I'M PAMELA JO HATLEY. I REPRESENT THE PETITIONERS. FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, ANY CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT AT THIS LOCATION SHOULD CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THERE ARE RESIDENTS -- RESIDENCES SURROUNDING IT. THERE WERE LIKE A DOZEN PEOPLE WHO WERE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND REGISTERED ONLINE, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, HAD TO DROP OFF BECAUSE OF TIME. WE APPRECIATE COUNCIL DOING THE BEST IT CAN TODAY, AND WE'RE GLAD TO BE HERE AND BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO YOU AND YOU HEARING US. THE ESTABLISHMENT WAS LICENSED AS A RESTAURANT BEFORE FOR MANY YEARS, BUT STILL OPERATED AS A NIGHTCLUB. THAT DIDN'T STOP IT FROM MOVING THE TABLES ASIDE AND OPENING UP THE DANCE FLOOR. THE SOUND EXPERT TESTIFIED THAT THE DEVICE WILL LIMIT THAT AMPLIFIED SOUND. HE DID NOT ADDRESS CONVERSATIONS. IF THERE'S SOUND GOING ON AT 73 DECIBELS, THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE RESTAURANT OR ON THE ROOFTOP TALKING, AND THEY ARE HAVING TO TALK TO EACH OTHER OVER THAT SOUND, NOT JUST ONE TABLE BUT LOTS OF THEM. HIS TESTIMONY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WOULD GO ON OVER AND ABOVE THE DECIBEL LEVEL AT WHICH THE AMPLIFIED SOUND WOULD BE. THE NOISE CONTROL DEVICE WILL NOT ADDRESS THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE THERE TAKING PLACE OVER THE AMPLIFIED SOUND. THE PLANNER, WHO IS AN EMPLOYE OF STEARNS WEAVER, A LAW FIRM WHICH REPRESENTS THE OWNER APPLICANT, TESTIFIED SHE DID NOT CONSIDER THE PAST BEHAVIOR OF THE APPLICANT. SHE CONSIDERED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT NOT THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR ON THE GROUND AT THIS LOCATION. THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE AT THE COMMUNITY MEETING WHO AGREED TO THE CONDITIONS THEY PROPOSED IS NOT QUITE CORRECT. CONDITIONS WERE DISCUSSED, AND THOSE WERE THE CONDITIONS ESSENTIALLY IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FROM FEBRUARY, AND THE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE FINE. THEY JUST NEEDED A LITTLE BIT OF TWEAKING. WELL, WHEN THE LAWYERS WENT BACK AND STARTED TWEAKING, THINGS WENT SOUTH AND AGREEMENTS COULDN'T BE MADE. I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD THE CONDITIONS FROM THE APPROVAL FROM FEBRUARY 2021 THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY. APPARENTLY, THESE ARE CONDITIONS THAT THE CITY THOUGHT WERE NECESSARY AT THE TIME THAT APPROVAL WAS MADE. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MADE THAT APPROVAL AND ATTACHED THESE CONDITIONS. NOW, THEY MAY BE THE MOST RESTRICTED RESTAURANT, BUT THE OWNER HAS EARNED IT. AND THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE CONDITIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT SHALL ONLY BE OPERATED AS AN ESTABLISHMENT WHOSE BUSINESS IS IN THE PREPARATION AND SERVING OF SELLING FOOD. SO ONLY A RESTAURANT. THAT'S CONDITION NUMBER TWO. AND THESE ARE IN THAT APPROVAL FROM THE SPECIAL USE FROM FEBRUARY 2021. CONDITION NUMBER THREE, THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 27-319 WILL APPLY. CONDITION 4, HOURS OF OPERATION, INTERIOR SHALL CLOSE AT 10:00 ON SUNDAY, 11 P.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 12 A.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. THE ROOFTOP SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CLOSE AT 9 ON SUNDAY. 10 P.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 11 ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. ALL ROOFTOP OPERATIONS TO INCLUDE OCCUPANCY AND/OR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OR FOOD SALES WILL BE REQUIRED TO CEASE ONE HOUR BEFORE CLOSURE OF THE GROUND FLOOR SPACE. THERE SHALL BE NO LIVE MUSIC. THIS IS CONDITION FIVE. NO LIVE MUSIC OR AMPLIFIED SOUND OF ANY SORT ON THE ROOFTOP SPACE. VIDEO EQUIPMENT MAY BE OPERATED ON THE ROOFTOP PROVIDED THAT VOLUME ON SAID EQUIPMENT IS COMPLETELY MUTED. CONDITION SIX, DEEJAY EVENTS OR SIMILAR FUNCTIONS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED ON ANY PART OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY TIME. SEVEN, IF LIVE MUSIC IS TO BE FEATURED, IT SHALL BE PERMITTED INSIDE THE GROUND FLOOR SPACE ONLY. DURING SUCH PERFORMANCES ALL DOORS, SLIDING PANELS AND WINDOWS MUST REMAIN CLOSED. ANY LIVE PERFORMANCE -- PER FORMS OF WILL BE PROHIBITED FROM BRINGING OR USING AMPLIFICATION EQUIPMENT. EIGHT, IF A SIDEWALK CAFE IS LAWFULLY ISSUED, THAT AREA WILL BE REQUIRED FOR USE BY DINING PATRONS ONLY AND COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 27 AND WILL OPERATE WITH THE SAME HOURS AS THE RESTAURANT. NO STANDING OR CONGREGATING WILL BE PERMITTED. FINALLY, CONDITION NINE, THE ESTABLISHMENT IS PROHIBITED FROM ANY USE OR IMPLEMENTATION OF A COVER CHARGE OR ADMISSION FEE AT ANY TIME FOR REGULAR PATRONAGE, SPECIAL EVENTS, ET CETERA. THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT THE CITY IMPOSED ON THAT APPROVAL AND ARE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST FOR THE RECORD, MS. HATLEY, I FOUND THOSE SAME CONDITIONS IN THE DOCUMENT WE GOT FROM MR. CREMER AT TAB 1, PAGE 21 AND 22 IN THE FIRST COLUMN, IT SAYS AB 1-20-20, SMALL VENUE IMPOSED CONDITIONS. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. HATLEY? >> THAT IS. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY A COPY OF WHAT I SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FOR PETITIONERS EVIDENCE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOVE TO CLOSE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CLOSE BY MR. MANISCALCO. SECOND? SECONDED BY MR. CARLSON. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. MR. SHELBY. WE'VE COME TO THE MAGICAL HOUR NOW HUH? GENTLEMEN, ANYONE CARE TO TAKE A STAB AT THIS ONE HERE? >>MARTIN SHELBY: AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THE CRITERIA, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: RIGHT BEFORE THEY SAID MOVE TO CLOSE, I WANTED TO INQUIRE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER THROUGH HIS -- >>JOSEPH CITRO: MOVE TO REOPEN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER ASKED TO OPEN. MR. CITRO SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. WE'RE OPEN. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. CREMER, THE STAFF, OUR STAFF ORIGINALLY IMPOSED CONDITIONS, AFTER DONE, OUR STAFF IMPOSED CONDITIONS ON AB 1-20-29, WHICH YOU PROVIDED TO US, SMALL VENUE IMPOSED CONDITIONS, ITEMS ONE THROUGH NINE, WHICH MS. HATLEY JUST READ TO US. >> YES, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU OFFERED ANOTHER COLUMN NEXT TO THAT OF OTHER CONDITIONS. SOME ARE SIMILAR. SOME ARE THE SAME, SOME VARY. I GUESS I'M JUST ASKING YOU, IF ONLY AS ONE COUNCILMAN, IF YOUR CLIENT WOULD ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS IN THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN, AB 1-20-29, ONE THROUGH NINE INSTEAD OF THE ONES THAT YOU PROPOSED IN THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN. >> MR. DINGFELDER, I CAN GIVE YOU A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER. CAN I GIVE YOU AN EXPLANATION AFTER THAT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SURE. >> THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT ABLE TO ACCEPT THOSE CONDITIONS. HERE'S THE REASON WHY. THE HISTORY OF THIS VENUE IS THAT WE ALREADY HAD IN PLACE AN APPROVAL WITH THESE SMALL VENUE CONDITIONS. WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THAT APPROVAL WAS ISSUED WAS WE HAD SOME DISAGREEMENTS WITH STAFF ON THOSE CONDITIONS. AND RATHER THAN BEING ABLE TO HAVE SOME DIALOGUE WITH STAFF, THE APPROVAL WAS SIMPLY ISSUED. WHEN WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT CAN WE DO TO COME UP WITH A SCENARIO AND REVISE THESE CONDITIONS, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT CAME UP THAT WAS OFFERED AS POTENTIALLY GIVING MORE COMFORT IN A FUTURE APPROVAL, WHICH EVENTUALLY BECAME AB 1-21-20, IS THAT WE COULD REQUEST APPROVAL AS A SPECIAL RESTAURANT. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES A 51/49 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT. AND THAT HELPS TO ENSURE THAT THIS CAN'T BECOME A CLUB OR A NIGHTCLUB AGAIN. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR STAFF, BUT MY SUPPOSITION WOULD BE THAT STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH OUR NEW APPROVAL, 21-20 BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION. COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, THAT WAS A LONG WAY OF SAYING THAT THIS IS THE PLACE WE ARE NOW, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND AN OPERATOR WHO'S ABLE TO MAKE THESE CONDITIONS WORK BECAUSE THEY ARE SO RESTRICTIVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK, FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE HOURS OF OPERATION, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW LIVE MUSIC COULD OR COULD NOT BE PERFORMED WITHIN THE VENUE. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR -- AGAIN, WHAT I'M HEARING IN THE COMMUNITY OR FROM THE PETITIONERS IS THAT THEIR REAL RUB IS NOT WITH MOST OF OUR REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING MOSTLY IS THAT THE ROOFTOP IS REALLY THE RUB. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WELL, THE OTHER RUB, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, AS MS. JOHNSON VELEZ IS SIGNALING US THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERHAPS WELL INTENDED TO HAVE THIS SELF-LIMITING EQUIPMENT AT 71 DECIBELS, THAT FROM A TPD STAFF, SLASH, ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE, THE CITY AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDING I'LL SAY STRONGLY AGAINST IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MS. JOHNSON VELEZ. SO THAT KIND OF PUTS US IN A STRANGE POSITION, BECAUSE, LIKE I SAY, IT MIGHT BE WELL INTENDED ON YOUR PART, BUT IF WE ELIMINATE AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THAT SELF-LIMITING EQUIPMENT, 71 DECIBELS, THEN IT KIND OF MESSES UP YOUR WHOLE PROPOSED CONDITION COLUMN IN MY MIND. >> COUNCILMAN, I THINK I WANT TO SEPARATE OUR PROPOSED CONDITIONS RELATING TO HOURS OF OPERATION, RELATING TO THE OPERATIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE -- THOSE DON'T SEEM TO ME TO BE IN DISPUTE OR AREAS OF CONCERN. THAT SAID, I AGREE WITH YOUR CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT THE CITY LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS PRESENTED. HOWEVER, FROM AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE, I PERSONALLY CAN'T THINK OF AN EASIER WAY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE THAN REQUIRING A PHYSICAL DEVICE. A PHYSICAL DEVICE IS VERY EASY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU AND I MIGHT AGREE ON THAT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL WANTS TO BUCK OUR LEGAL STAFF, AT LEAST ON THIS ISSUE TONIGHT. I SMILE BECAUSE OTHER TIMES I DO BUCK OUR LEGAL STAFF. ANYWAY. WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OF A CATCH 22. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MOVE TO CLOSE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO MOVED TO CLOSE. MR. CARLSON SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. MR. CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: I WOULD MOVE TO OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION HEREBY DENY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE USE 1 PERMIT REQUESTED APPLICATION AB 1-21-20 BECAUSE THE PETITIONER HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 27-129 AND 27-132 SPECIFICALLY A FEW EXAMPLES, THE USE WILL NOT ENSURE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF LOCATED WHERE PROPOSED AND DEVELOPED AND OPERATED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. THE USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE AND CONTIGUOUS AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY OR THE USE IS NOT -- SORRY, THE USE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH CONTIGUOUS AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY. THE USE WILL ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT OF OR ENCOURAGE MORE INTENSIVE OR INCOMPATIBLE USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE HAVE A SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CLARIFY YOUR -- THE BEGINNING OF YOUR MOTION. >>BILL CARLSON: THE BEGINNING WAS TO MOVE TO OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND HEREBY DENY THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE USE PERMIT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU'RE FINDING IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>THE CLERK: VIERA? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I NEED MORE CLARITY. THE MOTION TO DENY MEANS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: IN FAVOR OF MS. HATLEY AND THE RESIDENTS ADJACENT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: WHICH WAS WHAT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AGAINST THE RESTAURANT. BILL'S MOTION IS IN FAVOR OF THE RESIDENTS NEXT DOOR, AGAINST THE RESTAURANT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SATISFIED? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: QUESTION ON THE MOTION, IF I MAY AS WELL. IS THIS SOMETHING WHERE IT'S ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL? LIKE, IN OTHER WORDS, IS THERE SOMETHING IN BETWEEN A BLANKET DENIAL AND GO PARTY AND HAVE A GREAT TIME. SOMEWHERE COUNCIL CAN GO? >>ORLANDO GUDES: I THINK THAT WAS ASKED, MR. CREMER SAID HIS CLIENT WAS NOT WILLING TO CONCEDE ANYTHING. >>BILL CARLSON: I WISH WE HAD ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE, TOO. >>LUIS VIERA: THAT'S MY QUESTION. IS THERE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN A FLAT NO? >>ORLANDO GUDES: OWNER OPERATOR TOLD HIS REPRESENTATIVE NO. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SHOULD WE START THE VOTE AGAIN? >>MARTIN SHELBY: YES, PLEASE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. WITH MR. CARLSON'S MOTION. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: BECAUSE WE COULD NOT FIND COMMON GROUND FROM EITHER SIDE BUDGING ON THEIR POSITION YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SAME, YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>THE CLERK: THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL, MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. I'M GOING TO REMIND THAT YOU THERE IS AN APPEAL PERIOD. SO I WOULD CAUTION YOU AGAINST MAKING ANY STATEMENTS RELATING TO THIS CASE UNTIL AFTER THAT APPEAL PERIOD OF 30 DAYS HAS PASSED. AGAIN, MR. CHAIRMAN, ANOTHER MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >> MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA, SECONDED BY MR. CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. WE'VE COME TO THIS HOUR NOW. MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: YES, SIR, JUST ONE MOTION, IF I MAY. CHAIRMAN GUDES, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE VERY CLOSE TO REPRESENTATIVE HART AND SHE REPRESENTS YOUR DISTRICT, BUT REPRESENTATIVE HART IS DOING LEGISLATION THAT I STRONGLY BACK, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN DOING EITHER A COUNSELOR OR A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN INITIATIVE THAT REPRESENTATIVE HART IS DOING WITH STATE SENATOR BOBBY POWELL, REPRESENTATIVE DRISKELL AND OTHERS TO TRY TO PROHIBIT THE STATE OF FLORIDA FROM USING UNPAID PRISON LABOR. YOU CAN USE PRISON LABOR PAID, BUT JUST NOT UNPAID. WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE BEFORE. WE DID A RESOLUTION OPPOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS USING UNPAID PRISON LABOR. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS COUNCIL WAS INTERESTED IN SOME SORT OF A VOICE ON THIS ISSUE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: LETTER OF SUPPORT. I'LL SECOND THAT. >>LUIS VIERA: I'LL DO IT AS A LETTER, WHATEVER YOU ALL WANT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER. MR. VIERA MADE A MOTION FOR A LETTER OF SUPPORT. MR. CITRO SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. >>LUIS VIERA: NOTHING ELSE, SIR. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I BELIEVE HE'S ALREADY GONE FOR THE DAY, BUT DAN FOGLIA WHO WORKS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS WALL HAS A BIRTHDAY TODAY. HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HIM. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HAPPY BIRTHDAY DAN. DAN IS THE MAN. >>BILL CARLSON: I APOLOGIZE FOR STEPPING OUT A LITTLE WHILE AGO, I WAS MEETING WITH CAROLE POST AND CHIEF BENNETT, AND I WANT TO SAY TWO THINGS ABOUT THAT. IT'S IN REGARD TO THE EDC DISCUSSION THIS MORNING. NUMBER ONE, CAROLE HAS ASKED THAT WE MOVE THE VOTE ON THE EDC TO NOVEMBER 4 BECAUSE SHE FEELS CONFIDENT WE CAN RESOLVE THE ISSUES AND HAVE A DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK TO TRY TO DO THAT. I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THAT DISCUSSION OF THE EDC CONTRACT TO NOVEMBER 4. -- WHATEVER IT WAS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MANISCALCO SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED. MOTION GRANTED. >>BILL CARLSON: SECOND THING, I'VE KNOWN MS. POST FOR A LONG TIME. I WORKED WITH HER WHEN SHE WAS AT USF. I HAVE ALWAYS ENJOYED WORKING WITH HER. APPARENTLY SOME OF THE THINGS I SAID THIS MORNING SOUNDED DISPARAGING OF HER. I WANT TO PERSONALLY APOLOGIZE TO HER AND SAY THAT I ENJOY WORKING WITH HER AND WE HAVE DISCUSSED MEETING AT LEAST ONCE NEXT WEEK TO GO THROUGH THESE ISSUES, AND WE BOTH PROMISED EACH OTHER WE'LL WORK IN A COLLABORATIVE WAY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO DISPARAGE HER IN THE CONVERSATION EARLIER. SO THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SOUNDS LIKE WE HAD A MEETING OF THE MINDS THIS AFTERNOON. >>BILL CARLSON: THIS IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. IT WILL SOUND LIKE I'M GOING SOMEWHERE, BUT JUST LISTEN TO IT FOR A SECOND. I'VE BEEN AROUND THE CUBA ISSUE FOR 30 YEARS. CUBAN AMERICANS GOT ME INVOLVED IN THE MID '90s BECAUSE THEY WERE UNHAPPY BEING THE SILENT MAJORITY OF CUBAN AMERICANS WHO WANTED THE EMBARGO LIFTED. THEY WANTED TO SEE THEIR FAMILY AND FRIENDS. THEY DIDN'T BELIEVE IN TAKING AWAY THE RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO TRAVEL. THEY THOUGHT THE EMBARGO WAS INHUMANE AND FELT LIKE A SMALL GROUP OF VOCAL PEOPLE DROWNED OUT THE MAJORITY OF CUBAN AMERICANS. THE POLLS IN TAMPA, MIAMI, AND CROSS THE UNITED STATES AND CUBA CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF CUBAN AMERICANS AND THE CUBAN PEOPLE WANT THE EMBARGO LIFTED. THEY DON'T LIKE THE SITUATION THE WAY IT IS. I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY IN THE UNITED STATES WHO'S IN FAVOR OF THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT AS IT IS. EVERYBODY I KNOW WANTS CHANGE. THE REAL BIG DIFFERENCE THAT I SEE IN THE TWO SIDES RIGHT NOW IS THAT ONE GROUP WANTS THE EMBARGO. THEY THINK IT'S WORKING. AND ONE GROUP DOESN'T. BUT BOTH SIDES WANT POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM FOR THE CUBAN PEOPLE. I HAPPEN TO BE ON THE SIDE OF WANTING THE EMBARGO LIFTED BECAUSE I THINK IT'S BEST FOR THE CUBAN PEOPLE AND I THINK IT WILL BRING ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL FREEDOM. WE SAW THAT HAPPENING BEFORE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TOOK AWAY THE ABILITY OF AMERICANS TO TRAVEL TO CUBA. WHERE I'M LEADING IS THERE WAS A MOVIE LAST SATURDAY CALLED FRENEMIES -- SHOULD ALSO SAY I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN AND SPOKEN AT AND BEEN TO MAYBE A HUNDRED EVENTS ON CUBA IN TAMPA AND MIAMI, INCLUDING ONE WHERE HELPED WRITE A SPEECH AND OP-ED FOR MIKHAIL GORBACHEV WHERE HE CHALLENGED PRESIDENT BUSH TO LIFT THE EMBARGO JUST LIKE PRESIDENT REAGAN ASKED HIM TO LIFT THE BERLIN WALL. IN ALL THOSE TIMES, I'VE SEEN HANDFULS OF PROTESTORS, LAST WEEKEND I TOOK MY KIDS, 11 AND 12, THEY'VE BEEN AROUND POLITICS AND OTHER THINGS IN MANY PLACES. TOOK THEM TO SEE MOVIE FRENEMIES AT TAMPA THEATRE. OUTSIDE ABOUT 30 PEOPLE WITH MEGAPHONES SHOUTING, USING EXTREME PROFANITY AND SHOUTING VIOLENT THINGS. THEY GOT IN PEOPLE'S FACES. THEY HIJACKED THE MOVIE INSIDE AND YELLED AND DISRUPTED THE MOVIE. I'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN ALL THE TIME I'VE BEEN AROUND THE CUBA ISSUE. THE DIFFERENCE AS I SEE IT IN THE PHILOSOPHY IS THAT ONE GROUP BELIEVES THAT THE EMBARGO HELPS THE CUBAN PEOPLE. THE OTHER PEOPLE WANTS TO HELP THE CUBAN PEOPLE FIND FREEDOM BUT DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE EMBARGO. THE ACCUSATIONS, THE WORDS, PEOPLE ACCUSING PEOPLE OF BEING COMMUNIST AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS WERE UNCALLED FOR. NOTHING I'D EVER SEEN LIKE THAT BEFORE. THE REASON I'M TELLING THE STORY IS I KNOW AT LEAST ONE PERSON WHO HAS A CHILD WITH DISABILITIES, ONE OF THE SPEAKERS FOLLOWED THE CHILD AND THE PARENTS WITH MEGAPHONES TO THEIR CAR. I SAW PEOPLE WITH MEGAPHONES SCREAMING AND YELLING AT PEOPLE AS THEY WENT TO THEIR CARS. BUT THE THING -- THE REASON WHY I'M TELLING THE STORY, MY 11-YEAR-OLD WHO EXPECTS TO RUN INTO POLITICS AND HAVE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH ME -- BY THE WAY, NOBODY RECOGNIZED WHO I WAS, AS WE WERE WALKING OUT, A WOMAN PUT A MEGAPHONE IN MY SON'S EAR AND SHOUTED AT HIM. LUCKILY I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE SAID UNTIL I GOT TO THE CAR. MY SON SAID, WHY DID SHE SAY THAT. HE SAID IN CODE WORDS, BUT SHE SAID, THIS LADY YELLED THREE FEET AWAY IN A MEGAPHONE TO AN 11-YEAR-OLD, GO TO HELL YOU LITTLE PIECE OF SH-T. I'M APPALLED BY THAT. THIS IS TAMPA FLORIDA. THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE WE HAVE THE RIGHT IN AMERICA TO SAY WHAT WE WANT, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO THREATEN CHILDREN. AND IF YOU BELIEVE ONE WAY AND I BELIEVE A DIFFERENT WAY OR OTHER PEOPLE THERE SPEAK, PROFESSIONALLY SPEAK IN A WAY TO DEBATE YOUR COMMENTS, BUT DON'T THREATEN CHILDREN. I WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS. I CALLED TPD AND TOLD THEM ABOUT IT. IT MAY NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF ASSAULT BUT IT'S NOT RIGHT TO THREATEN CHILDREN AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN THREATENED AT THIS EVENT. IF YOU WANT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION. SPEAK IT, SAY IT, COME TO COUNCIL, CALL ME WHATEVER NAMES YOU WANT BUT DON'T THREATEN CHILDREN. I WOULD ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES WHO MAY BE FRIENDS WITH SOME OF THESE FOLKS, PLEASE ASK THEM TO TONE IT DOWN. I'LL SPEAK TO SOME OF THEIR LEADERS AND ASK THEM TO TONE IT DOWN. IN THE UNITED STATES WE NEED TO HAVE A PEACEFUL CONVERSATION AND GET ALONG WITH EACH OTHER. WE SHOULD NOT BE THREATENING AND SHOUTING IN FACES, INTIMIDATION AND PROVOKING VIOLENCE DOES NOT BRING US TO ANY KIND OF RESOLUTION ON THESE IMPORTANT ISSUES. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T HELP THE CUBAN PEOPLE. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LET ME SAY THIS, GENTLEMEN, THIS COULD GET REAL HOT AND HEATED QUICKLY. I THINK MR. CARLSON WAS EXPRESSING HIS OPINION BECAUSE IT WAS A CHILD AND HIS SON. I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A BACK AND FORTH ABOUT CUBA TONIGHT BECAUSE THIS COULD GO THE WRONG WAY. IT IS A HEATED THING. I ASK THAT WE RESPECT WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT AND WE MOVE ON. WE JUST MOVE ON. ARE YOU FINISHED, SIR? ALL RIGHT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I CAN'T APOLOGIZE FOR SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T SAY, BUT I APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT HISPANICS, I GUESS THEY WERE. I'M NOT SURE THEY WERE FROM CUBA, WHEREVER, SPOKE TO YOUR SON THAT WAY. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. NO ONE SHOULD TELL A CHILD THAT. THE MORE YOU LEARN ABOUT THIS, THE LOUDER IT WILL GET. READ IN THE PAPER, THE SUNDAY PAPER WHERE IT HAD THE NEW GROUP COMING IN. I REMEMBER READING ONE SECTION OF IT SAID WE'RE GOING TO GET LOUD AND EVEN LOUDER. THE PAPERS QUOTED THAT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. THE PAPER SAID THAT. MAYBE THAT'S PART OF THAT ORGANIZATION. I DON'T KNOW. >>LUIS VIERA: 30 SECONDS, IF I MAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: IT'S FUNNY, BECAUSE SOMETHING I WAS TALKING ABOUT THIS MORNING ABOUT THE TEMPERATURE GETTING SO HOT IN POLITICS, I REMEMBER LIKE I WAS SAYING, I HAD A TOWN HALL, ONE TOWN HALL HAD PEOPLE ON THE LEFT COME AND YELL, ANOTHER ONE PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT. I FIND A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE GOTTEN INVOLVED IN POLITICS IN THE LAST YEAR DO THINGS, LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, DO THINGS THAT ARE UNACCEPTABLE, INHUMANE AND RUDE, AND BEHAVIOR LIKE THAT IS CLEARLY, CLEARLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS INTOLERABLE, ET CETERA. AND WE FIND THAT SO MUCH IN POLITICS THESE DAYS AND WE ALL HAVE TO WORK INDIVIDUALLY AGAINST STUFF LIKE THAT. BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE AND CERTAINLY WITHOUT YELLING AND CALLING PEOPLE NAMES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CARLSON, I WAS THERE ALSO. VERY INTERESTING DOCUMENTARY AND HAD I BEEN THERE WHEN THIS WOMAN WAS SHOUTING AT YOUR CHILD, I WOULD HAVE ACTED AS A SHIELD. THAT IS FOR SURE. WHAT AMAZES ME IS 60 YEARS HAVE PASSED WITH DIFFERENT PRESIDENTS, BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT AND NOT A DAMN THING HAS CHANGED. HAVING SAID THAT, NOTHING TONIGHT, MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'LL MAKE UP FOR EVERYBODY. I'VE GOT A COUPLE I'VE BEEN STORING UP. ON A BRIGHT NOTE FOR RANDY GOERS, HE'S RETIRING, AND I'D LIKE TO GIVE HIM A COMMENDATION AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON NOVEMBER 4th. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WE'LL MAKE HIM COME DOWN AND GET IT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT. SECONDED BY MR. CITRO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SECOND, WE'VE BEEN GETTING E-MAILS FROM FOLKS IN TAMPA HEIGHTS AND THEY ARE SAYING WE URGE YOU TO ADOPT THE FORM-BASED ZONING. BUT I DON'T KNOW OF ANY PENDING FORM BASED ZONING CODE IN TAMPA HEIGHTS. WHAT I WANT TO DO, I DO KNOW THAT STAFF HAS BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH THEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: 40th STREET, THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT FOR YEARS AND WENT DORMANT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ANYWAY, I'D LIKE A REPORT FROM MS. FEELEY'S GROUP AND/OR LEGAL ABOUT ANY OPPORTUNITIES, ANY DISCUSSION AS RELATED TO TAMPA HEIGHTS FORM-BASED ZONING, AND WE CAN INCLUDE 40th STREET. 40th STREET AS WELL. I'VE GOT A DATE ON HERE, DECEMBER 16th WE HAVE A REGULAR MEETING. FOR STAFF REPORTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECONDED BY MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THE CENTRO ESPANOL BUILDING IN WEST TAMPA, I KNOW IT'S BEEN UNDER LEASE TO THE EDUCATION FOUNDATION AND THAT SORT OF THING. I THINK THEY USED IT A LITTLE BIT FOR OFFICES AND A LOT FOR WAREHOUSE. SOME OF THE FOLKS IN WEST TAMPA ARE SAYING PERHAPS THAT COULD BE MORE OF A COMMUNITY ASSET NOW THAT WEST TAMPA IS REALLY REVITALIZING AND THE CAC AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO, ANYWAY, I'LL GIVE STAFF PLENTY OF TIME TILL FEBRUARY 3rd, AND MAYBE THIS WOULD FUND OCEA WYNN'S CATEGORY OR FACILITIES OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT JUST TO EVALUATE THAT BUILDING. LEGAL, LET US KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS OF THE LEASE AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THAT MIGHT PERHAPS BE IN SOME WAY A COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE FUTURE, LIKE IT WAS ORIGINALLY. SO ANYWAY, THAT WOULD BE FEBRUARY 3rd JUST UNDER STAFF REPORTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: FINALLY, THE CITY DID A GREAT THING LAST YEAR OR TWO YEARS AGO, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, WE CHANGED OUR MINIMUM WAGE TO I THINK IT WAS $15 AN HOUR. AND FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. BUT EVERY WEEK I LOOK AT ALL THESE CONTRACTS, ESPECIALLY THE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS, THE YARD CONTRACTS AND THAT SORT OF THING. I ASKED SOME GUYS DOWN STAIRS AT THE DESK WHO WORK SECURITY, I SAID WHAT DO YOU GUYS MAKE? ONE OF THEM TOLD ME MADE $11. HE SAID SOME PEOPLE MAKE LESS. THAT SORT OF THING. SO I'D LIKE TO GET A STAFF REPORT ON THAT ISSUE. I'M NOT SAYING WE GO BACK IN TO CONTRACTS THAT EXIST RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE CAN'T REWRITE THOSE CONTRACTS. THAT WOULD BE COMPLICATED AND CUMBERSOME. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT FUTURE CONTRACTS WOULD HAVE A MINIMUM WAGE OF $15 AN HOUR, WHICH, AS WE KNOW, IS STILL VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE ON. BUT AT LEAST IT MEETS THE STANDARD THAT WE SET FOR OUR OWN EMPLOYEES. SO WHY SHOULD WE HAVE CONTRACT EMPLOYEES MAKING TWO-THIRDS OF WHAT OUR OWN EMPLOYEES ARE MAKING? I'LL GIVE THE ADMINISTRATION A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO DIGEST THAT. I'VE GOT DECEMBER 16 STAFF REPORTS TO EXPLORE THE IDEA OF $15 AN HOUR FOR FUTURE CONTRACTS PROSPECTIVELY IN ALL OF OUR GENRES, WHATEVER CONTRACT IT IS. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE HIRING ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, IT'S IRRELEVANT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF CONTRACTS THAT I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE ARE MAKING MUCH LESS THAN THAT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MR. DINGFELDER, IF I MAY ADD AT LEAST ONE AND LATER ON WE LOOK AT OTHER THINGS. I CALL IT THE MAN COM BUILDING. THEY TOOK OVER THE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTS IN THE PARTS DEPARTMENT, THAT IS A CITY-OWNED BUILDING PAYING NO RENT. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEIR EMPLOYEES MAKE. BECAUSE MAYBE THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO RENT. IT'S BEEN LIKE SINCE THEY CAME IN, THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION AND THIS ADMINISTRATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SUBJECT MATTER IS. I WISH I COULD TELL YOU THEY ARE ALL PAYING $15. MAYBE WHEN THEY ARE USING THE SAME VENDORS WE ARE, SO HOW CAN IT BE SO INEXPENSIVE IF THEY ARE USING THE SAME VENDORS UNLESS IF YOU HAVE SIX EMPLOYEES OR SEVEN EMPLOYEES OR EIGHT EMPLOYEES, AND THEY ARE MAKING $6 AN HOUR IN EACH ONE, THEY ARE MAKING A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR OR NOT PAYING THE EMPLOYEES. I'M NOT SURE. I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT TO YOUR LIST. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MY MOTION -- AND I'M GOING TO INCLUDE YOU, CHARLIE. MY MOTION IS MORE GENERIC. JUST THE IDEA OF ALL FUTURE CONTRACTS WOULD BE $15 AN HOUR MINIMUM. BUT I WILL TAG ON MR. MIRANDA'S QUESTION, WHICH IS SPECIFIC TO THAT VENDOR, TO INQUIRE AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. AT LEAST TO INQUIRE AND SEE WHAT THE VENDOR IS PAYING HIS CONTRACT WORKERS AT THAT MACON. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: TOOK OVER THE PARTS DISTRIBUTION IN THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU LIKE MR. DINGFELDER'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE THEY GET YOU A CLEAR COPY? SECONDED BY MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THOUGHT YOU WERE MR. VIERA THERE FOR A MINUTE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I'M LOOKING FOR THAT TITLE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I'LL HOLD TILL THE NEXT MEETIN, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I HAVE TO MAKE THIS BECAUSE IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. YOU MIGHT KNOW MR. JOSEPH ROBINSON. LONGTIME LEADER IN SULPHUR SPRINGS PASSED AWAY. I DID PERSONALLY CALL HER TO SEE IF ANYTHING WE COULD DO, SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR A POSTHUMOUSLY COMMENDATION WHO PASSED AWAY THIS PAST WEEKEND. HE DEDICATED NUMEROUS HOURS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ONE THING ABOUT MR. ROBINSON, IF I MAY, HE'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME AND IT WASN'T EASY WHEN HE STARTED. SULPHUR SPRINGS HAS GOTTEN MUCH BETTER IN THE 15, 20 YEARS THAT HE'S BEEN DOING ONE HOUSE AT A TIME, ONE PERSON AT A TIME. HE WAS AN OUTSTANDING INDIVIDUAL AND HIS MEMORY WILL CERTAINLY BE LASTED FOREVER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WE HAVE A MOTION. MR. MIRANDA SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES FOR THE COMMENDATION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LAST ONE, VERY IMPORTANT. I SEE EVERYONE USF BULLS INSIGNIA ON TODAY. FRATERNITY BROTHER AND FRIEND KEVIN, THE DEAN OF PHARMACY. I CAN REMEMBER MY OTHER FRATERNITY BROTHER COMMISSIONER MILLER WHO HELPED HIM GET THE JOB AT USF TO START THE PHARMACY PROGRAM AT USF. A TEN-YEAR ANNIVERSARY AND THE DEPARTMENT IS THROWING A BIG SHINDIG FOR HIM. LIKE TO GIVE A SERVICE COMMENDATION TO HONOR FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. OCTOBER 29. I'LL MAKE THE PRESENTATION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MOTION BY MR. CHAIRMAN, SECONDED BY MR. MANISCALCO. COMMENT FROM MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA: LET ME KNOW, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WHEN THAT IS. HE IS A FINE GENTLEMAN. HIS WIFE, JUDGE JULIE SNEAD IS JUST A WONDERFUL LADY AND A GREAT JURIST. JUST GOOD PEOPLE AND CONSTITUENTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I KNOW IT'S OCTOBER 29. I'LL SEND IT OUT. I WANT TO SAY IT'S VIRTUAL. WE'LL MAKE SURE YOU GET THE INFORMATION. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: LOOKS LIKE MS. JOHNSON-VELEZ IS IN AGREEMENT. MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I HAVE A PIECE OF NEW BUSINESS, PLEASE. COUNCIL, ON OCTOBER 15, THIS PAST FRIDAY, YOU RECEIVED A MEMO FROM ABBYE FEELEY THROUGH CAROLE POST, A REQUEST FOR A STAFF PRESENTATION ON DECEMBER 2nd OF 2021 REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES. COUNCIL MEMBER DINGFELDER, THE COMMITTEE YOU'RE ON, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUSING COMMITTEE, I BELIEVE A REQUIREMENT THEY HAVE TO MAKE A REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL. THEREFORE, BASED ON CITY COUNCIL'S CURRENT CALENDAR, DECEMBER 2nd WOULD BE THE FINAL MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS PRESENTATION IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEADLINE. I AM FORWARDING THIS MEMO TO THE CLERK. COULD THAT BE IN THE FORM OF A MOTION FOR DECEMBER 2nd FOR A STAFF REPORT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO MADE THE MOTION. MR. DINGFELDER SECONDED IT. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION GRANTED. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU, COUNCIL. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AHAC COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WORKING ON INCENTIVES AND INITIATIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE AND FILE. RECEIVE AND FILE. MR. MANISCALCO, SECONDED BY MR. MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR? WE ARE ADJOURNED. [ SOUNDING GAVEL ]