[GAVEL SOUNDING] >>JOHN DINGFELDER: GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. I AM JOHN DINGFELDER, CHAIRMAN PRO TEM, CARRYING ON FOR CHAIR GUDES WHO WILL BE WITH US SHORTLY. ROLL CALL. >>CLERK: >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HERE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: HERE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM PRESENT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. MR. SHELBY, LEAD US WITH YOUR INTRODUCTION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, PUBLIC, MARTIN SHELBY, THU THURSDAY, MAY 27, AFTER 6 P.M. AT OLD CITY HALL, 315 E. KENNEDY BOULEVARD. TONIGHT'S QUASI JUDICIAL AND OTHER LAND USE RELATED HEA HEARINGS, TONIGHT'S MEET OF THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL IS HELD DURING COVID-19 STATE OF EMERGENCY AND CONDUCTED LIVE WITH AN IN-PERSON QUORUM IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS MEMBERS OF PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE DURING TELECONFERENCING. VIDEO TELECONFERENCING AS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY. HELD WITHIN EMERGENCY RULES AND PROCEDURES IN RESOLUTION 225 AND RESOLUTION 2020-490 AND 2021-241. THE PUBLIC IS ABLE TO WATCH, LISTEN AND VIEW TONIGHT'S MEETING 640, SPECTRUM, ON THE INTERNET AT TAMPA. TAMPA.GOV/LIVESTREAM. NOW THERE HAVE BEEN CREATED MULTIPLE WAYS FOR THE PUBLIC TO PARTICIPATE IN TONIGHT'S HEARINGS. AND THOSE ARE AVAILABLE TO BE FOLLOWED, INSTRUCTIONS ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE AT TAMP TAMPA.GOV/QUASI Q-U-A-S-I. AND PARTICIPATING THROUGH COMMUNICATION MEDIA TECHNOLOGY FROM REMOTE REGISTRATION. IS REQUIRED FOR BOTH THE APPLICANTS AND THE WITNESSES AND OTHER INTERESTED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND A PARTICULAR CMT DEVICE IS REQUIRED IN THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING BECAUSE OF NEED FOR VIDEO AND TO BE ABLE TO APPEAR ON VIDEO. SMARTPHONES AND CELL PHONES ARE NOT COMPATIBLE, AND THAT'S WHY IF YOU DO NOT HE CMT, DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN PERSON HERE AT OLD CITY HALL WHERE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF OLD CITY HALL, THE CITY HAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC CMT FACILITIES. 315 E. KENNEDY BOULEVARD, TAMPA, ON THE SECOND FLOOR. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT USE OF THE MASKS AND SOCIAL DISTANCING INSIDE THE BUILDING ARE ENCOURAGED. NOW THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEND COMMENTS IN ADVANCE VIA E-MAIL. THOSE ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC TO BE READ ONLINE IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING AT TAMPA.GOV/AGENDAS. THE INFORMATION ON HOW TO COMMUNICATE IS AGAIN AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEB SITE TAMPA.GOV/QUASI. E-MAILS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD OF THE MEETING. ALL PUBLIC COMMENT BY MAIL, E-MAIL OR CMT WILL BE AFFORDED EQUAL CONSIDRATION AS IF TH COMM. ONE LAST ITEM REGARDING THE ONLINE PLATFORM, GO TO MEETING. THERE IS A CHAT BOX. AND I WANT TO REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT THE CHAT BOX IS ONLY TO BE USED FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES. PLEASE DO NOT USE THE CHAT BOX TO COMMUNICATE WITH ANYBODY REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE HEARINGS. AND PLEASE DO NOT USE IT TO ATTEMPT TO CONTACT OR COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS OF THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL AND A REMINDER OF THE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL IF DURING THEOURSE. COMMUNICATION YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE EX-PARTE PLEASE DISCLOSE THEM. COUNCIL, WE MIGHT TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO RECEIVE AND FILE ANY EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE OR ANY ORAL EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN PLACE, NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO DISCLOSE IT. OTHER THAN THE MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME HAND OVER THE GAVEL, AND I WILL MAKE A NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. CARLSON AND CHARM GUDES HAS ARRIVED. MR. CHAIRMAN, THE REQUEST FROM STAFF IS THAT WE MOVE ITEM 3 TO BE ITEM 1. AND WE WOULD AND MOTION AND END DIETITIAN CONTINUE ITEM NUMBER 4. OTHER THAN THAT, THE GAVEL IS YOURS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU THERE DINGFELDER. MR. VIERA WILL BE HERE SHORTLY ABOUT ANOTHER TEN MINUTES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU WANT MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL IN FAVOR. OPPOSED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MOTION TO OPEN 1-4 >> SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER TO OPEN 1-4. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MANI MANISCALCO. WE WILL PROCEED -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: DO 4. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE CAN DO THAT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WHILE STAFF IS ON LINE ANYTHING TO BE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. CAN REQUEST IS TENNESSEEAN TO JUNE 24. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF? >> YES, THEY ARE AWARE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: A REMINDER FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MAILED OR PUBLIC NOTICE WITH REGARD THAT AB 2 2-21-12 IS TO BE CONTINUED ON JUNE 24, 2021 AT 6 P.M. THANK YOU. MOTION BY COUNCIL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER. ANSECOED BY MR. MANISCALCO. ROLL CALL VOTE. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT WILL BE FINE. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIES WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, FILE NUMBER AB 2 2-21-11. MR. VIERA IS NOW PRESENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMAN. CA WE HAVE A SWEAR-IN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: COULD WE HAVE BETTER AUDIO, I.T.? >>CLERK: DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOU WILL TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> I DO. >>CLERK: THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MAY PROCEED SIR. >> WONDERFUL. MAY I HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN PLEASE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: I.T., WITH WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE VOLUME OR -- >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? WONDERFUL, THANK YOU. ZANE HUSSEIN, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AB 2-21-11. THE APPLICANT IS FLOWER CROWN KOMBUCHA. REPRESENTATIVE IS BRIAN GRI GRIFFIN. PROPERTY ADDRESS 1601 N. FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 1607. THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU IS REQUESTING SPECIAL USE APPROVAL FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR A SMALL VENUE BEER AND WINE CONSUMPTION ON PREMISE AND PACKAGE SALES O OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION. THE PROPOSED USE IS A BAR, LOUNGE AND RETAIL SALES. AB SALES IS 2012 SQUARE FEET INDOORS AND 1010 SQUARE FEET OUTDOORS FOR TOTAL OF 3322 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE PLAN SHOW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE SITE ON N. FRANKLIN STREET. THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR THE SITE IS 21 PARKING SPACES AND THE SITE PLAN IS ZONING ZERO PARKING SPACES PROVIDED. THE APPLICANT HAS APPLIED FOR DESIGN DE 1-65 FOR FIVE O OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES, BUT THE REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. THE SITE PLAN INDICATES THAT THE PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE IN CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 14. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE TAMPA HEIGHTS URBAN VILLAGES AND THE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT IS 250 FEET FROM OTHER AB SALES THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO ADD TO THE FOLLOWING COMMENT TO THE SITE PLAN SAYING THE SALES AREA SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN A PARKING OR LOADING AREA OR SPACE. THE SITE PLAN STATES THAT ALL PERMITS ISSUED AFTER APRIL 1, 2011 SHALL KEEP ON-SITE A COPY OF AN ADOPTED ORDINANCE AND ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, SALES PERMIT. WAIVERS REQUESTED HERE. SECTION 27-132 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED DISTANCE SEPARATION FROM 250 FEET TO 45 FEET FROM OTHER AB SALES ESTABLISHMENTS. ALSO, SECTION 27-28387 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 22 SPACES TO ZERO, WHICH IS 100% REDUCTION. THIS IS WITHIN THE URBAN VILLAGES, WHICH STATE YOU NEED 250 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL USES FOR AB SALES. THERE IS AN AB SALES ESTABLISHMENT CALLED THE GARAGE MEATERY 1606 NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE WHICH IS 45 FEET AWAY AND A SMALL VENUE BEER AND W WINE, COP AND PS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE TAMPA HEIGHTS URBAN VILLAGE AS STATED ABOVE. LOOKING NEAR THE SITE PLAN, YOU SEE THE ESTABLISHMENT ON THE PROPERTY IS DISTINCTIVE IN RED. YOU HAVE THE REST ROOMS OVER HERE. THE INDOOR AREA IN THIS SECTION OVER HERE AND ALONG THE EAST SIDE IS THE OUTDOORS AREA AS YOU SEE ON THIS SITE PLANH SHOWN. YOU HAVE THE TABLES AND CHAIRS, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR. YOU COME TO THE AERIAL VIEW OVERHEAD AND YOU SEE THE PROPERTY IN RED HERE AND THE OTHER AB ESTABLISHMENT CLOSE BY IS LOCATED WHERE MY CURSOR IS. ENTRANCE IS ALONG N. FRANKLIN STREET TO THE WEST. PUFF ESTELLE STREET, EAST TO THE SOUTH. HENDERSON AVENUE TO THE NORTH. AND NORTH FLORIDA AVENUE TO THE EAST. LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT SITE HERE. A PICTURE OF THE SITE OF FLOWER CROWN KOMBUCHA. TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE. TO THE WEST OF THE SITE YOU SEE THE PARKING LOT, ALSO ARMITURE WORKS. AND TO THE SOUTH OF THE SITE, YOU SEE THE BUSINESS. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FIND IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CY OFAMPA CODE OF ORDINANCES. MINOR CORRECTIONS OF THE SITE PLAN ARE NEEDED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. THANK YOU. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. QUESTIONS GENTLEMEN? HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THIS -- PARDON ME? IN PERSON SECOND FLOOR? HERE WE . HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN DOWNSTAIRS? STATE YOUR NAME, SIR. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY VOLUME. ALL RIGHT, I.T., CAN YOU HELP US OUT THERE? TRY IT AGAIN, SIR. >> MY NAME IS BRIAN GRIFFIN. CAN YOU HEAR ME. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO GIVE A GENERAL PRESCRIPTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW. >> THANK YOU. AND THE KIND AND GENEROUS FOLKS AT THE ZONING DEPARTMENT THAT HELPED US TO THIS POINT. I AM BRIAN GRIFFIN AND HERE WITH THE BUSINESS PARTNERS AND FRIEND PHIL SMITH AND DANIEL ANDRESON. THE FIRST TIME BUSINESS OWNERS IN TAMPA. I AM A LIFE-LONG TAMPA RESIDENT. PHIL HAS A FANTASTIC RECIPE FOR KOMBUCHA THAT HE HAS BEEN DEVELOPING AND WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITYF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH KOMBUCHA WHAT KOMBUCHA IS. TO START OUR BUSINESS AND BRING THIS POPULAR BEVERAGE -- I SAY "POPULAR" BECAUSE OUT IN THE IN THE MID COAST THERE ARE KOMBUCHA BEVERAGE THAT IS POPULAR THERE AND BRING IT TO TAMPA SPECIFICALLY WHERE WE FOUND THE BUSINESS LOCATION THAT IS REQUESTED FOR THE WAIVERS ON. WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL THAT THE CRAFT BEVERAGE AREA OF TAMPA, WHICH IS AN UP AND COMING NEIGHBORHOOD EAST OF ARMITURE WOS. AND I THINK ALL THE CRAFT BUSINESS ALSO BRING NEW LIFE TO THAT PART OF TAMPA, AND WE ARE GLAD TO BE A PART OF THAT. WE ARE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO ADD ANOTHER COMPONENT TO OUR SALES. NOW WE ARE NOT TRYING TO OPEN A BAR. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE OUR SALES ABOUT -- YOU KNOW, BE ABOUT THE ALCOHOL OFFERING, BUT A HARD KOMBUCHA VARIETY. KOMBUCHA IS NONALCOHOLIC WHEN MADE BUT A HARD KOMBUCHA WHICH IS MADE WITH ORANGE WINE, AND WE ARE ASKING FOR A BEER AND WINE VARIANCE THAT WILL HAVE US OFFER A DIFFERENT OFFERINGS. ASK PHIL ABOUT KOMBUCHA AND HOW THE PROCESS IS UNDERGONE TO MAKE IT. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. KOMBUCHA IS A FERMENTED YOU T TEA, A NONALCOHOLIC SPARKLING BEVERAGE WITH SWEETENED TEA WITH A SPECIAL CULTURE. KOMBUCHA HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME BUT RECENTLY MADE A RESURGENCE. COMMONLY TALKED ABOUT FOR ITS HEALTH BENEFITS BEING HIGH IN ANTIOXIDANTS, BUT PEOPLE ENJOY KOMBUCHA FOR THE FLAVOR AND SOME OF THEM ENJOY IT AS A ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ALTERNATIVE. OUR TAP ROOM BREWERY IS THE FIRST KOMBUCHA TAP ROOM BREWERY IN THIS PART OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AND WE ARE A VERY SIMPLE OPERATION FROM A CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE AND A BUSINESS OPERATION PERSPECTIVE. WE ARE SIMILAR TO A COFFEE SHOP. WE ARE VERY SIMPLE. WE DON'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL KITCHEN AND WE DO OFFER BAKED GOODS SUCH AS MUFFINS, CROISSANTS, AND, YEAH, WE THINK BEING ABLE TO OFFER HARD KOMBUCHA VARIETY BY BLENDING IT WITH -- EITHER WINE, SPARKLING WINE, OR A SPECIAL -- SPECIALTY ORANGE WINE WOULD BE A REALLY UNIQUE AND FUN THING FOR TAMPA AND TAMPA RESIDENTS TO ENJOY. >> I WILL JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT THE THREE OF US LOVE TAMPA. WE LOVE THE SPACE THAT WE FO FOUND. IT IS A BUILDING THAT IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION PROJECT ON FRANKLIN STRT. THE BUILDING COMES ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE LOT LINES, SO WE ARE WORKING WITH WHAT WE HAVE THERE, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE TO ASK FOR THE PARKING VARIANCE. IN LIGHT OF THE PARKING REQUEST WE HAVE MADE, I HAVE PROVIDED A MEMO OF ALTERNATIVE PARKING OPTIONS. IT WAS A PRINTED MEMO AND THEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND STAND BY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUES QUESTIONS GENTLEMEN? MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I GOT YOUR SITE PLAN. AND THERE ARE PHOTOGRAPHS INCLUDED ON THE SITE PLAN OF THE -- WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THESE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. DO YOU HAVE ANY PHOTOS OF YOU OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? >> ACCORDING TO -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: TRYING TO GET AN IDEA WHICH BUILDING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. AND HOW -- HOW IT RELATES TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS THERE ON FRANKLIN STREET. >> YES, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING, MY OTHER QUTION THAT WE OFTEN ASK MANY FOLKS WHO ARE HERE FOR AB IS WHAT ARE YOUR HOURS OF OPERATIONS PROPOSED, AND, ALSO, WILL YOU HAVE ANY OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED AUDIO, MUSIC OR WHAT HAVE YOU. >> YES, SIR, WE DO NOT PLAN TO HAVE ANY AMPLIFIED MUSIC. IT REALLY DOESN'T FIT WITH THE SPACE THAT WE ARE GOING FOR, THE VIBE THAT WE ARE GOING FOR WHICH IS MORE OF KIND OF A COFFEE SHOP WITH THIS EXTRA ALTERNATIVE OPTION TO IT. >>JO DINELDER: ANY OUTDOOR SPACE AT ALL. >> THERE IS. THE PATIO WHICH IS PART OF THE UNIT AND ACCESSIBLE IN THE BACK OF THE UNIT, BUT THAT PATIO HAS FIXED SEATING AND TABLES. IT HAS GOT PLANTS AND WHATNOT, SO NOT A SPACE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD ENVISION ON SOUTH HOWARD AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT IS A BAR, A PLACE TO SIT AND RELAX, TO DO WORK OR TO MEET WITH A SMALL GROUP OF FRIENDS. AS TO YOUR QUESTION, SIR, ABOUT THE PHOTOS OF THE SUB SUBJECT. SO IF YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE WEST ELEVATION, THE UNIT IS THE ONE ON THE LEFT. THERE IS KIND OF FOUR GREEN PANELS IN THE BUILDING. OUR UNIT IS THE ONE ON THE VERY LEFT. THE REASON THAT THE SOUTH -- THE REASON THAT THE SOUTH PICTURE DOESN'T READILY LOOK LIKE A PICTURE OF OUR UNIT BECAUSE OUR UNIT IS A L-SHAPE. SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE SOUTHERN MOST UNIT ON THE LEFT PART OF THAT PICTURE, ON THE RIGHT IS A GARAGE DOOR WITH IRON. THE EXIT OF THE PATIO. IN THE BUILDING THAT GOES ALL THE WAY EAST AND PROCEEDS SOUTH AND LET'S OUT ON ESTELLE STREET . >>JOHN DINGFELDER: IS YOUR PATIO SPACE EN CLOSED WITH A WALL OR SOMETHING? >> YES, SIR, FOUR WALLS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HOW ABOUT YOUR HOURS OF OPERATION. >> THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE CONSISTENT WITH CHAPTER 14 OF CITY ORDINANCES. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE 10:00 TO 5:00. IF WE MAKE ANY CHANGESIT WILL BE 8:00 OR THE LATEST 7:00 OR 8:00. BE WOULD NOT BE BUMPING UP THE ORDINANCE OF 7 A.M. -- WE WOULDN'T COME CLOSE TO THAT BUT ALWAYS REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CLARIFY TO ME WITH APPLES AND P.M. S OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WANT YOUR HOURS TO BE. >> IF THIS IS APPROVED, WE WOULD LIKE OUR HOURS TO BE 10 A.M. TO 7 P.M. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: OKAY. YOU ARE NOT A NIGHT -- YOU ARE NOT A NIGHTTIME ESTABLISHMENT. >> NO,IR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: IS THAT TRUE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK? >> WE ARE CLOSED ON MONDAY. THINGS WENT WELL IN THE WEEKEND WE MAY CONSIDER 8 P.M. AND WOULD NOT BE OPEN LATE AND WOULD NEVER APPROACH 11 OR 12:00. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I DON'T WANT TO CONSTRAIN YOUR FUTURE OPERATIONS OR SOME CHANGE IN YOUR BUSINESS, BUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM LET'S SAY WITH -- WITH A 11 P.M. CLOSE TIME SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. >> WE WOULD NOT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YOU ARE IN A FAIRLY URBANIZED AREA AND SOMETIMES WEAR HILL HARSHER THAN THAT. >> WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT, THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR, MR. CITRO. >>JOSEPH CITRO: GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CHOOSING TAMPA TO SELL YOUR WARES AND TO BE ENTREPRENEURS. AND WE THANK YOU. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE YOU. PLEASE DON'T THINK ME OF BEING HARSH WHEN I ASK THESE QUESTIONS. SAY THE PRODUCT NAME AGAIN. KOMBUCHA. KOMBUCHA. >>JOSEPH CITRO: KOMBUCHA. >> WHAT IS THE ALCOHOL CONTENT TO THAT. >> OVER TO OUR HEAD BREWMASTER. >> KOMBUCHA IS FERMENTED BUT WITH A SPECIAL CULTURE. A YEAST AND A BACTERIA FERMENTATION GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME. ESSENTIALLY A SELF-GOVERNING FERMENTATION, WHEN ONE -- WHILE THE YEAST FERMENTATION IS GOING ON THE BACTERIA FERMENTATION IS FERMENTING THE BYPRODUCTS OF THE YEAST FERMENTATION. ONE OF THE BYPRODUSS ETHANOL, BUT AS SOON AS THAT IS CREATED THE BACTERIAL CONSUMES THE ETHANOL AND ESSENTIALLY THERE IS A TRACE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOLS LEFT IN KOMBUCHA, BUT FAR BELOW THE HALF PERCENT FEDERALLY TO MAKE IT NONALCOHOLIC. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE REASON -- I ALSO APPLAUD YOU. WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH PARKING ISSUES IN OUR URBAN DOWNTOWN CORE AND IF YOUR BUSINESS MODEL -- YOUR BUSINESS MODEL SAYS YOU CAN GET BY WITHOUT PKING. MORE POWER TO YOU GUYS. AGAIN, THAT IS WHAT MY VISION FOR DOWNTOWN TAMPA IS TO BE WALKABLE, FOR NEIGHBORHOODS, FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO WALK OUT OF THEIR HOUSE AND GET REFRESHMENT OR DINNER OR SOMETHING. SO I APPLAUD YOU ON THAT. NOW COMES MY QUESTION. WHAT WE DO THIS EVENING WILL RIDE WITH THE PROPERTY. YOU FIND OUT YOUR BUSINESS MODEL DOESN'T WORK, YOU SELL TO SOMEBODY ELSE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE SAFEGUARDING THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. I AM GETTING MORE AND MORE COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE INAMPA HEIGHTS, RIVERSIDE HEIGHTS AROUND ARMITURE THAT TURN INTO MINI RAVES ON THURSDAY NIGHT UNTIL 3 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. SO ALTHOUGH I WISH YOU SUCCESS, I WANT TO YOU KNOW THAT I HAVE SOME JUDGMENTS ON THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO FAIL. BUT BECAUSE YOU ARE SELLING -- WITH YOUR OFF-PREMISE ALCOHOL SALES THEIR GETTING. YOU ARE SELLING YOUR PRODUCTS ONLY, YOU ARE NOT SELLING OTHER OPLE WIN AND BEER AS SOON AS LET ME GET THAT ONE STRAIGHT. GO AHEAD. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER WINE AND BEER ON-SITE, BUT O OFF-PREMISE SALES WE WOULD ONLY SELL OUR PRODUCT. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SFIT THAT WAS A REQUEST BY THIS CITY COUNCIL, WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE. >> TO LIMIT OUR PACKAGE SALES TO OUR PACKAGE SALES ONLY. >> WE ARE VERY AGREEABLE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I READ ALL YOUR PARKING STATISTICS AND FROM POINT A TO POINT B. 3.3/8 OF A MILE. WALK TO OTHER AREAS. THE PROBLEM IS TODAY SOMETHING THAT -- VERY LITTLE ALL OVER TRAFFIC PARKING LOTS ARE MORE ABUNDANT THAN THERE ARE CARS. BUT TOMORROW, WHAT HAPPENS IN DIFFERENT AREAS LIKE ONE ON MacDILL AVENUE AND ONE ON HOWARD AVENUE, THERE ISN'T MORE PARKING YET. ONCE THESE THINGS FLARE UP, YBOR CITY WAY BACK 35 YEARS A AGO, YOU COULD PUT 20 BUSES IN OR YOU HAD TUMBLEWEED AND TWO. OTHER THINGS I AM NOT GOING TO MENTION. AND THERE WERE WITH YOUR HORSE. I SAW YOU THERE. WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS THAT PARKING WILL BECOME VERY, VERY SCARCE IN THOSE AREAS IN A VERY SHORT TIME. SO DEVELOPMENT AROUND THERE IS STARTING TO MOVE LIKE IT HAS MOVED IN OTHER PARTS OF DOWNTOWN. AND I AM JUST AFRAID THAT A PARKING AREA WILL NOT SUSTAIN IN THE NEAR FUTURE THE TH'S A.MENT THAT IS COMING. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYONE ELSE. >>RYAN MANASSE: MR. CHAIR, RYAN MANASSE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: RYAN, WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING OR ZANE? >>RYAN MANASSE: YES, IF I CAN HAVE A MOMENT, CHAIR OR COU COUNCILMAN. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>RYAN MANASSE: CAN YOU HEAR ME GOOD? SORRY I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION NOT TO CREDIT WHAT COUNCILMAN CITRO IS ASKING FOR ON THE SITE PLAN, WE MIGHT HAVE ISSUE REGULATING THAT TO THEIR OWN PRODUCT AND SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ MAY WANT TO COMMENT. I HEARD NO OUTDOO AMPLIFIED SOUND BY COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER AND CLOSED AT 11 P.M. SEVEN D DAYS A WEEK. IS EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THAT AS STAFF ANNOTATES THAT FOR CORRECTION IF THAT IS APPROVED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS. >>MARTIN SHELBY: WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM THE PETITIONER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM THE PETITIONER, MR. MANASSSE. >>RYAN MANASSE: YES, SO THEY ARE AWARE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. I DON'T WANT THEM TO FALL BETWEEN THE CRACKS. >> WE AGREE TO THOSE TWO ITEMS. >>RYAN MANASSE: THANK YOU. I WILL REFER TO SUSAN JON FOR THE PACKAGE SALES. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THANK YOU, SUSAN JON-LELEZ. YES, COUNCILMAN CITRO, YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO REGULATE THE PRODUCT OR SPECIFY THAT IT ONLY BE THEIR SPECIFIC PRODUCT. SHOULD YOU APPROVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES FOR BEER AND WINE AT THIS LOCATION. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MISS JOH JOHNSON-VELEZ. A SHOT IN THE DARK AND I THOUGHT I WOULD TRY. I HOPE THIS GENTLEMEN'S BUSINESS PLAN. MY FEAR IS THIS IS A PACKAGE SALES STORE WITH BEER AND WINE AND PEOPLE LIKE TO HANG OUT THERE. AGAIN, I AM HOPING THEIR BUSINESS PLAN WORKS FOR THEM. THANK YOU, MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: YOU ARE WELCOME. MRDINGFELDER?ES: A QUESTIO? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: AND I AM NOT SURE WHO TO DIRECT THIS TO, ZANE AND RYAN. IF THIS ESTABLISHMENT WAS STRICTLY DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN AS WE KNOW IT, YOU KNOW, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE, IF THEY WERE COMING IN, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT, WOULD THEY? BECAUSE SEEMS LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE LITTLE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT SHOPS AND WHAT HAVE N PARKING, DO THEY? >>RYAN MANASSE: IT WOULD BE LIMITED YES COUNCILMAN RYAN MANASSE FOR THE RECORD. DOWNTOWN IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AS FAR AS PARKING REQUIREMENTS. FOR INSTANCE, RESTAURANTS DON'T REQUIRE PARKING. THIS IS NOT CONSIDERED A RESTAURANT MORE OF A PROPOSED USE A COFFEE SHOP AND WILL HAVE TO GIVE AN ALCOHOL USE OR BAR LOUNGE. I BELIEVE DOWNTOWN BAR-LOUNGE IS 1,000 SQUARE FEET PER PARKING SPACES AND SOMETHING LIMITED TO THAT. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER, YES, IT IS MORE LIMITED THAN OTHER PARTO. AND AS WELL, I COULD MAKE ONE OTHER POINT IS SOME BARS CAN BE PROCESSED A ADMINISTRATIVELY DOWNTOWN IF THEY DON'T EXCEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT PER BLOCK. AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS FOR SOME OF THESE ALCOHOLIC ESTABLISHMENT. A LITTLE DIFFERENT SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I WOULD JUST FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES AND NOT TO BELABOR IT, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF PARKING FROM 22 SPACES TO ZERO WHICH FRANKLY IF IT WAS, YOU KNOW, VIRTUALLY ANY MORE SUBURBAN AREA OF THE CITY WOULD BE VERY ALARMING AND NOTHING THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER, BUT I THINK THAT PART OF FRANKLIN STREET PROBABLY USED TO BE BEFORE THE INTERSTATE AND WAS DOWNTOWN UP THERE IN FRANKLIN AND NOW IT SEEMS TO BE REVIVING AS A CONTINUATION OF DOWNTOWN. MAYBE MY YOUNGER COMPATRIOTS CAN CONFIRM THAT, I DON'T KNOW. >> MAY I OFFER THOUGHTS ON THE PARKING? MAY I SPEAK, THIS IS BRIAN GRIFFIN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: LET ME GET TO MR. MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I WAS GOING TO SAY A FURNITURE STORE RIGHT THERE ON THAT CORNER. THIS IS A 2-COP, WHICH MEANS IT IS BEER AND WINE AND THEY CAN DO ALL THEY WANT IN THE HOURS HAVE BEEN DEFINED. KOMBUCHA IS ONE ASPECT OF IT. AND THE REST -- SO YOU DON'T HAVE NO SALES OF NOTHING ELSE OTHER THAN KOMBUCHA, BEER AND WINE. >> WE HAVE A SMALL CABINET OF SNACKS THAT ARE PREPREPARED OFF-SITE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: LAYS POTATO CHIPS. >> WE DON'T HAVE THEM ON THE MENU AT THE MOMENT. BUT WE ALSO SERVE COFFEE, SIR. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED AND MR. VIERA. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: JUST A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. THE STREET CAR WENT UP FRANKLIN STREET AND PALM AVENUE PACK IN THE DAY. THAT AREA BEFORE THE INTERSTATE WAS ALL PART OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA GOING INTO TAMPA HEIGHTS. ANWE DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP WHEN ALL THAT WAS LAID OUT. FOLKS RELIED ON THE STREET CAR AND LIVED THERE AND WALKED THERE. TODAY LIVE NEARBY. WE SEE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. WE SEE ARMITURE WORKS, THE RIVERWALK. I MYSELF, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN BY TO TAMPA HEIGHTS, I PARK -- AM I TESTIFYING MISS JOH JOHNSON-VELEZ NO? I SEE PEOPLE USING ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION. I ALWAYS THOUGHT DO AWAY WITH PARKING MINIMUMS AS OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE, ESPECIALLY IN URBAN AREAS SUCH AS THIS AND AREAS BEING REVITALIZE. YOU KNOW, THE CLIENTELE BASE FOR A BUSINESS LIKE THIS I WOULD ASSUME WALKING FROM A ARMITURE WORKS AND NATURE WALK AND MAYBE THEY LIVE IN APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN, BUT MORE OF A WALKABLE AREA. NOT THAT WE ARE A VERY SAFE PEDESTRIAN AREA BUT DIFFERENT OPTIONS INSTEAD OF JUST TAKING A CAR. ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AND THIS WILL NOT EFFECT HOW I VOTE, BUT WHAT IS THE CARB COUNT ON KOMBUCHA? IS IT A KETO-FRIENDLY THING OR NO. >> I THINK YOU WILL BE HAPPY WITH THIS ANSWER. >> SO TECHNICALLY IT IS NOT KETO-FRIENDLY, THERE ARE SUGAR -- RESIDUAL SUGAR IN KOMBUCHA. THE TYPICAL SERVING 12 OUNCE ALSO RANGE BETWEEN 35 AND 50 CALORIES AND EIGHT GRAMS OF SUGAR. >>LUIS VIERA: VERY GOOD. -- >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: VERY GOOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>LUIS VIERA: I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO ASKED MY QUESTION. >>JOSEPH CITRO: M CHA, DO WE HAVE SCOOTER GU IDO TO RIDE ALONG WITH SCOOTER JOE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SCOOTER GUIDO IS TOO CHEAP TO PAY FOR THE SCOOTER. >JOSEPH CITRO: THEY MAY BE COMING UP WITH SEATED SCOOTERS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SUSAN JOHNSON VELEZ. COUNCILMEMBERS I WANT TO REMIND YOU AND YOU ARE ASKING THE APPLICANT A LOT OF QUESTIONS OF THEIR PTICUR OPERATIONS, BUT IF YOU APPROVE IT, YOU WILL APPROVING BEER AND WINE FOR ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION AND O OFF-PREMISE REGARDLESS OF WHO THE OPERATOR IS AT THIS LOCATION. I KNOW OFF SPECIFIC APPLICANT WHERE A SPECIFIC BUSINESS IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WHETHER THE CRITERIA ARE MET TO HAVE THIS PARTICULAR USE AT THIS LOCATION WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE SPECIFIC OPERATOR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I APPRECIATE THAT REMINDER MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ. IN THAT REGARD, WHAT IS THE COMPONENT -- WHAT YOU DESCRIBED IS COFFEE SHOP, CHILL, ALL THAT STUFF. WHAT IS THE NEED FOR THE DESIRE ASSOCIATED WITH OFF -- SALES OFF-PREMISE. >> SO WE HAVE OUR KOMBUCHA AVAILABLE ON-SITE IN A TAP ROOM WHICH IS NEW FOR TAMPA, THE FIRST OF ITS KIND. WE OFFER OUR KOMBUCHA TO GO IN GLASS GROWLERS. THE MOST POPULAR. TAKE HOME IN THEIR RIDGE AND ONE IN THE MORNING WHEN WE WAKE UP AND ONE FROM THE BEACH. HARD VARIETY TO TAKE HOME AND PUT IN THEIR FRIDGE AND ENJOY IT THROUGHOUT THE WEEK AND THAT IS WHERE THE PACKAGE SALES. AND ALSO IF I MAY CONTINUE ABOUT THIS AREA AND THE CONCERNS THAT I THINK ARE QUITE VALID. WHAT HAPPENS AFTER US? SO WE LOVE THE SPACE AND WE WANT TO STAY AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. BUT THERE IS SOMETHING REALLY INTERESTING GOING ON ON THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK, AND I WANT TO PAINT A PICTURE FOR YOU. I APPLAUD THE COUNCIL FOR DOING A FANTASTIC JOB OF PROMOTING AND CREATING THE ARMITURE AREA AND THE RIVER WALK. OUR BLOCK, A FEW BLOCKS EAST OF THAT, A SHORT WALK IS REALLY BECOMING -- GETTING IS OWN LIFE AS A CRAFT BEVERAGE BLOCK. DOESN'T MEAN ALCOHOLIC CRAFT BEVERAGE -- BUT TWO BEER BREWERIES, THE MEATERY WHICH IS AN INTERESTING AND UNIQUE DRINK AND KOMBUCHA. WHAT IS HAPPENING THERE ARE PEOPLE -- PEOPLE WHO ARE HEALTH CONSCIOUS AND PEOPLE LOOKING FOR DAYTIME ACTIVITIES, PLACES TO WORK ANDLACES TO SPEND, YOU KNOW, SUNSHINE HOURS ON THE WEEKEND ARE COMING THERE TO TRY THE VARIETY OF DIFFERENT CRAFT BEVERAGES AND GETTING A LIFE AND NAME OF ITS OWN. I THINK THIS COULD REALLY BECOME AN UNIQUE EXTENSION OF THE PRODUCT AT ARMITURE WORKS AND THE RIVER WALK. A VERY TAMPA-SPECIFIC THING. I DON'T KNOW ANY BLOCK IN THE COUNTRY WHERE YOU GET CRAFT BEER, CRAFT KOMBUCHA AND CRAFT MEAT WITHIN A FEW STRETCHES EACH OTHER AND THIS WILL HAPPEN IN THE NEAR AND DISTANT FUTURE. IT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUELY TAMPA. I THINK THERE IS PRECEDENT HERE EVEN WITH THE ALCOHOL SALES BECAUSE THOSE OTHER SITES DO HAVE ALCOHOL SALES WILL LEND TO WHAT IS HAPPENING EVEN BEFORE US AND WHAT WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN AFTER US A DAYTIME PLACE TO WORK, TO GO ON THE WEEKENDS, TO WALK, FOR CITY MARKETS AND POP-UPS TO HAPPEN. I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THIS -- AND THE BUSINESS MODELS OF OURS AND THOSE AROUND US ARE NOT ONE THAT LEND TO NIGHTTIME BARS, LOUD AMPLIFIED MUSIC OR THE CONCERNS THAT YOU VERY VALIDLY RAISE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS ITEM? >>CLERK: NO ONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE WILL CLOSE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: BILL IS OUR MOST WORLDLY GUY. WE EXPECTED HIM TO BE OUR KOMBUCHA EXPERT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MANY YEARS AGO AID FRIEND THAT LIVED ON 21st STREET IN YBOR CITY. THE NAMEF TH STREET WAS YBOR AND 21st. HER GRANDMOTHER'S NAME WAS KOMBUCHA. WHEN I SAW THIS HERE, I TOLD MYSELF, WOW, SHE BECAME FAMOUS. 65 YEARS LATER. SO GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR KOM KOMBUCHA. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE HAD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DING DINGFELDER. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, SINCE YOU KNOW ABOUT KOMBUCHA. WILL YOUEAD IT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ALL I WILL SAY AND AFTER THAT I WON'T MAKE ANY MORE COMMENTS. ITEM NUMBER 3, FILE NUMBER AB 2-21-11. BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SU-2 FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES, SMALL VENUE CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES AND PACKAGE SALES OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION AND MAKING LAWFUL THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT OR FROM THE CERTAIN LOT, PLOT OR TRACT OF LAND LOCATED 1601 N. FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 1607, TAMPA, FLORIDA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 2 PROVIDING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT ARE REPEALED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND LET ME SEE IF THERE IS ANOTHER ORDINANCE, AND WITH THE BUSINESS MODEL AND HOURS OF OPERATIONS STATED ON THE RECORD BY THE PETITIONER AND I FORGOT WHAT THEY WERE YOU. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: GENTLEMEN, DON'T LET US DOWN ON THIS. I HOPE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL DOES WORK YES. >>LUIS VIERA: OH, YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. AND I JUST REALIZED -- I JUST REALIZED WHERE I HEARD ABOUT KOMBUCHA WAS ON "SHARK TANK." I KNOW YOU GUYS WILL BE A GREAT SUCCESS BECAUSE I SAW IT ON SHARK TANK. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND SECOND READING AND ADOPTION JUNE 17 AT 9:30 A.M. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. VIERA. >>LUIS VIERA I WT TOSK THE APPLICANT NOW THAT WE ARE DONE. WE LIKE TO HAVE INCLUSIVE -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: SORRY, MR. VIERA. >>MARTIN SHELBY: REMEMBER NOT DONE WITH THIS HEARING. WE HAVE A SECOND HEARING. >>LUIS VIERA: OKAY. I WAS -- I WILL JUST SAY TO THE APPLICANT, YOU LOOK A LOT LIKE HARRY POTTER. THAT'S ALL -- [ LAUGHTER ] >> DO YOU ALLOW MUGGLES. SORRY, I HAD TO DO IT. I HAD TO DO IT. I HAD TO DO IT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I AM SURE HE NEVER HEARD THAT BEFORE. >> THE FST TIME, HE IS SHOCKED. >> THANK YOU. I TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT. >> HE SHOULD, HE IS A MOVIE STAR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM 3 AND 4 OUT OF THE WAY. NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 1. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS CATE WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. IF I MAY MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION WITH ITEM NUMBER 1. THIS EYE IS BEFORE YOU OF A FILE OF JOSEPH MURPHY, 6915 N. RIVER BOULEVARD SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION DENYING THE DESIGN RECEPTION THAT REQUESTED RELIEF FROM SECTION 27-21 1.2.1 SUBSECTIONS A. THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 25 TO ALLOW MR. COTTON AND MR. MURPHY ADDITIONAL TIME THAT THE CARPORT AS INSTALLED CONSTITUTEN ATCHED STRUCTURE AND WILL COMPLY WITH PRIMARY STRUCTURE SETBACKS INSTEAD OF THE SETBACKS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. EARLIER TODAY, COUNCIL WAS PROVIDED A COPY OF THE HEARING PROCEDURES OF TODAY'S REVIEW AND SAMPLE MOTIONS AND PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA IN 27.60 SUBSECTIONS E-5. FOR PURPOSES OF TONIGHT EARS HEARING. CITY SCOUNL A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW. YOUR DECISION IS NOT LIMITED TO THE DECISION BY THE ZONING ADMINSTRATOR. INSTEAD TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, ACCEPT NEW EVIDENCE AND MAKING DECISION BASED ON THE APPLICATION MEETING THE CRITERIA IN SECTION 27-60, SUBSECTIONS E-5. ERIC COTTON WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RELIEF IN THE APPLICATION, THE BASIS FOR THE CITY'S DECISION AND A SUMMARY OF HIS ANALYSIS WHETHER THE CARPORT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCE INTO THE RECORD IN TONIGHT'S HEARING, CITY COUNCIL MAY UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION OR COUNCIL MAY OVERTURN THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DECISION AND THEREBY APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION. FOR THAT I TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO MR. COTTON AND I REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. COTTON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>ERIC COTTON: GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. I WILL DO A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE SLIDE SHOW PRESENTED IN FEBRUARY JUST TO BRING EVERYBODY UP TO DATE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A WHILE AND I WILL EXPLAIN MY DETERMINATION REGARDING THE ACCESSORY VERSUS PRIMARY STRUCTURE DETERMINATION THAT I MADE. IF I MAY SHOW MY SCREEN -- THANK YOU. YOU SEE THE PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT? SO THIS IS A -- A PREVIEW FOR DE 1-20-66, THE PETITIONER JOSEPH MURPHY OF 6915 N. RIVER BOULEVARD. MR. MURRAY IS LOOKING TO REDUCE THE RIDE SETBACKS FOR A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. ZONING IS IN SIM NOEL HEIGHTS. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD FROM 60 FEET DOWN TO 24.7 FEET IN THE FRONT. BUILDING SEPARATION FROM FIVE FEET TO ONE FOOT ON THE -- EXCUSE ME, FROM FIVE FEET TO ONE FOOT AND BUILDING SEPARATION FROM EAVE SEPARATION-TO-EAVE SEPARATION. AND THE PROPERTY AT THE END OF THE DEAD-END STREET. SLIGH AVENUE AND RIVER BOULEVARD. THE STREET DEAD-ENDS BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE WITH YOU TONIGHT. THIS IS A -- THE SITE PLAN WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE PETITIONER, EXCUSE ME. THIS IS SHOWING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHERE IT IS LOCATED, AND THIS IS JUST A PICTURE FROM THE STREET. THIS HAS NOW BEEN REMOVED. I BELIEVE GRASS HAS BEEN RESTORED TO WHERE THE MULCH IS IN ON THE PROPERTY. A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY BEING USED AS A PATIO FOR ODOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND SUCH. AND THAT CONCLUDES A SLIDE S SHOW. AT THE LAST HEARING A QUESTION BROUGHT UP WHETHER THIS IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. I SPOKE WITH MR. MURPHY ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY AND DID A ZONING INTERPRETATION ROUGHLY ABOUT A MONTH AGO. MR. MURPHY HAD -- ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE AGAINST THE WALL WITH HURRICANE BOLTS OR HURRICANE TIES TO TRY TO CREATE ONE STRUCTURE. HISTORICALLY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, PRIMARY STRUCTURES ARE PRIMARY STRUCTURES, THE ATTACHMENT THAT PROPOSED DID NOT MAKE IT PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. PRIMARILY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT NEEDS TO SHARE A ROOF. IT NEEDS TO SHARE SOMETHING BEYOND JUST TWO -- TWO BOLTS NEXT ONE ANOTHER. AND SO THE INTERPRETATION IS THAT IT IS STILL AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THE CONNECTION OF JUST A -- JUST A BOLT OR SECTION DOES NOT MAKE IT PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. MR. MURPHY UNDERSTANDS THAT HE IS MOVING FORWARD TONIGHT TO REQUEST WHAT WAS ORIGINAL LOW REQUESTED THROUGH THE DESIGN EXCEPTION WHICH IS PRIMARILY DENY A VERY LARGE INCREASE FOR A PROCESS THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A MINIMAL REQUEST AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME REGARDING THE DETERMINATION, I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY QUES QUESTIONS GENTLEMEN. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES, SIR GUDES GUDES YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: ERIC, DURING THE INTERIM LOOKING AT WHAT, THE ATTACHMENT OR THE DISTANCE? >>ERIC COTTON: SORRY, YES, SIR. IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS -- ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND THE DETERMINATION THAT WOULD BE MADE. THE CONCERN WOULD BE IF WE CALLED -- IF WE USED ANY KIND OF ATTACHMENT AS MAKING IT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE, THEN EVERY STRUCTURE -- EVERY DETACHED STRUCTURE ATTACHED WITH A BREEZEWAY IS PART OF A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THAT IS HOW I WAS APPROACHING THE REQUEST. SO IN THIS CASE SPECIFIC LIE, WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD DONE WAS CONNECT HIM WITH SOME KIND OF MECHANISM TO BE ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. AS I SAID IN THE FIRST HEARING, YOU NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL. NORMALLY THE SAME ROOF LINE OR THE ROOFS WOULD BE ATTACHED. THAT WOULD MAKE IT A -- CHANGE THE REQUEST TO MAKE IT PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A DETACHED STRUCTURE? >>ERIC COTTON: CORRECT. I SPOKE WITHR. MURPHY REGARDING THE REQUEST AND I RECOMMEND THAT HE MOVE FORWARD WITH JUST ASKING THE REDEMPTION FROM CITY COUNCIL WITH THE PETITION FOR REVIEW FOR THE S SETBACKS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WHAT ELSE? I GUESS WE WILL HEAR, MR. COTTON, FROM THE APPLICANT. YOU ARE SOUTHERN IN MR. BRICKLEMYER. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >>ORLANDO GUDES: SWEAR IN. >>CLERK: DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU WILL TELL THE TRUT THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> YES. PLANNED MURPHY IS IN ATIN DANCE AT CITY COUNCIL. HE WILL SPEAK AFTER MY LITTLE PIECE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HE IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR? >> YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: RAISE YOUR HAND SIR. >> I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. JOE MURPHY. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: DOES HE WANT TO START WITH HIS ATT ATTORNEY. >> START WITH MR. BRICKLEMYER OR GO TO MR. MURPHY. >> I WILL GO FIRST.. GUDES OKAY, MR. BRICKLEMYER. >> IF I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN. I AM THINKING I AM PICKING THE RIGHT ONE. I WILL SEE IF WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT. >> WE WILL SEE THE RESIDENCE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I SEE IT. >> NO, THAT IS NOT -- THAT IS NOT THE SCREEN I WANT TO USE. I PICKED TWO. I SHOULD PICKED THREE, I THINK. LET'S TRY THAT ONE. THAT LOOKS BETTER. ALL RIGHT. A BRIEF BACKGROUND BECAUSE THIS IS A LITTLE CONVOLUTED AND COUNCIL HAS GONE THROUGH THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES AND NOT GOT TO HEAR THIS. THIS CASE IN OCTOBER 2019 AND APPLICATION OF VARIANCE AND THE VARIANCE WAS VRB 000001. AFTER MULTIPLE CONTINUANCES AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM MY CLIENT DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM FOR A VTE. CITY STAFF MOVED IT TO THE DESIGN EXCEPTION PROCESS AND THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS SEGMENTED INTO TWO DE 1 REQUESTS. DE 1-20-66 REGARDING THE ACCESSORY ISSUE STRUCTURE AND DE 1-20-148, THE NEXT ITEM ON AGENDA INTO THE 25-FOOT WETLAND SETBACK. TONIGHT WE HAVE THREE ISSUES TO ADDRESS. DEBATE OF CITY PROCEDURES FOR MR. GONZALEZ AND HIS ATTORNEY WITH REGARDS TO THE MOVE FROM THE VRB PROCESS TO THE DESIGN EXCEPTION PROCESS AND I DEFER TO THE CITY LEGAL COUNSEL TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. SECOND, AN ENCROACHMENT REDUCTION FOR DE 1-20-148 FROM 25-FOOT IN THE NEXT ITEM, THE CONCRETE SLABS. THIRD, WITH HE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DESIGN EXCEPTION ISSUE 20-66 RELATED TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DEALING WITH MORE OR LESS THE SAME S SETBACK ISSUES BECAUSE THAT IS PART OF THE DETERMINATION NOT TO MENTION ERIC DISCUSSED -- MR. COTTON DISCUSSED OF THE ATTACHED OR NOT ATTACHED STRUCTURE ETC. ETC. I AM NOT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ISSUE BECAUSE I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT AND THAT IS NOT WHAT I CAME TONIGHT FOR. SO MY CLIENT HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. COTTON AND OTHER CITY STAFF IN THE LAST DAY AND AALF AS HAVE BEEN RELAYED TO ME SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE HARDSHIP PROCESS. AS YOU MAY NOTE FROM THE SLIDE I HAVE THAT GOT, THE BUILDING, THE 19 -- THE 1904681 PERMITTING PROCESS IS BEING REOPENED. AS REMEMBER RICK -- MR. COTTON RELAYED, THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ZONING STAFF HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, ATTACHED, NOT ATTACHED. ARE PRIMARY SETBACKS. HOWEVER, MY CENT RELAYED TO ME -- AND I WILL LET HIM DISCUSS -- SOME DISCUSSION IN THE LAST DAY OR DAY AND A HALF WHICH IS WHY I DID NOT ASK FOR CONTINUANCE THAT THERE WAS SOME DENIAL. A DENIAL THAT HE WAS TOLD BY STAFF -- I AM NOT SPEAKING TO IT. HE WAS TOLD BY STAFF THAT THE HARDSHIP WAS NOT A CRITERIA FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION. SO ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS AS MR. COTTON OF WHETHER IT WAS ATTACHED OR NOT BUT I WANTED TO GIVE MY CLIENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO RELAY CONVERSATIONS AND POTENTIALLY GO BACK AND LOOK AT NOT NECESSARILY THE ATTACHMENT SETBACK PIECE BUT THE DESIGN BASED ON HARDSHIP CRITERIA. MR. MURPHY IF YOU WANT TO CHIME IN ON THAT PIECE. >> OKAY. AIM SUPPOSED TO SEE MYSELF IN ONE OF THE WINDOWS? >>ORLANDO GUDES: THEY WILL PULL YOU UP. >> OKAY. THERE YOU GO, SIR. >> YEAH, WHENEVER WE WERE REVIEWING THE DE 1-20-66 AND THE LETTER ITSELF, THE DENIAL, IT DID MENTION THAT IT WAS BASICALLY DENIED BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP. AND HARDSHIP IS OBVIOUSLY NOT ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER IT WILL BE ACCEPTED OR APPROVED OR NOT. SECONDLY, WE DID HAVE -- I DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MR. COTTON A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED THAT WE COULD BASICALLY CHANGE THE DESIGN SO THAT IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY APPROVED BY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES; HOWEVER, ZONING -- HE SAID ZONING IS NOT CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OR BUILDING, AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET TOGETHER AND LOOK AT THE NEW PLANS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION. I UNDERSTAND THAT NEXT WEEK, JUNE 6, THE OFFICES ARE GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AGAIN, AND, THEREFORE, I AM LOOKING AT GETTING A CONTINUANCE SO THAT MR. COTTON, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERS AND MY NEW PLAN OR DESIGN CAN ACTUALLY BE LOOKED AT AND APPROV. SECONDLY, THE ATTACHMENT THAT HAS BEEN BOUNCED AROUND IS NOT A HURRICANE ATTACHMENT, IT IS ACTUALLY A DESIGN THAT IS FROM AN ENGINEER. IT WAS STRUCTURAL IN NATURE AND SCREWS WHICH ARE TAP CONS THAT CONS THAT ARE STRUCTURAL IN NATURE OF THE SIZE AND DEPTH AND USING A 3 X 4-INCH RECTANGULAR STEEL TUBING THAT IS STRUCTURAL IN NATURE AND THE WINGS ARE THE ATTACHMENTS THAT THE SCREWS AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES THROUGH ATTACHES IS ALSO STRUCTURAL IN NATURE. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS FURTHER WITH MR. COTTON OVER THERE, BUT ALSO WITH A NEW DETAIN THAT WOULD BE APPROVED AS A -- MAKING THE SRUCTURE A -- AN ATTACHED STRUCTURE. SO, AGAIN, I AM ASKING THAT WE -- FOR A CONTINUANCE UNTIL AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO GET IN AND MEET WITH MR. COTTON AND THE ENGINEERS AT THE CITY IN PE PERSON. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MISS JOHNSON-VELEZ. PUT THAT BACK UP WHOEVER HAD THAT BACK UP. THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED -- HERE IS THE LETTER YOU RECEIVED JULY 7, 2020 FROM THE CITY DENYING THE -- THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST. YEAH, AND IT DOES USE THE WORD "HARDSHIP" WHICH I WOULD AGREE -- AND I GUESS I WILL ASK YOU, SUSAN, THAT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE WORDING FOR -- FOR THIS APPLICATION, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE VRB. IT'S DESIGN EXCEPTION. ARE WE -- ARE WE PROCEDURALLY TO BE IN GOOD SHAPE TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE LETTER ADDRESSING THAT WORD? OR IS THAT A WORD THAT WE CAN JUST IGNORE AND MOVE FORWARD, WHETHER OR NOT WE MO FWARD TODAY OR 60 DAYS FROM NOW? >>CATE WELLS: CATE WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. I WILL BE RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTION. SINCE THIS ITEM IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AS A DENOVA REVIEW, YOU ARE STANDING BASICALLY IN THE POSITION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND CAN APPLY THE CRITERIA IN 20-60 E 5. YOU ARE CORRECT. WI REGARD TO A HARDSHIP, SOON NOT WITHSTANDING THE LETTER ISSUED BY STAFF BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE RECORD CREATED BY STAFF, STAFF'S DECISION IS NOT BINDING UPON YOU. CITY COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW THIS AS IF YOU ARE SEEING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND IF I MAY, I WANTED TO TAKE A MOMENT JUST TO CLARIFY THE RECORD. MR. BRICKLEMYER MENTIONED THAT THIS ITEM STARTED OUT AS A VARIANCE APPLICATION BEFORE THE VARIANCE REVIEW BOARD, AND THAT IS CORRECT, BUT IT WAS NOT CONTINUED A NUMBER OF TIMES FOR A LACK OF A QUORUM. IT WAS CONTINUED QUITE A FEW TIMES BECAUSE THE VOTE WAS CONSISTENTLY 3-1. AND THE CODE AT THE TIME IN ORDER TO GET A VARIANCE APPROVED BY THE VRB REQUIRED A VOTE OF FOUR MEMBERS PRESENT. SO A QUORUM WAS PRESENT EACH TIME, JUST WASN'T A PREVAILING VOTE FOR EITHER AN APPROVAL AND THE DENIAL. WITH THE NUMBER OF TIMES THIS HAS H BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE VRB WITH THE SAME OUTCOME, I DID SPEAK WITH MR. MURPHY THAT HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, IF HE SO DESIRED, TO CONVERT THE APPLICATION TO A DESIGN EXCEPTION. THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LANG AND IN THE CODE FOR THE SEMINOLE HEIGHTS OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND IT WAS MR. MURPHY'S CHOICE TO CONVERT IT. SO IT WASN'T IMPRESSED UPON HIM OR SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS TOO HIS BENEFIT. IT WAS JUST IF HE WANTED CONCLUSION TO THE ISSUE RATHER THAN THE ONGOING LACK OF A PREVAILING VOTE BY THE V, THAT WAS AN OPTION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE RECORD TO THAT NOTE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SO, MR. MURPHY IS REQUESTING 60 DAYS. I WOULD ASSUME THERE MIGHT BE OTHER PARTY PRESENT WHO MIGHT OBJECT TO THE CONTINUANCE? OR AGREE TO THE CONTINUANCE? >>ORLANDO GUDES: DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR REGARDING THIS? ANYBODY REGARDING THIS? >>CLERK: NO REGISTER SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I AM SORRY, MARTIN SHELBY, NO SPEAKERS AT ALL WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS? >>ORLANDO GUDES: MADAM CLERK, MR. SHELBY IS ASKING -- OKAY. >>CLERK: I AM NOT AWARE IF THERE IS ANYBODY DOWNSTAIRS. >>CATE WELLS: EXCUSE ME, IF I, AGAIN FORT RECORD, CATE WELLS, ASSISTANT, I WAS CONTACTED BY DERRILL McATEER, THE ATTORNEY FOR MIKE GONZALEZ, A NEIGHBOR THAT FIL THE OTHER PETITION FOR REVIEW AND IT IS MY WAS GOING TO BE PARTICIPATINGR- IN TONIGHT'S MEETING. HE MAY BE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. >> IF I MAY SPEAK, LISA -- DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. WE DO HAVE PEOPLE HERE TO SP SPEAK. >>ORLANDO GUDES: OKAY. MR. MURPHY -- >> YES, I AM STILL HERE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU ARE ASKING THIS BOARD FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR 60 DAYS. >> I AM ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE, THAT'S CORRECT. I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THE VRB ISSUE. WE HAD A QUORUM AND ONE SEAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FILL AND IT WAS STILL VACANT AND OBVIOUSLY TWO MEMBERS WHO HAD TO RECUSE BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VARIOUS PEOPLE OR ASSOCIATIONS WITH -- IN THE AREA, WITH SOUTH -- WITH MINOLE HEIGHTS. WHENEVER I SPOKE WITH MISS WELLS, YES, WE WANTED TO TRY TO GET A -- A QUICKER DETERMINATION ON IT. OTHERWISE WE COULD HAVE STAYED WITH THE VRB UNTIL THEY HAD A NEW MEMBER APPOINTED OR THE ONE OBJECTING VOTE WOULD ACTUALLY CHANGE THEIR VOTE FROM AN OBJECTION TO A POSITIVE RESPONSE. SO GIVEN THAT, AND THE WAY THE -- THE DE ENDED UP FALLING OUT, IT WAS -- IT WAS KIND OF THE IMPRESSION THAT WHEN IT CAME OVER TO THE DE, IT WAS GOING TO BE FAVORABLE, WOULD POSSIBLY BE FAVORABLE. AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE GOT TO THE DETERMINATION THAT, NO, THERE IS THIS -- THE EASEMENT IS TOO MUCH. AND, YOU KNOW, TO ME, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE DE COMES IN THAT THEY SHOULD -- THAT IS THE DECISION THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE WITHOUT THEM SAYING IT IS TOO CONFINING FOR WHATEVER. BUT REGARDLESS, THAT IS THE REASON WHY I WENT FROM THE VRB TO THE DE PROCESS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: OKAY, SIR, THANK YOU. SO DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM? ONLY SPEAKING ON THE POSSIBLE CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM ONLY. >>ERIC COTTON: MR. CHAIR WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT AND MR. GONZALEZ AND MR. McATEE RTO GO ON. THE CENTER WILL NOT BE OPEN JUNE 6. THE PLAN IS TO HAVE US OPEN BY PUBLIC BY APPOINTMENT ONLY AFTER JULY THE INDEPENDENT DAY HOLIDAY. >> WHILE THE OTHER SPEAKERS ARE COMING UP. DID WE GET THE QUESTION ANSWERED. AGAIN I AM NOT -- I AM JUST UNCLEAR WHETHER THAT LETTER -- THE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY ONE OF THE COUNCILMEMBERS WHETHER THE LETTER WITH THE HARDSHIP REASONING FOR THE DENIAL, WAS THAT A CHALLENGE OR NOT? I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER ON MR. MURPHY'S BEHALF. >>CATE WELLS: CATE WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY SAYS MY RESPONSE TO THAT, SINCE CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW IT IS A DENOVO HEARING AND WILL APPLY THE SAME CRITERIA THAT STAFF IS ABLE TO, AND THAT LETTER WOULD NOT PRECLUDE COUNCIL FROM MOVING FORWARD TODAY. THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT STAFF'S REASONING WAS. COCIL S BEEN PROVIDED A COPY OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA AND BASED ON THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING CITY COUNCIL WILL MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE APPROVED. >> VERY WELL. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: STILL ITEM NUMBER 1. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 1, IN REFERENCE TO THE CONTINUANCE FROM THE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, DERRILL McATEER, 100 ASHLEY BOULEVARD .U THE QUESTION IS DO WE JECTO THE CONTINUANCE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM COMMUNICATING TO YOU APPROPRIATELY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. >> WE OBJECT TO THIS CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THIS ITEM SPENT A COUPLE OF HOURS -- HOUR OR SO IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL ON ALL THESE IMMEDIATE ISSUES BACK IN FEBRUARY ON THE 25th -- THE 25th OF FEBRUARY. THIS ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY MR. MURPHY OR ANYBODY ELSE. IT'S -- THE MATTER OF HARDSHIP IS NOT THE POINT. THE LETTER GOES ON. YES THE WORD "HARDSHIP" IS IN THE LETTER, BUT THEALSO -- THAT IS NOT THE ONLY POINT THAT THE DECISION WAS AJUDE KATEED UPON. STAFF MADE THIS DECISION BASED ON THE FACT THE ENCROACHMENT WAS EXCESSIVE. AND -- AND IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, FROM THE ORIGINAL DECISION, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT -- THEY SAY THIS IS NOT A MINOR ENCROACHMENT IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF MEMBER FROM THE 25th. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE ON THE FACTORS IN SECTION 27-60. NOT JUST WAS IT A HARDSHIP OR WASN'T A HARDSHIP. 26-60 WAS CITED IN THE LETTER -- JUST AS WE ARE CLEAR, A REVISED LETTER AUGUST 5, 2020. THERE WAS A REVISED LETTER ISSUED ON AUGUST 5. WANT TO USE THE RIGHT LETTER AND JAMMED WITH ANOTHER CONTINUANCE AFTER BEING THREE MONTHS. THEN AT LEAST LET'S USE THE CORRECT LETTER. I THINK THE CORRECT LETTER IS AUGUST 5. BUT THEREVIEWED THE APPLICATION UNDER THE 20-66 ALTERNATIVE GUIDELINES AND THAT MR. MURPHY REQUESTED. HE REQUESTED TO BE IN THIS SITUATION. THE FACT THAT THE WORD "H "HARDSHIP" WAS USE SHOULD NOT EXCUSE HIM WHEN COULD NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE OF NAILING A CARTO HOUSE AND SOMEHOW MAKING IT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT STAFF HAS STATED IT IS NOT. HE IS LOOKING FOR EJECTION SEAT TO TRY TO GET OUT OF THIS AND TRYING -- YOU ARE GOING TO SET CONTINUING THIS AND CONTINUING THIS. PEOPLE WILL LOOK -- I CAN NAIL A CARPORT. A HOME DEPOT CARFORTH TO HOUSE AND JUST DRAG THE CITY ALONG WITH ME AND I DON'T EVER HAVE TO GET THE PROPER PERMITS. I HAVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY CONSTRUCTION SERVICES DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT A PERMIT WAS NEVER ISSUED IN THIS CASE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: POINT OF ORDER. >> I KNOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: POINT OF ORDER, MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. McATEER, WE ARE GETTING IN THE SUBSTANCE -- FIRST WE NEED TO DECIDE OF A 660-DAYONTI CONTINUANCE. IF YOU CAN LIMIT YOURSELF TO THAT MR. CHAIRMAN WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATIVE. >> I WILL LIMIT MYSELF TO THAT. I SAID THAT THE DECISION TO CONTINUE THIS CASE, TO HEAR THIS CASE, TO PUT THIS CASE IN THIS FORMAT WAS MR. MURPHY. HE ADVOCATED TO THE CONTINUANCE TO THIS DATE FROM FEBRUARY. WE ARE HERE NOW. ALL OF THE FACTS -- THIS HAS BEEN RAKED OVER WITH A FINE-TOOTH COMB. THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO DISCOVER OR TO DETERMINE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. A CAR FORTH IN TO EXA HUES NEXT TO A CREEK. WE HAVE SETBACK ENCROACHMENT ISSUES AND LACK OF PERMIT. THINGS OF THAT. I AM NOT GETTING INTO THAT. THERE ARE NO PROPER GROUNDS FOR A CONTINUANCE OTHER THAN DELAY. THAT IS MY POINT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN. >> THEY GOT TO CLEAN THE MIC. DO YOU HAVE TO CLEAN THE MIC? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I DON'T THINK HE GETS A REBUTTAL. >> WE NEED TO GO THROUGH SANITATION PROCEDURES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE DON'T NEED A REBUTTAL, I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT'S CORRECT? >>MARTIN SHELBY: THAT'S CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO INQUIRE, BUT WHAT CONTINUANCE WILL THIS HAVE ON THE OTHER ITEM RELATED AND WHETHER MISS WELLS WANT TO READ THIS AT THIS HEARING AND TAKE IT AS THEY COE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THEY GO TOGETHER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THEY DO. WHAT REQUEST DOES THIS HAVE ON THE OTHER ITEMS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MISS WELLS? >>CATE WELLS: IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO ITEM NUMBER 2 ON WEATHER WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO CONTINUE OR IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HEARING THIS EVENING. WHEN THIS ITEM -- WHEN ITEM NUMBER 1 WAS CONTINUED ON FEBRUARY 25, MR. GONZALEZ INITIALLY WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS PETITION FOR REVIEW AND HALFWAY THROUGH MY PRESENTATION REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE. SO THAT IS -- THAT IS FOR MR. GONZALEZ AND HIS COUNCIL TO DECIDE HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED. >> I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT THE ONLY REASON WHY THESE CASES ARE RELATED IT THE FACT IT IS JOE MURPHY AND THE SAME PROPERTY AT 6915 N. RIVER BOULEVARD. THERE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT DEs. SO, ONE, DOESN'T EFFECT THE OTHER. AND THE THING IS THAT THE 66, BECAUSE OF THE DENIAL BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP. I THINK THAT IS ONE ISSUE. AND SECONDLY THE CONVERSATION THAT WITH MR. COTTON THE OTHER DAY SAYING WE COULD MEET AND DISCUSS IT FURTHER AND COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF ALTERNATIVE DESIGN THAT WOULD INDEED MEET THE APPROVAL OF THE -- THE ZONING DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. SO THAT IS WHY I AM LOOKING FOR THE CONTINUANCE SO WE CAN MEET IN PERSO ON JUNE 7 OR THEREAFTER WHEN THE OFFICE IS OPEN AGAIN WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. COTTON. MR. COTTON. >>ERIC COTTON: YES, SIR GUDES GHOOUDZ YOUR RECOLLECTION. >>ERIC COTTON: WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. I AM NOT SURE WHAT MR. MURPHY HAS TO SUBMIT TO US FOR REVIEW, BUT I KNOW I HAVEN'T SEEN IT. I SPOKE WITH HIM YESTERDAY AND SPOKE WITH HIS ENGINEER -- OR DESIGNER EARLIER IN THE WEEK. I WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE BUILDING WILL NOT BE OPEN UNTIL AFTER INDEPENDENT INDEPENDENCE DAY WHERE WE WILL BE ACCEPTING INDIVIDUAL FROM THE PUBLIC IN PERSON VIA APPOINTMENT ONLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. COTTON, COULD THIS BE ADMINISTRATIVELY RESOLVED? >>ERIC COTTON: IF THERE IS A MEETING OF THE MINDS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THAT STRUCTURE -- HOW HE IS PROPOSING TO ATTACH THAT STRUCTURE, POS POSSIBLY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS PROPOSING. I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING YET, AND MY INTERPRETATION THAT MR. BRICKLEMYER AND MR. MURPHY AND MR. McATEER HAVE SEEN. THAT IS STILL INTERPRETATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL BE PROPOSED TO SHOW THAT IT IS NO LONGER AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. I DON'T KNOW. GROWN IT WILL BE RESOLVED IN 60 DAYS OR NOT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT HOME. WE NEED TO BRING IT HOME. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL BE GLAD TO TRY TO BRING THIS HOME. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. MURPHY, WE DID HAVE A LONG CONTINUANCE A MONTH OR TWO AT LEAST BETWEEN THE LAST TIME WE HEARD IT AND THIS TIME. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY COMPELLING REASON TO BE TLAIB AS WE ALL MIGHT WANT TO -- BELABOR IT AS WE ALL MIGHT WANT TO GO HOME THIS EVENING, BUT THAT IS NOT A GOOD REASON. I WILL MOVE TO DENY -- RESPECTFULLY DENY THE REQUEST FOR 60 DAYS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. ONE WAY OR THE OTHERF HES NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT AT THE END OF THE NIGHT, HE CAN ALWAYS SUBMIT SOMETHING NEW, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD.HE HAS NEW PLANS OR SOMETHING ELSE. BUT FOR NOW, I THINK WE ARE -- WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. AND WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD TO THE FAIRNESS OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I SECOND THAT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER MADE A MOTION TO DENY. MR. MIRANDA SECONDED IT. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM THE PUBLIC. MOVE TO CLOSE ITEM NUMBER 1. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TALKED WITH REGARD TO THE CONTINUANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. BRICKLEMYER WANTS TO SAVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL McEER DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE SUBSTANCE BEFORE CLOSING. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU PROCEED WITH THE HEARING TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE FULL RECORD THAT YOU NEED NECESSARY TO MAKE YOUR DECISION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT, ON YOUR ADVICE, WE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE ON. WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM MR. McATEER ON THE SUBSTANCE OF ITEM NUMBER 1. >> AM I STILL ALLOWED TO SHOW A COUPLE OF ITEMS IN MY DEFENSE ON THIS? >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU IN THE REBUTTAL. >> YOU WILL COME TO ME. SO I NEED TO STEP AWAY? >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES, SIR. >> OKAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: IS MR. McATEER, STILL THERE. >> I AM, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. I HAD TO WAIT FOR A MOMENT FOR THEM TO CLEAN THE PODIUM, WHICH I APPRECIATE AND THEN I HAVE TO GET MY NOTES BACK IN THE RIGHT ORDER BECAUSE I WAS IN CONTINUANCE MODE AND GET BACK INTO MODE HERE. DERRILL McATEER, PHILLIPS DUNBAR LLP ASHLEY BOULEVARD, SUITE 2,000 IN TAMPA REPRESENTING MICHAEL GONZALEZ WHO IS THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE. AS I SAID IN THE FIRST HEARING BACK IN FEBRUARY ROAR MOST OF MR. MURPHY'S ARGUMENTS IN THE RECORD AND COMMENTS ARE INTENDED AS A DISTRACTION FROM THE CODE FACTORS THAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION. I KNOW YOU GUYS HEAR A LOT OF THESE, BUT I STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THEM ANYWAY. MR. MURPHY MUST MEET ALL SIX FACTORS OF SECTION 27-60. THIS STAFF IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER. EACH FACTOR IS FOLLOWED IN ITS PHRASING BY THE WORD "AND" WHICH MEANS HE DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET ONE OR THE OTHER BUT A-F, ALL OF THEM. PER THE WARRANTY DEED WHICH IS OF RECORD IN THIS CASE, MR. MURPHY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2010. AFTER THE SETBACKS IN THIS CASE AND THE WETLAND SETBACKS THAT WE WILL TALK ABUT LATER WERE ALREADY IN PLACE. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS MUST BE MET FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION UNDER CITY CODE. THIS IS UNDER 27-60. THAT THE EXCEPTION NEITHER INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER NOR INJURIOUS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE. AND -- I JUST PUT THAT ISO YOU KNOW WE GOT SEVERAL MORE OF THESE COMING AND THEY WILL ALL HAVE TO BE SATISFIED. SO I START OFF AND SAY EARLIER AND IN THE FIRST HEARING, MISS WELLS CORRECTLY SAID THAT I SHOULD USE LANGUAGE OTHER THAN HARDSHIP, THIS IS A SELF-IMPOSED CONDITION. MR. MURPHY PUT HIMSELF IN THIS SITUATION. MR. MURPHY CONSTRUCTED THE CARPORT WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT. HE APPLIED FOR ONE AND HE DIDN'T GET ONE AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO ACTIVATE WHAT I BELIEVE IS -- YES, SO THERE WE GO. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL CAN SEE THAT. I REQUESTED FROM BUILDING SERVICES FOR MIKE, AND I WILL BUTCHER HIS LAST NAME. MIKE OSIS. HI, DERRILL, AFTER I REQUESTED A BUILDING HISTORY SEARCH OF THIS PROPERTY BEFORE MR. MURPHY'S PURCHASE. JUST TO CLARIFY AND CON FARM PERMIT H NEVER BEEN ISSUED FOR BLD 190468681 WHICH IS THE ONLY PERMIT THEY COULD FIND -- PERMIT APPLICATION THEY COULD FIND. THE PLANS WERE DISAPPROVED BACK IN 9-19-2019. AND CORRECTED CAWTION WERE NEVER RESUBMITTED FOR REVIEW. THIS PROJECT NEVER MADE IT OUT OF PLAN REVIEW. AKA, THERE IS NO PERMIT FOR THIS STRUCTURE. I WILL LEAVE THIS UP THERE FOR NOW. AND ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DISC DISCUSSED, MR. COTTO'S MEMO OF RECORD NOTING THAT THE STRUCTURE IS NOT A STRUCTURE UNDER THE TAMPA CITY CODE. YOU CAN'T ANT AND SLIPPED AROUND IF YOU IF YOU CREATE A PRECEDENCE BUY AND ASSEMBLE WITH A WRENCH CAR PORTS BRA BRACKET, NAIL IT AND CALL IT PART OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND ENGAGE IT YOU ARE REWRITING STATE OF FLORIDA AND SET A PRECEDENCE THAT WILL CAUSE CONSTRUCTION CHAOS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. A TERRIBLE PRECEDENT TO SET. THE FACT THAT IT TOOK YEARS FOR THE VIOLATION TO BE DISCOVERED SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR IN HIS FAVOR. HE HAD A CITATION AND HE WENT THROUGH THE VARIANCE REVIEW BOARD AND PROCEDURAL THAT WENT INTO DESIGN EXCEPTION THROUGH HIS REQUEST. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC IS GENERALLY AT STAKE HERE. IF THIS STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED TO REMAIN -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU. >> I THOUGHT I HAD 15 MINUTES. AM I CORRECT? >> THIS IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, AND IF HE HAS A QUESTION, THOUGH -- LET ME JUST RAISE UP THIS FROM THE RULES OF PROCEDURES REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME MAY ONLY BE GRANTED IF THE PARTICIPANT MAKING THE REQUEST ESTABLISHES TO THE SATISFACTION OF COUNCIL THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NECESSARY TO AFFORD PROCEDURE DUE PROCESS. IF THAT IS THE CASE, COUNCILMEMBERS BY MAJORITY GRANT TO DENY THE REQUEST AND DETERMINE THE ADDITIONAL TIME NECESSARY. IN ANY EVENT THAT A PARTICIPANT IN A PARTICIPANT IN AUASI JUDICIAL. AND AS NECESSARY TO AFFORD PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS. >>LUIS VIERA: IF I MAY MR. CHAIR. I WILL GIVE THE GENTLEMAN SAT LEAST ANOTHER MINUTE TO FINISH UP. >> I WILL BE BRIEF. >>LUIS VIERA: WAIT. IF -- WITH YOUR CONSENT, SIR. >> I WOULD -- JUST TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: WAIT, MR. McATEER. OKAY, GO AND CONTINUE. E MORE MINUTE. SET THE TIMER UP, MADAM CLERK. >> THE 2706 FACTORS WERE NOT MET. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CONTEXT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY AND OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY THAT EMPHASIZE THE SPECIAL IDENTITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THE EXCEPTION IS NOT THE MINIMAL POSSIBLE UNDER SPECIFIC CRCUMSTANCES STANCES. THE APPROVAL OF THE ACCESSORY STANDARDS WAS JUSTIFIED. BASICALLY GIVEN THE BRIEF JUST GOING TO TE 27-60 A-F WERE NOT SATISFIED AT ALL. THIS IS A HOME DEPOT CARPORT THAT ANY OF CUSS GO OUT AND BUY AND SNICK A YARD BUT NEEDS TO BE IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND NOT IN THE SETBACKS AND AN EXTREME IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXTREME ENCROACHMENT. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. OKAY, MR. MURPHY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU, I AM BACK. ONE THING THAT MR. McATEER HAD INDICATED THAT THIS IS A HOME DEPOT CARPORT. WELL, HOME DEPOT DOES NOT SELL STRUCTURALLY DESIGNED CARPORT. THIS IS A CARPORT THAT HAS STRUCTURAL DESIGNS THAT MEET MOST BUILDING -- IF NOT ALL BUILDING REQUIREMENTS THROHOUT T. IT IS CAROLINA CAR PORTS. THE ONLY ISSUE HIRE IS THE ATTACHMENT SIDE OF IT. NOW WITH REGARD TO THAT, THE DE IS ONE THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND DETERMINE IF IT MEETS THE VARIOUS CRITERIA OF DE 27-60. AND, YES, THERE ARE SEVERAL PAINTS THAT HAVE TO BE CLEAR. THEY SAYS IT NOT A MINOR REQUEST, BUT -- IT MTS -IN THE DOCTOR IN THE CRITERIA THAT IT IS NOT AFFECTING OR HARMING ANYONE WITH REGARD TO THE STRUCTURE AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE. AS A MATTER OF FACT BEFORE I GET HERE, IT TALKS OF MEETING THE CRITERIA AND INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER. IT WAS TO CREATE FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCE PROPERTY AND CIVIC VALUES. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS BUILDING DOES. LET ME ZOOM OUT SO YOU CAN SEE THAT. THAT IS WHAT THIS BUILDING D DOES. GIVES THE FAMILY, OUR FAMILY, MY FAMILY, MY GRANDCHILDREN THE ABILITY TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS IN A COVERED ENVIRONMENT AND OVERSEE THE MANMADE WATER FEATURE THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ALSO THE GREATER SEMINOLE HEIGHTS, THE SAME SCENARIO. THE SITE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRESENCE WITHIN THE ESTABLISHMENT BLOCK AND SURROUNDING AREA WHICH IT IS. IT IS ACTUALLY SET BEHIND THE FRT OF THE HOUSE. AND DOES NOT PRESENT ANY TYPE OF ISSUE WITH REGARD TO VISION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, AS OF YESTERDAY, THIS IS THE PICTURE OF THE FRONT. THAT IS -- YOU GOT TO BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO SEE THAT. AND I DO HAVE ANOTHER PICTURE BUT I DON'T -- HERE IT IS. AND THIS IS A PICTURE LOOKING FROM FLORIDA GONZALEZ'S DR DRIVEWAY. AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN BARELY EVEN SEE THE STRUCTURE ITSELF ON THIS SIDE OF THE YARD. NOW WHEN IT COMES TO APPROVING -- I AM HOPING TO BE TREATED FAIRLY AND JUST. HERE IS ANOTHER STRUCTURE THAT IS ACTUALLY APPROVED AT THE HARRIS GOLF COURSE. SIMILAR STRUCTURE, STEEL REINFORCED ATTACHED TO CONCRETE AND THE ONLY ROOF MATERIAL. THIS HAS A CANVAS. MINE HAS A STEEL REINFORCED ROOF. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THAT STRUCTURE, IT IS AT ZERO FT ON THE EAVE. AND ONLY, LIKE, 24 INCHES FROM THE BUILDING SO THE ONLY THING I AM LOOKING AT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A PRECEDENT BECAUSE THE PRECEDENT HAS ALREADY BEEN SET. TALKED ABOUT A PERMIT. I APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT, BUT THE PERMIT IS IN A HOLDING PATTERN UNTIL WE CAN GET SOME DETERMINATION WITH REGARD TO THIS. I HAVE FILED EXTENSIONS. THERE IS AN EXTENSION IN PLACE THAT GETS ME INTO JULY. YOU KNOW, THE -- THERE IS A PERMIT. MR. McATEER MAKES IT SOUND LIKE IF HAS BEEN DENIED. IT WAS NOT DENIED BASICALLY PUT ON HOLD IN THE PROCESS UNTIL WE ET EVERYTHING CLEARED. AS FAR AS BEING DENIED IN THE BEGINNING, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. THE REVIEW BY THE BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT CAME TO URBAN DESIGN AND THEY SAID WE NEED TO GET DIFFERENT LOOKS. WE NEED TO GET A EPC DELYNNIZATION REPORT. AND WE ALS HAD TO GO THROUGH AND LOOK AT HOW THE BUILDING IS SET ON THE PROPERTY. IT IS ATTACHED. MEETS 150-MILE-PER-HOUR WIND GUSTS TEST. SO THIS IS A VERY STRONG STRUCTURE. AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT MR. GONZALEZ IN ANY WAY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, ALL THE NEIGHBORS -- THERE ARE SEVEN HOUSES ON THE STREET THAT ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH MR. GONZALEZ OR MYSELF. I HAVE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS. TWO OF THOSE SEVEN ARE ABSENTEE OWNERS. SO OUT OF THE SEVEN, BASICALLY THERE ARE FIVE RESIDENTS THAT WOULD ATTEST TO THIS. AND I HAVE FOUR. AND ACROSS THE CANAL ARE THE WATER FEATURE -- HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT. THE MAN MADE FEATURE, THE TWO RESIDENTS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WRAP UP, MR. MURPHY. >> HAVE ALSO AGREED TO IT. NO HOUSE -- THE CLOSEST HOUSE IS 80 FEET FROM ME IN THE BACK YARD. MR. GONZALEZ'S HOUSE IS 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE AND THE HOUSES ACROSS THE CANAL ARE 100 FEET. I AM REQUESTING THIS IS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE AND GRANTING OF IT WOULD NOT CAUSE ANY HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY. >> IT WOULD IMPROVE LIFE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CL CLOSE. MR. CITRO, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I DO APOLOGIZE. IS MR. COTTON STILL THERE. >>ERIC COTTON: YES, SIR. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YOU HAVE BEEN TRIED ANDRUE FOR ME ON THE VARIANCE BOARDS. AND HE SAID THIS BUILDING MEETS ALL CODES. WAS IT DONE TO A PERMIT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE. >> NO, SIR, HE IS IN A PERMIT PROCESS NOW. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THE DESIGN IN ANY STRUCTURE IF IT IS NOT PUT IN PROPERLY -- IF IT IS NOT INSTALLED AND INSPECTED AND PERMITTED, NO MATTER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING ITS, IF IT IS NOT INSTALLED PRO PROPERLY, DOES THAT REALLY MEAN ANYTHING, SAYING THAT IT MEETS STANDARDS? DOES IT HAVE TO BE INSTALLED PROPERLY? >> THAT IS MORE OF A BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUE. I HATE TO SAY IT, I AM NOT. >> I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT. >> IT WASN'T DONE BY PERMITS, HOW WERE WE ABLE TO SAY IT WAS DONE PROPERLY. MR. COTTON, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVE TO CL CLOSE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT. MR. DINGFELDER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: GIMING TO RESPECTFULLY PASS FOR MINUTE OR TWO AND HEAR WHAT OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE TO SAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. CITRO. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THIS IS A DE NOVO HEARING. A NEW HEARING. SO THE EVIDENCE IS IN. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROCESS IN AS MUCH AS WHAT WAS ON THE RECORD ACCORDING TO WHAT COUNCILMAN CITRO PUT ON THROUGH MR. COTTON THAT THERE WAS NEVER A PERMIT ISSUED. AND THIS IS MY MAIN CONCERN. THERE ARE OTHER CONCERNS. UP KNOW PETITIONER PUT ON THE RECORD ABOUT THE CAPABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE, WHAT IT CAN HOLD AND NOT HOLD. THAT IS NOT HERE -- WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW. BUT EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, THAT IS NOT THE REASON WE ARE HERE. WE ARE NOT HERE TO FINDUT WHAT VARIANCE OR WHAT IT CAN HOLD OR NOT HOLD ON ANY STRUCTURE. WE ARE HERE ON THE PROCESS OF THE CITY CODE, ACCORDING TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE TIME OF THE INSTALLATION AND THE TIME FROM THE INSTALLATION TO WHAT GOT US TO THIS POINT AND THAT WAS SOME TIME AGO, MONTHS AGO. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY RIGHT NOW. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANYBODY ELSE? CLOSE IT. LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL. >>MARTIN SHELBY: A REMINDER, COUNCIL. MISS WELLS DID PRODE FOR YOU -- LABELED ITEM 1, YOUR SAMPLE MOTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. EITHER TO APPROVE THE DESIGN EXCEPTION BY OVERTURNING OR DENY THE DESIGN OR UPHOLDING THE SGLOENZ ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION AND DENY DESIGN EXCEPTION DE 1-20-66 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN 27.60 E 5. GUDES SGLOOUDZ A SECOND. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ROLL CALL -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: QUESTION ON THE MOTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MR. CARLSON. I THINK -- I THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE MR. MURPHY. AS LIKE AT THE CRITERIA OF SUBSECTIONS 5, AND THAT IS WHAT LEGAL COUNCIL TOLD US TO DO. IT IS HARD TO SEE EXACTLY HOW WE COULD GRANT THIS. IF I LOOK AT THE CRITERIA SPECIFICALLY MARCHING THROUGH PAR EN A SAY THE EXCEPTION DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. WELL, WE GOT AT LEAST ONE "OTHER" ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU WHO WOULD DIFFER WITH THAT. AND WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT. B, THE EXCEPTION PROVIDES A REASONABLELLOWANCE OF USE UNDER THE SPECIAL PFIZER CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH APPLICATION. I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. THE NEXT ONE THAT THE EXCEPTION ACHIEVES THE GENERAL INTENT OF THIS CHAPTER IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND, AGAIN, I THINK AS STATED BY MR. COTTON IN HIS REVIEW WHICH IS PART OF WHAT WE ARE DOING TONIGHT, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THIS -- THAT YOUR PROJECT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHAPTER 27 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE ARE, AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. NEXT ONE, D -- THE EXEMPTION THE MINIMAL EXCEPTION OF THE POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES. I AM NOT SURE REALLY HOW TO ANALYZE THAT. SECTION E SAYS WE COULD INCLUDE CONDITIONS APPROVAL IF NECESSARY, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WORKS HERE F, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SPECIFIC PLANS IN PLACE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AGAIN, WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE IS NO -- THERE HAS BEEN NO PERMIT ISSUED. SO -- WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PLANS OTHERWISE IN OUR POSSESSION. ANYWAY, AS I MARCH THROUGH 5 A-F, I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW WE CAN UPHOLD YOUR REQUEST AND REVERSE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REQUEST. WITH THAT, I WILL AGREE WITH MR. CARLSON. >>ORLANDO GUDES: A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR DENIAL. AND ROLL CALL VOTE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: YES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: YES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ITEM NUMBER TWO. >> THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. I FEEL SORRY FOR ALL THE OTHER FOLKS THAT HAVE INSTALLED PRODUCT THAT OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT MEET THE CODE AS WELL. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. ITEM NUMBER TWO. >>CATE WELLS: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, I AM CATE WELLS, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THIS ITEM CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 25 WITH MR. GONZALEZ'S REQUEST WITHOUT BEING HRD. THE ITEM IS BEFORE YOU ON A PETITION FILED BY MICHAEL AND TERRI GONZALEZ, OWNER OF PROPERTIES AT 6196 N. RIVER BOULEVARD WHICH IS WITHIN 250 FEET OF MR. MURPHY'S PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6915 RIVER BOUL BOULEVARD. MR. AND MRS. GONZALEZ ARE SEEKING REVIEW OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR'S DECISION APPROVING THE DESIGN EXCEPTION FILED BY MR. MURPHY SEEKING RELIEF FROM SECTION 27-286 WITH RESPECT TO WET WETLANDS, PROTECTION AND B BUFFER. AS I MENTIONED IN THE PRIOR HEARING EARLIER TODAY, COUNCIL WAS PROVIDED WITH PROCEDURES OF TODAY'S REVIEW AND SAMPLE MOTIONS. YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA 20-60 SUBSECTIONS E 5. SIMILAR TO THE PROCESS OF ITEM NUMBER 1, CITY COUNCIL WILL PROVIDE DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW AND NOT LIMITED TO THE RECORD BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR, YOU CAN TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, ACCEPT NEW IDEN AND MAKE A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION MEETING THE CRITERIA OF 27-60 SUBSECTIONS E 5. ERIC COTTON WILL PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION AND THE BASIS FOR THE CITY'S DECISION. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD OF TODAY'S HEARING, CITY COUNCIL MAY UPHOLD THE CITY'S DECISION AND, THEREFORE, APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION OR COUNCIL MAY OVERTURN THE CITY'S DECISION AND THEREFORE THEREBY DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION. WITH THAT I WILL TURN PRESENTATION OVER TOR. COTTON AND I REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. COTTON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>ERIC COTTON: GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL ERIC COTTON, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. MAY I SHARE MY SCREEN, PLEASE. ANOTHER BRIEF POWERPOINT FROM BACK IN FEBRUARY. SO AS MISS WELLS WAS INDI INDICATING, DE 1-20-148 FOR 6915 N. RIVER BOULEVARD FOR SETBACK APPROVAL. THAPPLANT IS MICHAEL GONZALEZ THE PROPERTY OWNER ACROSS THE STREET. THE INDIVIDUAL APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE ACTION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHICH IS A NEIGHBOR. SO, AGAIN, THIS IS PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FA FAMILY, SRH PUMP AND FROM 25 FEET TO 7 FEET. THE REQUEST WAS APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR. -- NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR. TONIGHT YOU HAVE BRIAN KNOX WHO IS THE LEAD EXAMINER REGARDING HOW THE DETERMINATION WAS MADE, BUT BASICALLY THE STRUCTURE WAS PUT IN WITHOUT THE CONCRETE -- THE CONCRETE -- THE CONCRETE WAS PUT IN WITHOUT PERMITS FOR MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE FROM THE WETLAND SETBACK WILL BE MORE DETRIMENT FROM THE WETLAND AND CREEK AND ADJACENT BODY THAN LEAVING IT IN PLACE. AGAIN, THIS IS AT THE END OF THE DEAD-END STREET. THE LINE OF TREES. THE WATER FEATURE IS UNDERNEATH THAT TREE RIGHT WHERE MY CURSOR IS GOING. AGAIN, THIS IS THE SVEY. THE 25-FOOT SETBACK LINE IS IN RED. THIS IS THE WETLAND AREA AS DETERMINED BY THE EPC FOR THEIR WETLAND DETERMINATION PROCESS. THIS IS JUST A PHOTO OF THE AREA. THIS IS THE STRUCTURE THAT MR. MR. MURPHY HAS UP. AN EXISTING PVC FENCE. SOME GRASSY AREA AND WHERE THE BANK STARTS TO GO DOWN IN THE WATER AREA. AGAIN, ANOTHER PICTURE OF THE WATER AREA. AND I HAVE ONE LAST PICTURE AGAIN, THIS IS THE WET AREA, THE TOP OF THE BANK, THE GRASSY AREA AND THIS IS THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS FOR THE PREVIOUS CASE YOU JUST HEARD. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. IF NOT, THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF IT, PLEASE ASK MR. KNOX QUALIFIED TO RESPOND. >> MR. DINGFELDER AND THEN MR. CITRO. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I WILL PASS TO JOE. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SMITH C, DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY THIS WILL BE MORE DETRIMENTAL TO TAKE THIS OUT THAN TO LEAVE IT IN? >> PART OF THE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES COORDINATOR AT THE TIME THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE WILL BE MORE DETRIMENTAL TO THE WETLAND PUT IN PLACE. >> I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: LOOK LIKE WE HAVE MR. KNOX TO GIVE US TESTIMONY AND I WILL BE CAREFUL NOT TO TESTIMONY AS MR. SHELBY OFTEN WAR US. I DO HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THAT AREA. IT IS PROBABLY A MILE FROM MY HOUSE. BUT MR. KNOX, AS I RECALL, THAT IS SOMEWHAT OF A DITCH, IS IT NOT? I MEAN, IT FEEDS DOWN INTO THE RIVER, BUT WHAT I HAVE SEEN OTHER PORTIONS AND YOU CAN CORRECTLY AND PLEASE DO, BUT I HAVE SEEN OTHER PORTIONS OF THAT AREA. IT LOOKS TO ME TO BE SORT OF A DRAINAGE DITCH, AN OPEN DRAINAGE DITCH WITH A LOT OF RIPRAPND A LOT OF -- SOME PEOPLE ARE WELL AND SOME PEOPLE ARE RIPRAP AND THIS AND THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, BUT CAN YOU HELP US OUT AND CONFIRM OR DENY WHAT I JUST SAID? >>ERIC COTTON: THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS -- >> THAT'S CORRECT PUMP THIS IS ACTUALLY A DRAINAGE DITCH. AND IT'S -- IT WAS -- IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS SUCH WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE. IT'S -- IT IS AN UPLAND CUT DITCH. AND IT'S -- BASICALLY THAS THE ONLY PURPOSE THAT IT SERVING. BUT EPC RULED IT WAS INDEED A WETLAND AREA AND SO WITH THAT, WE DO ENFORCE THE WETLAND S SETBACK. >> AND DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PICTURES OF -- OF THAT DITCH AND OR WETLAND TO HELP COUNCIL SEE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT? >> WE SPRAY SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS. -- WE MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS. I GUESS I DIDN'T WANT COUNCIL TO THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EULALE SPRINGS. >> LET'S SEE. IF I CAN SHARE THE SCREEN HERE. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THS. I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU CAN SEE AT THIS TIME DINGFELDER WE HAVE GOT YOUR SCREEN. >> OKAY -- >>CATE WELLS: RYAN, THIS IS CATE, WE CAN SEE THE LETTER BUT NO PHOTOGRAPHS. >>RYAN MANASSE: IS THAT -- CAN YOU SEE IT NOW? OKAY. SO THIS IS THE NORTHEAST VIEW OF THE DITCH. IN IS THE EAST VIEW. AND THIS IS THE NORTH VIEW, THE PICTURE THAT WE SAW EAR EARLIER. THE PHOTOS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MR. KNOX. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> YES, KB BRICKLEMYER, 601 NORTH ASHLEY STREET -- >>CATE WELLS: THE APPLICANT IS MR. GONZALEZ. >> OH, I AM SORRY. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, DERRILL McATEER, SOUTH ASHLEY. APOLOGIZE IN THE THANKS HEA HEARING, USED TO RED YELLOW LIGHTS AND HAVING THESE TWO HEARINGS MASH TOGETHER. MY REBUTTAL TIME -- I WAS A LITTLE TOO SLOW ON THAT. I WILL KEEP A GOOD CADENCE ON THIS. SEEM LIKE WE WILL HAVE A BATTLE OF MONEY TOES BETWEEN "DITCH" AND "CREEK. " WE WILL GET THROUGH THAT IN DUE TIME. I HAVE TO ROLL THROUGH THE SAME CRITERIA THAT GOVERN THIS CASE THAT GOVERNED THE LAST ONE CITY CODE CRITERIA ALSO IN THE LETTER THAT WAS DEPOSITED IN THIS CASE. AND RENDER APPROVAL -- OR DECISION FOR MR. MURPHY. SO I WILL KEEP GOING. FIRST CRITERIA THAT THE EXCEPTION NEITHER INTERFERES WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER AND INJUROR RUSS TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE. AS STATED EARLIER THE ALLOWED 18-FOOT ENCROACHMENT. IS NOT A SMALL ENCROACHMENT INTO THE WETLAND AREA FROM 25 FEET TO SEVEN FEET -- INTO THE WETLAND SETBACK IN THE FORM OF A CONCRETE PAD. WE ALREADY DISPOSED OF THE C CARPORT STRUCTURE THREATENS A SPRING-FED CREEK. I WILL SHOW YOU THE SPRING IN A VIDEO. AND FEEDS INTO THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER AND DRAINAGE IN THE IGHBHOOD AND INQUINT EVERY LAW, POLICY GOVERNING THE SITE. THE EXCEPTION -- FACTOR B, THAT THE EXCEPTION PROVIDES A REASONABLE ALLOWANCE OF USE UNDER THE SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH APPLICATION AND. THIS IS A SELF-IMPOSED CONDITION. NO REASONABLE ALLOWANCE OF A USE. THERE IS AN 18-FOOT INCURSION INTO A WETLAND SETBACK AND DRAINAGE AREA PROTECTED BY CODE PROVISION FOLLOWEDBY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE EXCEPTION ACHIEVES THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE CHAPTER AND THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WELL, IT DOESN'T. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES SUCCESSFUL CITY BUILDING, EVERYTHING IS INTERCONNECTED IN CONTEXT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GENERAL GUIDE TO DO JUST THAT. ONE COMPONENT OF THE CANNOT BE VIEWED SINGULARLY AND WITHOUT TAKING ALL FACETS OF THE PLAN INTO CONSIDERATION. THAT THE NATURE AND INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TO THAT END, I BELIEVE THAT THE GRANT OF THIS DESIGN EXCEPTION VIOLATED LAND USE POLICY THAT RELATED TO NEW BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENTS TO THE CON TEXT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY WHICH IS A WETLAND NATURAL AREA WITH A WETLAND AND CREEK. 1.2.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY WHICH EMPHASIZE THE SPECIAL IDENTITY OF EACH CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS. THE SPECIAL IDENTITY SEMINOLE HEIGHTS WHEN MY FATHER WAS BORN IN 1932 WAS THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER. THREAT A TRIBUTARY TO A SP SPRING-FED CREEK THAT FEEDS THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. ENSURE THAT THE ZONING ODE ENFORCES QUALITY DESIGN AS IT RELATES TO THE COMPLEX OF THE AREA. WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE URBAN DESIGN WHEN A SITUATION WITH TWO DRIVEWAYS, HALF OF ONE IS ORDERED REMOVED. IT IS REMOVED WITH MULCH IS INSTALLED, BUT THE PAD -- THE PAD UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT WAS NOT REMOVED AND THERE WAS NO EROSION. NO TESTIMONY AND WON'T BE ANY TESTIMONY OF EROSION OR DAMAGE FROM REMOVING THAT SECONDR DRIVEWAY WHICH WE WILL GET TO IN A MOMENT. BUT YOUR QUALITY URBAN DESIGN IS NOT TWO DRIVEWAYS INTO A HOUSE AND REMOVING ONE QUARTER OF A DRIVEWAY. THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY NEEDS TO BE REMOVED INCLUDING THE PART THAT WAS REQUIRED BY THE CARPORT. POLICY 1.7.1. WETLANDS AND UPLANDS WITH SIGNIFICANT HABITAT AND UNIQUE THROUGH SPRINGS AND SINKHOLES AND PUBLIC EDUCATION PROS AND BANCEDITH OTHER AREAS OF OVERRIDING INTEREST. AND I DO POINT TO THE WORD "SPRING" IN THAT. AND MOVING BACK TO THE CRI CRITERIA. D, THAT THE EXCEPTION IS THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE EXCEPTION UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. 18-FEET ENCROACHMENT GOING FROM 25 FEET TO SEVEN WITH A CONCRETE PAD WHEN MOST OF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN REMOVED ALSO WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS MINIMAL POSSIBLE EXCEPTION. THESE AREN'T ORS, THEY ARE A ANDS. AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE ADJUSTMENT IS NOT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS OF OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE VICINITY AND WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WERE BASE ON THE PURPORTED STATEMENT BY THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY EPC REGARDING STABILITY OF THE WETLAND AREA. AND THE EPC DIDN'T OPINE ON THAT AT ALL. I THOUGHT MR. KNOX -- AND HE TOLD ME THAT HE WAS GOING TO STATE THA BUT I WILL PUT MR. ADAM SHIPPER'S E-MAIL FROM THE COUNTY UP. AND HE WILL SAY THAT THE EPC DOES NOT HAVE -- DOES NOT DELINEATE THE WETLAND LINE AS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BEYOND THE WETLAND DETERMINATION -- I HOPE YOU CAN READ THIS. BEYOND THE WETLAND DETERMINE NATION DELYNNATION BY EPC -- AN E-MAIL TO MY CLIENT, MR. GONZALEZ, TO DETERMINE WHY AND ON WHAT BASIS THE STATEMENTS ON A MATTER OF WHICH THEY WERE PROVIDED. EPC -- THE COUNTY NEVER CAME IN AND SAID OTHER THAN THERE IS A DELINEATED WETLAND IN THE AREA AND THEY WERE OUT. THAT PART OF THE APPROVAL L LETTER IS INACCURATE. SO PREDEMOLITION OF THE FIRST DRIVEWAY. LET ME GET A NUMBER OFF HERE. THE AREA THAT YOU SAW MULCHED AND MR. COTTON PLANNED KNOX'S PRESENTATION IS GONE. THAT WAS REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH MULL -- REPLACED WITH MULCH. NO TESTIMONY AND WILL NOT BE TESTIMONY THAT THAT HAS CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE WATER FEATURE TO THE CREEK NEXT DOOR ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO REMOVE THE REST OF IT. MR. MURPHY WAS CITED ON CODE ENFORCEMENT MAY 20109 FOR THE ILLEGAL SECOND DRIVEWAY AND THAT IS WHY IT WAS REMOVED. AND HERE WE ARE AFTER REMOVAL, WHICH YOU HAVE SEEN THIS. THERE IS THE MULCH. AND IT'S BEEN STABLE. THERE HAS BEEN NO TESTIMONY IT HAVEN'T BEEN A STABLE FEATURE OR THAT THERE WAS ANY DAMAGE TO THE WATER FEATURE AT ALL. JUST ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SAME. EVERYTHING IS STABILIZED. IT CAN BE DONE -- IF IT CAN BE DONE HERE AND DOWN HERE AND THIS CONCRETE PAD CAN BE DONE WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE WATER FEATURE. GUDES GLOOUDZ McATEER, PUT THAT PHOTO BACK UP. >> THE ONE WITH THE ARROWS. >> OKAY. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THE DISH OR CREEK. >> I KNOW WE ARE A BIT OF A BATTLE OF MONEY TOES. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THAT IS THE WATER RIGHT? >> THAT IS THE WATER. >>ORLANDO GUDES: AND THAT IS THE CREEK, CORRECT? >> YOU CAN SEE IT REFLECTING, BUT -- SO IT'S THERE. AND YOU GOT S AUGUSTINE ALONG THE SIDE. ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS AND THE MULCH WHERE THE FORMER DRIVEWAY THAT HE WAS FORCED TO REMOVE DUE TO A CITATION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. AND THIS IS VERY QUICKLY IS THE APPROVAL LETTER WHICH SITES TO SAYS -- SAYING THAT THERE WAS A REVIEW CON DUCKED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL COMMISSION, AND THE WETLAND S SETBACK AS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTENCE THAT THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD CAUSE -- EPCEVER MADE THAT FINDING. THEY NEVER MADE A FINDING THAT REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE PAD UNDERNEATH THE CARPORT THAT WE JUST DISPOSED OF IN THE LAST HEARING WOULD CAUSE ANY DAMAGE TO THE WETLAND AREA. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH A WETLAND AND NOT A DITCH. MORE THAN A DRAINAGE DITCH TO THE EPC AND THEY MADE THAT STATEMENT. I THINK THE MOST HELPFUL THING AT THIS POINT AND MADE MY POINTS ABOUT THE FACTORS. IT DOES NOT MEET SEVERAL OF THE FACTORS. HAS TO MEET ALL OF THEM. >> TO GO THROUGH ALL A-F. SOME ARE STRONGER THAN OTHERS AND HAVE TO BAT A THOUSAND CAN'T ON THE STRUCTURE. A PICTURE AND FOLLOW IT UP WITH A VIDEO OF -- AND THERE IS A BOAT IN THIS SO-CALLED DITCH. BECAUSE EVERYBODY KEEPS A BOAT IN IT BECAUSE, GUESS WHAT, A BOILING SPRING IN THIS THING. AND I KNOW THAT IS HARD TO SEE IN THE PICTURE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO PLAY A VIDEO FOR YOU THATILL IT. AND I WILL SEE IF MR. GONZALEZ WANTS TO COME UP AND CHANGE THE INPUT TO THREE. AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL WORK. >> FULL SCREEN. >> GO FULL SCREEN. >> HE SAID CLICK THAT. >> WE MAY NEED A LITTLE TECH SUPPORT. OKAY. AND YOU CAN ANNIVERSARY THIS VIDEO, WHICH WAS TAKEN THE SAME TIME AS THE PICTURE THAT I SHOWED EARLIER, ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS OF RECORD. THERE IS A FLOWING SPRING TH THERE. I AM SURE IT HAS BEEN ALTERED OVER THE YEARS BUT BEFORE THERE WERE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS AND SPECIFIC AS THEY WERE NOW. THIS IS NOT JUST SOME DRAINAGE DITCH FOR THE CITY OF TAMPA. THIS IS A TITLE FEATURE DITCH THAT, YES, IT RISES AND FALLS WITH THE TIDE AS DOES THE RIVER AND HAS A FLOWING SPRING IN IT. IT HAS MORE THAN ONE FLOWING SPRING. AND WE HAVE GOT ONE ON VIDEO. AND MR. GONZALEZ, IF YOU DO JUST SPEAK TO ANY REMAINING -- DO YOU KNOW OF THINK WATER FEATURES IN THE DITCH. >> WHAT HAS HAPPENED. >> USE YOUR ADDRESS. >> MIKE GONZALEZ 1609 N. RIVER BOULEVARD AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. THE CREEK -- AS YOU GET CLOSER TO THE RIVER, THOSE HOUSES HAVE THE SEAWALL SO NO EROSION. THE FURTHER YOU GO AWAY FROM THE TWO HOUSES ON THE RIVER, WELL, THESE STRUCTURES THAT THEY BUILT, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THERE HAS BEEN EROSION, SO NOW THE SEAWALLS HAVE COLLAPSED IN AND THE CREEK BACK THERE IS STARTING TO CLOSE IN ON TOP OF ITSELF. TERE ARE STILL SPRINGS ALL ALONG THE MIDDLE THAT FLOW OUT, BUT IT IS STARTING TO COLLAPSE BECAUSE THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT DIRECTING THE WATER FLOW AWAY FROM THE SIDES OF THE CREEK WALL. THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE. I HAVE SOME OTHER VIDEOS THAT I CAN SHOW ON MY PHONE IF I CAN USE THE ELMO. YOU WILL SEE MANATEES ALL THE WAY UP AT THE END OF THE CREEK. YOU CAN SEE MAYBE 100 -- AN OTTER, A ALLIGATOR. THIS IS BY NO WAY A DITCH. IT IS COMPLETELY A VIBRANT, AQUAUM QUALITYIC ADDITION TO OUR COMMUNITY AND -- AQUATIC ADDITION AND IT FEEDS INTO THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER. THE HOUSE I AM WAS MY GR GRANDPARENTS AND IT LOOKS ALL THE WAYACK. WHEN PEOPLE ADD, THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING. NOTHING IS DONE NOW, IT WILL CONTINUE TO CLOSE IN AND SO WE ARE JUST TRYING TO HELP PREVENT THAT SO THE BEAUTY AND THE PRESERVATION IS THERE FOR MY GRANDKIDS WHEN HOPEFULLY THEY TAKE OVER THE HOUSE. AND I JUST -- >> I WANT TO CLOSE WITH THE POINT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THERE IS A DUTY TO PROTECT NATURAL FEATURES. AND I THINK PART OF THE MONEY TO FIGHT AS I LABELED IT IN MY WORDS OVER THIS IS -- YOU KNOW, YOU PICKED UP ON THE FACT THAT MR. KNOX USED THE WORD "DITCH." HE HAS US USING IT AND EVERYBODY USING. A GOOD ARGUMENT. KIND OF GOOD LAWYERING. I CONGRATULATE -- BUT NOT A DITCH, AN ALTERED CREEK WITH FLOWING SPRINGS IN THE BASE OF IT. IT HAS INTERACTION WITH W WILDLIFE PHOTOS OF RECORD, AND, YOU KNOW, AS MR. GONZALEZ SAID, HE -- IF THIS IS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE AND THIS -- ESPECIALLY WITH THE CARPORT NOW BEING TAKEN OFF, WATER IS GOING -- THAT IMPERMEABLE PATH WILL STAY THERE. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE EROSION OFF THAT PAD AND COLLAPSE THE SIDE OF THIS WEEK. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN WHERE THE MULCH WAS BECAUSE THEY TOOK OUT THE CONCRETE PAD. PRESIDENT MULCH AND PERMEABLE AND GOES INTO THE GROUND. IMPERMEABLE 18 FEET IN THE W WETLAND SETBACK THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: QUICK QUESTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I DON'T THINK I WANT TO ASK YOU MR. McATEER BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE TOO MUCH TESTIFYING. I WANT TO ASK YOUR WITNESS, MR. GONZALEZ. >> YES, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: EVERYTHING I HAVE SEEN ON THIS CASE AND THE PICTURE THAT I SAW, IT APPEARS THAT THERE ARE SEVEN FEET OF ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS BETWEEN THE SLAB THAT IS AT ISSUE AND THE LEGAL BOUNDARY OF THE CREEK AND OR DITCH, COR CORRECT? >> NO, I BELIEVE IT IS LESS THAN THAT. THAT IS WHAT HE PUT ON HIS APLICATION. I BELIEVE IT IS LESS THAN THAT. AND IT IS ACTUALLY ABOUT FOUR FEET FROM THAT GREAT BIG WHAT I THINK IS A GRAND OAK, BUT WHAT MR. KNOX HAS DESCRIBED AS A SPECIMEN OAK WHICH IS COUPLE OF INCHES SMALLER THAN DIAMETER. I THINK -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I WILL HAVE TO ASK STAFF OR MR. MURPHY. ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE HERE, THIS IS A REQUEST TO GO FROM 25 FEET TO 7 FEET. SO -- AND WE LOOKED AT THE PICTURE AND THERE IS A BUNCH OF ST. AUGUSTINE AND LOOKS RELATIVELY FLAT. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT IS SLOPING TREMENDOUSLY. AND IS IT YOUR ARGUMENT THAT THIS SLAB IS SOMEHOW CAUSING THIS FOUR TO SEVEN FEET OF ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS TO NOW TUMBLE BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHTF THE SLAB TO BE TUMBLING INTO THE CREEK? IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. >> I CAN SHOW NEW A COUPLE OF PICTURES AND IT MIGHT BE A LOT CLEARER FOR YOU. CAN I DO THAT, PLEASE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: I GREW UP ON A DITCH OR CREEK WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT ON ANOTHER PART OF TOWN AND I UNDERSTAND THEY SOMETIMES COLLAPSE, BUT COLLAPSE BECAUSE THE SIDE WALLS AND THE RIPRAP GIVE OUT. IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF A SLAB THAT IS SEVEN FEET AWAY. >> THE PICTURE I HAVE GOT UP. ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT PICTURE? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: NOT YET. OKAY. >> SO -- DO WE HAVE IT? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: WE SEE A -- A RANCH HOUSE -- >> YES, THAT IS THE HOUSE 2010 WHEN MR. MURPHY BOUGHT IT AND THE GRASS ON THE CREEK SIDE OF THE HOUSE THE LEFT HOW IT GOES STRAIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE OAK TREE IS STRAIGHT UP. ANOTHER VIEW FROM THE BACK. YOU CAN SEE HOW IT IS GREAT. YOU CAN SEE HOW THERE WAS A S SEAWALL. AND SO NOW AFTER THE STRUCTURE IS PUT IN, BEFORE THE SUCTU WAS JUST CONCRETE. THIS LARGE CONCRETE SLAB THAT IS, OF COURSE, GOING TO PITCH THROUGH THE HOUSE AND PITCH AWAY THROUGH THE HOUSE AND THE PICTURES WHERE THE ARROWS ARE, YOU CAN SEE NO LONGER FLAT. AT A 45-DEGREE ANGLE. 2010 BEFORE THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION WAS AT A 90-DEGREE ANGLE. YOU CAN SEE IN THAT PICTURE. HOW IT IS ROUNDED HERE. AND A PALM TREE THAT WAS CUT DOWN ROLLED DOWN INTO THE CREEK. AND EVEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, AT LOW TIDE, WINTER IS WHEN IT IS REALLY LOW LIKE THIS. AND PEOPLE COULD SAY DITCH. ANY OTHER TIME WINTER LOW TIDE, THIS HAS WATER IN IT CONS CONSTANTLY. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE WITH THE ARROWS BECAUSE OF THE EROSION TO THE RIGHT. THE CREEK INSTEAD OF GOING STRAIGHT YOU SEE IT GET DI DIVERTED TO THE LEFT AND STRAIGHTEN BACK UP. THAT IS WHERE THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IS COMING FROM. >> ASK MR. KNOX OUR EXPERT THE SAME QUESTION. MR. KNOX. ARE YOU STILL THERE? >> YES, SIR, I AM. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: LET'S JUST H, RIGHT NOW. I KNOW A SLAB CAN HAVE SOME DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS ON AN ADJACENT WATERWAY, BUT CAN A SLAB HAVE EROSIVE EFFECTS ON THAT ADJACENT WATERWAY IF IT IS SEVEN FEET AWAY? >> I CAN'T -- I CAN'T SEE THE PICTURE, BUT I CAN SAY THAT A SLAB HAVING -- OKAY, THERE WE GO. SO I CAN'T SAY THAT TS SLAB DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY IMPACT TO THIS DITCH AREA ALSO, THERE IS VEGETATION RUNNING ALONG HERE THAT IF THERE WAS ANY SORT OF RUNOFF, IT IS GETTING FILTERED BY THAT AS WELL. SO THERE ARE TWO FACTORS OF FILTRATION THAT I AM LOOKING AT THAT SAYS THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR NATURAL RESOURCES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU, MR. KNOX. >> MR. SHELBY, POINT OF ORDER CAN ASK MR. KNOX A QUESTION. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IS THAT MR. McATEER? >> SHOULD I WAIT FOR REBUTTAL ON THAT? >>MARTIN SHELBY: AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I GUESS REBUTTAL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME IN REB REBUTTAL, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> A TEN-SECOND QUESTION BUT I WILL FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE THEIR FOLLOWING AT THIS POINT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MR. CHAIRMAN. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. KNOX. GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION. >> MAY QUESTION IS SIMPLY THIS. MR. KNOX, IS A CONCRETE SLAB PERMEABLE OR IMPERMEABLE. WATER GET THROUGH THE GROUND OR RUN OFF OF IT. >> IMPERMEABLE. >> MULCH PERMEABLE OR IMPERMEABLE. >> PERMEABLE. >> WATER GOES INTO THE GROUND WHEN IT RAINS ON MULCH. >> YES. >> THAT IS ALL I NEED ASK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ANY ADITIONAL QUESTIONS? ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS? >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MR. BRICKELL MYER. >> MR. MURPHY WILL COME UP. >> I ALSO HAVE MY ATTORNEY, MR. BRICKLEMYER SOMEWHERE OUT TH THERE. >> YEP. IF I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN, I WILL TRY TO PICK THE RIGHT ONE THIS TIME. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO 21-48, FOR PROPERTY SETPACK FROM 25 TO 7 FEET CONCRETE SLABS AS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, I THINK MR. McATEER GOING THROUGH 27-60 AND LET THAT STAND ON ITS OWN GIVEN THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THOSE IN THE PROCESS OF APPROVING THESE. I WILL RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF ITEMS HERE AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE STOP ME AS WE GO. THIS IS A REVISED LETTER FROM NATURAL RESOURCES CATHY BECK, ROBERTA MEADE OF A 25-FOOT S SETBACK AND CAUSING IT CONSISTENT. SHE SAID IT WAS BUILT FIVE YEARS AGO. SOME PARTS OF THE RECORD 2011, THAT IS WHAT MY CLIENT SAYS, NOT CERTAIN, BUT EITHER WAY FIVE OR EIGHT YEARS THAT THE CONCRETE SLAB HAS BEEN IN PL PLACE. THE SECOND ITEM IN COUNCIL'S RECORD. SHOWN AS FILE NUMBER DE1-24 -- BLAH-BLAH-BLAH, BRIAN KNOX APPROVAL LETTER AS WE PREVIOUSLY SEEN IN STAFF. YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT MR. KNOX FINDS THAT THE DE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE PER HIS PREVIOUS STIMONY. HE DID REVIEW THE A-F OF 27-06 AS PART OF THAT APPROVAL. THE CONTINUANCE OF LETTER. AN OVERHEAD FROM THE STAFF REPORT. AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO ORIENT COUNCIL AS TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. REALLY THAT WETLAND AREA OF THE DITCH, CREEK, MONEY TO, WHATEVER WOULD YOU LIKE TO CALL -- LOOKS LIKE A DITCH TO ME BUT THAT IS MY OPINION, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A THRIVING WETLAND. THE BLUE LINE SHOWS THE WETLAND AS DELINTED BY THE EP C THAT CAME OUT AND IT THEIR DELINEATION. AND THE PATH WHICH IS WHERE THE CURRENT CARPORT IS AND THOSE SLABS ARE WITHIN THE WETLAND SETBACK'S LINE. THE REDUCTION IS ON THE WETLAND SIDE THIS IS THE EPC REVIEW LETTER. FOR EPC VERY RUE 68658 AND FOR THE JOSEPH MURPHY PROPERTY AS STIPULATED ON THE RECORD. THIS WAS DONE ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELINEATING AF AFTER-THE-FACT PERMITTING AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT CITY OF TAMPA PLANNING REVIEW DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN STATED THERE ARE WAS A COMMENT FROM THE -- FROM THE COMMENT SHEET AND BLOW IT UP SO YOU CAN READ IT AND FROM EPC, ADDRESSING THE SAME THING. SO I AM ASSUMING THAT I HAVE -- FROM EPC STAFF TO GET THE ENTIRE PACKAGE BUT GIVEN IT IS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY AND DATES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 AS THE STAFF AS INDICATED IN THE OTHER LETTER. IT SAYS THE PROJECT IS SUBMITTED TO MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE VARIANCE REVIEW PROCESS BACK WHEN WE STARTED WITH THE VRB PROCESS. THE SITE PLAN HAVEN'T CHANGED AND THE CONCRETE PADS HAVEN'T CHANGED AND AT THE BOTTOM CON TARRY TO WHAT MR. McATEER SAID, AND NO VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 111 IEVIDENT. CHAPTER 111 IS THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION CODE. SO WHAT WE HAVE GOT HERE IS STAFF APPROVED IT, THE ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS, WHICH I DON'T KNOW THAT MR. McATEER OR MR. GONZALEZ AND ENVIRONMENTAL THAT MR. KNOX QUALIFIES AS HE IS RUNNING YOUR NATURAL RESOURCES STAFF AND FOUND CONSISTENT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. McATEER WILL SAY YOU ARE CREATING A PRECEDENCE, BUT YOU ARE REALLY NOT. HE IS SAYING CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS CODE AND THAT TAKING IT OUT WILL BE MORE DAMAGING TO THE AREA THAN LEAVING IT AS IT IS. GIVEN ALL THE FILTERING THAT WE HAVE AND THE RUNOFF PREVENTION THAT WE HAVE WITH THE ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS AND VEGETATION ALONGSIDE OF THE DISH. AS I POINTED OUT ON PREVIOUS SLIDES SEPTEMBER 11, EPC STAFF WENT OUT AND INSPECTED AND SIMILAR OF WHAT WAS DATED IN JANUARY 9, 2020. INSPECTION WAS SEPTEMBER. THIS IS JANUARY 20 AND CAME BACK AND SAID THIS IS PERMITTED AND THEY DON'T FIND ANY VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 11. I APPRECIATE MR. GONZALEZ AND HIS LEGAL COUNCIL HAS DONE A JOB OF OBJECT CITY GATING AND -- AND PROVIDED SOME PICTURES IN THAT THAT DOESN'T SHOW WHAT A -- PURPORTS TO SHOW OF EROSION AND THIS SORT OF THING. REALLY THE SFF H FOU BASED ON THEIR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AND MULTIPLE STAFF VISITS, WHICH IS ALSO ON THE RECORD BY NATURAL RESOURCES OUT THERE AND EPC FINDING THAT NO VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 111 IS EVIDENCE AND BASE ON THAT, I REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER VALIDATING THE STAFF'S FINDING AND APPROVING THIS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF MR. MURPHY HAS ANYTHING TO ADD OR NOT. >> I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS. THE DITCH. I HAVE AN OVERHEAD OF THE DITCH. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS AT LOW TIDE. IFHIS S A SPRING-FED RIVER OR CREEK OR WHATEVER, WOULD YOU SEE SUBSTANTIAL FLOW FROM THE DITCH. THERE ARE ONLY TWO SOURCES OF WATER THAT REALLY HIT THE DI DITCH. SOMEONE AN OUTFLOW FROM A KOI POND IN THE RESIDENCE BEHIND ME AND A 24-INCH STORM TRAIN PIPE THAT COMES DOWN OLA, THE STREET OVER. THE ONLY TWO SOURCES OF WATER THAT SUPPLY THE DITCH AT LOW TIDE. NOW THEY MENTIONED A SPRING. AND IF YOU -- I WISH I HAD MR. GONZALEZ'S -- BUT THE BOAT THIEVES SHOWING IS ACALLY AT THE MOUTH OF THE DITCH AND SITTING AT LOW TIDE IN THE M MUCK. AND THEN HE SHOWS THE BRINGHEAD. AND THE SPRINGHEAD IS ACTUALLY IN THE CORNER OF HIS PROPERTY IN THE RIVER. HE HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB OF FOE CAN YOUING IN ON THOSE TWO ITEMS THAT HE DOESN'T -- FOCUSING IN ON THOSE TWO ITEMS HE DOESN'T SHOW WHERE THE SPRINGHEAD OR WHERE THAT BOAT IS. THAT BOAT IS NEXT TO THE HOUSE ON THE RIVER ADJACENT TO HIS HOUSE. THIS IS MR. GONZALEZ'S HOUSE AND YOU SEE RIPRAP ON ONE PART OF HIS EMBANKMENT AND ALSO HAVE CONCRETE. OUT AT THE RIPRAP SIDE, NEXT TO THE RIVER, THAT IS WHERE THE SPRING HEAD IS. YOU CAN SEE IT BLOWING UP RIGHT THERE IN THAT PICTURE. A CLEAR BLUER PART OF THE WATER. THAT IS THE SPRINGHEAD. SECONDLY, HE TALKS -- >>JOHN DINGFELDER: HOLD ONE SECOND. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: JUST FOR CLARITY, THE PETITIONER IN THIS, MICHAEL GONZALEZ WHO TESTIFIED US TO EARLIER 6915 N. RIVER BOULEVARD. >> CORRECT DINGFELDER DHAINGZ IS HIS HOUSE THE GREEN HOUSE WITH WHITE WINDOWS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS HIS HOUSE. >> THAT IS HIS CONCRETE WITH PATIO FURNITURE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CREEK. >> THAT'S CORRECT. HE IS AT ZERO FEET ON TOP A BANK. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: MAYBE MR. McATEER WILL WANT TO TALK OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS. GO AHEAD. >> RIGHT. SECONDLY THEY TALK OF THE DRIVEWAY. FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THE DEED PROCESS, I HAD TO GO THROUGH TRANSPORTATION AND ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. THEY SAW I HAD TWO DRIVEWAYS. THEY SAID YOU HAVE TO REMOVE IT OR I CAN'T GO FORWARD. I SAID I WILL REMOVE THE DR DRIVEWAY. THEIR CONTENTION WAS THE DRIVEWAY STARTED AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND WENT TO THE STREET. IT WAS REMOVED. IN THIS PICTURE HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT BUT UNDER THE BOAT AREA ALL THIS IS FILLED IN WITH GRASS. THIS IS A HAVE I GOOD AREA FOR PERCOLATING ANY TYPE ORUNOFF. THE CONCRETE PAD ITSELF IS SET ON A SLOPE SO IT DRAINS ANY RAIN WATER THAT MAY BE ON IT ALL THE WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WHETHER I THEN GO INTO THIS AREA AND PERCOLATE INTO THE GROUND. AND AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER, THE -- THE -- THERE IS NO EROSION ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND HERE IS ANOTHER PICTURE OF IT, SEVEN FEET. SEVEN AND A HALF FEET AND MEASURED BY EPC AND ALL OF THIS IS GRASS. AND THERE IS NO EROSION. AND I WISH I HAD SOME OTHER PICTURES -- MR. GONZALEZ HAVE SOME THAT HE SAYS IS EROSION, AND NO EROSION. SECONDLY, WHY IS IT A DITCH? THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY. THE HISTORY AND HERITAGE OF THAT AREA. IN THE AREA A SPA THERE. A GULF SPRINGS. AND THIS IS WHAT -- AND WHERE OUR HOUSES ARE BUILT. NOWHERE ON HERE DO YOU SEE A CREEK. IT WAS ALL DUG IN BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO CREATE WATERFRONT PROPERTY FOR THE PNEUMONIA THAT AREA. HE WENT IN THERE AND STARTED DIGGING, HIT LIMESTONE THAT BASICALLY YOU CAN NOT MINE. AND IT ENDED UP THAT HE SOLD THEM ALL OFF, INCLUDING ALL THESE POOLS WERE FILLED IN AND MR. GONZALEZ'S PROPERTY IS TO THAN THEIR PART. MINE IS ON THE MIDDLE AND MINE IS WHERE THE STREET IS CURRENTLY BUT NO CREEK ANYWHERE IN THIS PICTURE ON THE NORTH OR SOUTH SIDE OF THE POOLS. AND RIGHT HERE IN THIS LITTLE SPACE RIGHT HERE IS BASICALLY WHERE THE SPRING THAT MR. GONZALEZ SAID IS LOCATED IN THE RIVER AT THAT LOCATION RIGHT THERE. AND THIS IS THE HISTORY OF THE AREA. THE DITCH IS A DITCH. I SPOKE TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY DITCH CLEANING -- WHATEVER THAT DEPARTMENT IS. AND I ALSO TALKED TO TAMPA STORMWATER. THIS DITCH IS NOT EVEN ON THEIR RADAR. IT IS NOT IN ANY OF THEIR PLANS. THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS. I OWN LITERALLY TO THE MIDDLE OF THE CREEK AND ON THE OTHER SIDE -- I SAY DITCH. ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT NEIGHBOR OF THE MIDDLE OF THE DITCH. THERE IS NO CLEAN-OUT EASE EASEMENTS, NO UTILITY EASE EASEMENTS, NO WATER DRAINAGE EASEMENTS NOTHING. IT WAS NEVER, NEVER PLATTED AS SUCH. AND JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB OF DEPICT NAG THERE IS ALL THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES GOING ON. IT IS NOT. IT IS VERY STABLE. NO EROSION AND THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY MR. KNOX AND EVEN BY THE EPC DEPARTMENT AND ALSO BY THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT AND HILLSBOROUGH DISH REMEDIATION DEPARTMENT. OKAY. NOTICE THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >>ORLANDO GUDES: NO, NO QUESTIONS. I GUESS WE WILL GO BACK TO MR. GONZALEZ AND MR. McATEER TO BRING THIS THING IN FOR A LANDING. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY COMMENTS WILL BE VERY SHORT AND LET MR. GONZALEZ SPEAK TO THE STRUCTURE ON HIS PROPERTY THAT WAS POINTED OUT TO BY MR. MURPHY. AGAIN, WANT TO EMPHASIZE AND THIS IS PER -- PER THE CODE AND NEED TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND POLICY 1.7 -- 1.17.1, WETLANDS AND UPLANDS WITH SIGNIFICANT WILDLIFE HABITAT FOR UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL SUCH AS SPRINGS AND SINKHOLES WILL BE PRESERVED THROUGH PERMITTING PROCESS. WHICH IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE NONE OF THIS HAS BEEN PERMITTED. THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH MULCH WHICH MR. KNOX HAS TESTIFIED IS PERMEABLE. IT WAS REMOVED BECAUSE -- HE WAS CITE AND AND IT WAS REM REMOVED. THE PAD THAT WILL REMOVE WITHOUT THE CARPORT WILL BE IMPERMEABLE AND INSTALLED WITHOUT A PERMIT. HE WENT THROUGH PROCESSES AND HAD THE DESIGN EXCEPTION LOOKED AT BUT NOT GETTING A PERMIT. THAT IS ASKING FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. AS FOR THE LOCATION OF SPRINGS AND AS TO THE FEATURES ON THE ONR. GONZALEZ'S HOUSE WHICH WAS BUILT -- THE HOUSE WAS BUILT VIA PERMIT IN 2009. OTHER THAN -- AND THAT -- THAT IS CITY RECORD. BUT I WILL HAVE HIM SPEAK TO THE STRUCTURE THAT MR. MURPHY POINTED OUT. GUDES GLOOUDZ McATEER, SO I CAN BE CLEAR. YOUR CLIENT IS ASKING TO PULL UP THIS CONCRETE SLAB. AND NATURAL RESOURCES SAY IT CAN BE A DETRIMENT IF WE PULL UP THE CONCRETE PAD. >> THAT IS -- THE PARAGRAPH IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE THEY ALSO SAID THE COUNTY SAID THAT WHICH THE COUNTY NEVER SAID THAT. BUT THAT IS -- MY UNDERSTAND OF THE COUNTY -- SORRY, APOLOGIZE, OF THE CITY'S POSITION WHICH I AM TRYING TO REBUT BY NOTING THAT THIS -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND PERSONALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW REMOVING MOVL OF THIS -- OF THE DRIVEWAY WHICH HE WAS FORCED TO DO AND REPLACED WITH MULCH. >>ORLANDO GUDES: HE WAS FORCED TO MOVE IT UP TO THE POINT OF -- OF THE EAVE OF HIS PROPERTY -- OF HIS HOUSE, CORRECT? >> AT THAT POINT, YES. BUT STILL WITHIN THE SETBACK, AND IS NOW GOING TO BE AN IMPERMEABLE PAD THAT IS GOING TO -- AND YOU HAVE SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YOUR KLEIN'S ONLY CONTENTION IS THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT. AND THAT -- THAT IS THE ISSUE. >> LET ME LET -- >>ORLANDO GUDES: LET HIM SPEAK BECAUSE I AM CONFUSED. >> MICHAEL GONZALEZ. I VE BN SWN IN. THE PAD THAT MY GRANDFATHER PUT IN, EVERYTHING ON MY PROPERTY IS PERMITTED, BUT THE REASON HIS WAS, I BELIEVE, ALLOWED WHEN I BUILT MY NEW HOUSE, WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THAT WITH THE INSPECTORS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ENGINEERED. LIKE THE RIVER ROCKS, YOU HAVE A CONCRETE PAD AND CONCRETE S SEAWALL. THERE IS NO EMOTION. THAT -- NO REROSE, THAT IS WHY HE ALLOWED IT. ON THE SIDE OF MY HOUSE WHERE I HAVE A PAD WHERE I KEEP THE GARBAGE CANS. THEY MADE ME PUT PAVERS. ON SIDE OF MY HOUSE I COULD NOT POUR CONCRETE OR A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS TO PUT THESE PAVERS SO FAR FROM THE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPERMEABLE. MR. MURPHY'S PROPERTY, REATTACH THE CONCRETE, BUILD A SEAWALL AND INTO OTHER ISSUE LIKE ANY OTHER ENGINEERED CONCRETE PAD NECK TO A WATERWAY. THE WATER WILL GO RIGHT OFF AND NO EROSION. THAT IS THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE OF WHAT HE CREATED WILL CAUSE A DETRIMENT TO THE STREET I LIVED ON, MY KIDS HAVE LIVED ON, MY GRANDPARENTS. I AM WATCHING IT DETERIORATE IN FRONT OF MY EYES AND AN EASY FIX TO ATTACH THE CONCRETE TO A SEAWALL OR REMOVE THE CONCRETE SO IT PERSONAL NIGHTS INTO THE GROUND. I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR US? >>ORLANDO GUDES: A ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. MOVE TO CLOSE FROM MR. MANISCALCO. SECOND. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: SECOND. >>LUIS VIERA: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: SECOND BY MR. VIERA. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THIS ONE I HAVE A MOTION ON IF YOU WANT IT. MR. CHAIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. DINGFELDER. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: THANK YOU. SO I WILL -- I WILL MOVE TO UPHOLD THE NATURAL RESOURCE COORE DESIGN EXCEPTION APPLICATION DE 1-20-148 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2060 E 5, SPECIFICALLY AS POINTED OUT BY MR. KNOX IN HIS LETTER APPROVING THIS, AS WELL AS THE TESTIMONY WHICH HAVE HEARD THIS EVENING. I WON'T MARCH THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE HAVE HEARD AND THE ONLY EXPERTE HEARD FROM TONIGHT IS MR. KNOX. EVERYBODY ELSE IS LAY. LAYPERSONS AND OR ATTORNEYS. MR KNOX, OUR EXPERT, INDICATED CLEARLY THAT THE -- THIS MEETS THE CRITERIA OF 5 A-F, AND SPECIFICALLY I WILL SAY THAT DOES NOT WE ARE FEAR WITH THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS IN THIS CHAPTER OR INJURORIOUS TO THE HEALTH, SAFE AND WELFARE. I BELIEVE THEY MEET THE CRITERIA AND MR. KNOX INDICATED HE DID AS WELL AND I WILL RELY ON HIS EXPERTISE IN HIS LETTER. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL LETTER, HE -- WHAT HE SAID AND WHAT I READ WAS, IT SAID "AFTER REVIEW BY THE CITY AND THE EPC" THEN HE CAME TO THOSE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS. HE WASN'T JUST CITING TO THE EPC. HE WAS ALSO CITING TO HIMSELF AND ANYBODY HOLES REVIEWED IT FOR THE CITY. SO WITH THAT -- ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD REVIEW IT FOR THE CITY. WITH THA I WOULD UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DECISION. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ROLL CALL. >>LUIS VIERA: YES. >>JOSEPH CITRO: NO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: YES. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YES. >>BILL CARLSON: NO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: YES. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: NO. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIED WITH CARLSON, MIRANDA AND CITRO VOTING NO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN. MR. VIERA -- SORRY, MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ HAS SOME INFORMATION. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. SINCE WE HAVE AN AB NIGHT, WE HAVE A MEMO DATED TO COUNCIL DATED MAY 25 OF NEW LEGISLATION PASSED IN THIS NEW SESSION AND SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR TWO WEEKS AGO THAT PERMANENTLY ALLOWED NOW CONTINUATION OF A SITUATION THAT WAS CREATED WHEN THE GOVERNOR ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER DURING THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COVID PANDEMIC THAT ALLOWED RESTAURANTS TO SELL AND DELIVER ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IF THAT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A SALE OF FOOD. SO THAT HAS BEEN DONE FOR PAST YEAR OR SO UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE ORDER AND THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW THAT MAKES IT PERMANENT. AS YOU ARE AWARE WHEN YOU ADOPT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ORDINANCES DO YOU SPECIFY IF FOR ON-PREMISE OR OFF-PREMISE PACKAGE SALES. MAY BE IMPACT TO CODE PROVISIONS. AND I WILL BE WORKING WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF TO DETERMINE WHT THE BEST AVENUE IS FOR ANY CHANGES THAT MAY NEED TO TAKE PLACE AS A RESULT OF THIS NEW LEGISLATION. I DID WANT TO VERBALLY REVIEW KIND. MEMO, AND LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM AND WILL BE COMING TO YOU WITH AN UPDATE AFTER I MEET WITH STAFF. I HAVE AN INITIAL MEETING WITH STAFF TOMORROW. >>JOSEPH CITRO: MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY. >>LANDO GUDES: YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >>JOSEPH CITRO: I WILL MAKE IT BRIEF. THANK YOU, MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ. DO YOU KNOW OF OTHER CITIES, COUNTIES THAT ARE FIGHTING THIS. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: I AM NOT AWARE BUT PART OF THE REVIEW LOOK AT HOW CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE IMPLEMENTING NEW LAW. >>JOSEPH CITRO: ADDS A WHOLE NEW MEANING TO OPEN CONTAINER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: A PROVISION IN THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT ALCOHOL BEVERAGES IN THIS LAW ARE NOT CONSIDERED OPEN CONTAINER. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. >>JOSEPH CITRO: ANY TYPE OF ALCOLICRINKN THE CAR IS CONSIDERED AN OPEN CONTAINER BUT I UNDERSTAND. >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ: THANK THANK YOU. >>JOSEPH CITRO: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GUDES GLOOUDZ VIERA, ANYTHING? >>LUIS VIERA: I ACTUALLY DO. MR. CHAIR ON JUNE 17, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE -- ALL OF YOU KNOW TIFFANY KLEIN. HAVE YOU EVER HAD A COVID SCARE LIKE I DID ABOUT 12 TIMES OVER THE LAST YEAR, YOU CALL TIFFANY AND ALL OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES -- AND I THINK A NICE FOR A CITY COUNCIL COMMENDATION FOR ALL OF HER WORK JUNE 17 AT 9 A.M. WE HAVE OUR FRIENDS AT THE URBAN LEAGUE COMING AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE WILL HAVE FIRST RESPONDERS AND CITY EMPLOYEES HERE, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, FIRST ON THE AGENDA. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION BY MR. VIERA AND SECOND BY MR. MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED. >>LUIS VIERA: THAT'S IT, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: NO, NOTHING TONIGHT, SIR. >>BILL CARLSON: NO, THANK YOU. >>JOSEPH CITRO: NOTHING TONIGHT. >>JOHN DINGFELR: THING, SIR. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MR. MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: YES, SIR, I DO SIR. ONLY FOURTH TIME IN 140 YEARS THAT THIS EVENT HAS OCCURRED. AND I WASN'T HERE 140 YEARS A AGO. MR. DINGFELDER, I SEE YOU SMILING. THE ACADEMY OF HOLY NAMES HIGH SCHOOL DIVISION 3 HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WON THE STATE CHAMPIONSHIP A FEW YEARS AGO -- A FEW DAYS AGO, I MEAN. AND THIS IS ONLY THE FOURTH TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE SCHOOL AND 140EAR HISTORY SINCE 1881 THAT THEY WON ANY TYPE OF HIGH SCHOOL CHAMPIONSHIP. THE LAST ONE WAS IN BASKETBALL IN 1996. AND TO MY SURPRISE, OUR OWN SHERISHA HILLS FROM PARK AND RECREATION WAS ON THAT BASKETBALL TEAM. >>ORLANDO GUDES: OH, WOW. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I LEARN SOMETHING EVERY DAY AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE YOUNG LADIES COME JUNE 3 AT 9 A.M. WITH THEIR COACHES TO MAKE A COMMENDATION TO EACH ONE OF THE GIRLS. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECON >>JOHN DINGFELDER: QUESTION ON THE MOTION. >>ORLANDO GUDES: QUESTION ON THE MOTION, YES, SIR. >>JOHN DINGFELDER: CHIEF OF STAFF BENNETT'S DAUGHTER WAS ON THE TEAM THE OTHER DAY. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: I GIVE CREDIT TO THE MOTHER OF THE GIRL. [ LAUGHTER ] >>JOHN DINGFELDER: YEAH, SHE WAS INVOLVED TOO. >>ORLANDO GUDES: MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SO MOVED. >>JOSEPH CITRO: SECOND. >>ORLANDO GUDES: WE ARE ADJOURNED.