Tampa City Council
Thursday, May 27, 2021
6:00 p.m. session
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.
[GAVEL SOUNDING]
18:02:09 >>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.
18:02:24 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
HERE.
18:02:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HERE.
18:02:27 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
HERE.
18:02:31 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
HERE.
18:02:34 >>CLERK:
WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM PRESENT.
18:02:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK.
MR. SHELBY, LEAD US WITH YOUR INTRODUCTION.
18:02:44 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL, PUBLIC, MARTIN SHELBY, THURSDAY, MAY 27, AFTER
6 P.M. AT OLD CITY HALL, 315 E. KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
TONIGHT'S QUASI JUDICIAL AND OTHER LAND USE RELATED
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.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 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 HAVE 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 CONSIDERATION AS IF THE COMMENTS WERE
MADE IN PERSON.
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 THE
COURSE OF THE 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.
18:06:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME HAND OVER THE
GAVEL, AND I WILL MAKE A NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR.
CARLSON AND CHAIRMAN 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.
18:07:20 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MR. DINGFELDER.
MR. VIERA WILL BE HERE SHORTLY ABOUT ANOTHER TEN
MINUTES.
18:07:25 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YOU WANT MOTION TO RECEIVE AND
FILE.
18:07:27 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
18:07:29 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
SECOND.
18:07:30 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL IN FAVOR.
OPPOSED.
18:07:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MOTION TO OPEN 1-4.
18:07:35 >> SECOND.
18:07:39 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN DINGFELDER TO
OPEN 1-4.
SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
WE WILL PROCEED --
18:07:53 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
DO 4.
18:07:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE CAN DO THAT.
A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN
MIRANDA.
18:08:09 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WHILE STAFF IS ONLINE, ANYTHING TO BE
BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION?
REQUEST A CONTINUANCE TO JUNE 24.
18:08:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY COMMENTS FROM STAFF?
18:08:19 >> YES, THEY ARE AWARE.
18:08:21 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
A REMINDER FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE
WILL NOT BE ANY MAILED OR PUBLIC NOTICE WITH REGARD
THAT AB 2-21-12 IS TO BE CONTINUED ON JUNE 24, 2021 AT
6 P.M. THANK YOU.
MOTION BY COUNCIL.
18:08:39 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER.
AND SECONDED BY MR. MANISCALCO.
ROLL CALL VOTE.
18:08:46 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THAT WILL BE FINE.
18:08:48 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
18:08:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
18:08:51 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
18:08:53 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
18:08:54 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
18:08:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
18:09:01 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIES WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT.
18:09:03 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK, FILE NUMBER
AB 2-21-11.
MR. VIERA IS NOW PRESENT.
18:09:14 >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMAN.
CAN WE HAVE A SWEAR-IN.
18:09:25 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
COULD WE HAVE BETTER AUDIO, I.T.?
18:09:27 >>CLERK:
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM YOU WILL TELL THE
TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
18:09:31 >> I DO.
18:09:42 >>CLERK:
THANK YOU.
18:09:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MAY PROCEED, SIR.
18:09:45 >> WONDERFUL.
MAY I HAVE CONTROL OF THE SCREEN, PLEASE.
18:09:50 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
I.T., WITH WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE
VOLUME OR --
18:09:57 >> 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 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 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
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
ESTABLISHMENTS.
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 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
PLAN 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.
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
ARMATURE 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 CITY OF TAMPA 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.
18:14:28 >>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 GO.
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.
18:15:15 >> MY NAME IS BRIAN GRIFFIN.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
18:15:20 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE CAN HEAR YOU NOW, THANK YOU.
18:15:23 >> WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO GIVE A GENERAL
PRESCRIPTION?
18:15:27 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO KNOW.
18:15:28 >> 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 OPPORTUNITY IF 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 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
ARMATURE WORKS.
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.
18:17:12 >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
KOMBUCHA IS A FERMENTED YOU 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 PROBIOTICS AND RICH 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.
18:18:34 >> I WILL JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT THE THREE OF US
LOVE TAMPA.
WE LOVE THE SPACE THAT WE FOUND.
IT IS A BUILDING THAT IS A HISTORIC RENOVATION PROJECT
ON FRANKLIN STREET.
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.
18:19:08 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN?
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:19:13 >>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?
18:19:34 >> ACCORDING TO --
18:19:36 >>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.
18:19:44 >> YES, SIR.
18:19:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING, MY OTHER
QUESTION 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.
18:20:08 >> 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.
18:20:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
ANY OUTDOOR SPACE AT ALL.
18:20:25 >> 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
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 BARS.
THE EXIT OF THE PATIO.
IN THE BUILDING THAT GOES ALL THE WAY EAST AND PROCEEDS
SOUTH AND LET'S OUT ON ESTELLE STREET.
18:21:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IS YOUR PATIO SPACE EN CLOSED WITH
A WALL OR SOMETHING?
18:21:46 >> YES, SIR, FOUR WALLS.
18:21:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HOW ABOUT YOUR HOURS OF OPERATION.
18:21:53 >> 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 CHANGES, IT 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.
18:22:20 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
CLARIFY TO ME WITH APPLES AND OF
WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU WANT YOUR HOURS TO BE.
18:22:27 >> IF THIS IS APPROVED, WE WOULD LIKE OUR HOURS TO BE
10 A.M. TO 7 P.M.
18:22:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
OKAY.
YOU ARE NOT A NIGHT -- YOU ARE NOT A NIGHTTIME
ESTABLISHMENT.
18:22:36 >> NO, SIR.
18:22:40 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
IS THAT TRUE SEVEN DAYS A WEEK?
18:22:42 >> 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.
18:22:53 >>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.
18:23:07 >> WE WOULD NOT.
18:23:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YOU ARE IN A FAIRLY URBANIZED AREA
AND SOMETIMES WEAR HILL HARSHER THAN THAT.
18:23:17 >> WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT THAT, THANK YOU.
18:23:22 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR, MR. CITRO.
18:23:24 >>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.
18:23:43 >> KOMBUCHA.
18:23:45 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
KOMBUCHA.
18:23:47 >> WHAT IS THE ALCOHOL CONTENT TO THAT?
18:23:51 >> OVER TO OUR HEAD BREWMASTER.
18:23:55 >> 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 BYPRODUCTS IS 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.
18:24:35 >>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 PARKING.
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 IN
TAMPA HEIGHTS, RIVERSIDE HEIGHTS AROUND ARMATURE THAT
TURN INTO MINI RAVES ON THURSDAY NIGHT UNTIL 3:00 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 PEOPLE'S WINES AND BEER AS SOON AS LET ME GET
THAT ONE STRAIGHT.
GO AHEAD.
18:26:02 >> WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER WINE AND BEER ON-SITE, BUT
OFF-PREMISE SALES WE WOULD ONLY SELL OUR PRODUCT.
18:26:09 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
THAT WAS A REQUEST BY THIS CITY
COUNCIL, WOULD THAT BE AGREEABLE.
18:26:16 >> TO LIMIT OUR PACKAGE SALES TO OUR PACKAGE SALES
ONLY.
18:26:18 >> WE ARE VERY AGREEABLE.
18:26:20 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. CHAIR.
18:26:23 >>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
AGO, YOU COULD PUT 20 BUSES IN THERE, THERE WAS NO ONE
THERE.
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 DEVELOPMENT THAT IS
COMING.
THAT'S ALL.
THANK YOU.
18:27:42 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYONE ELSE.
18:27:45 >>RYAN MANASSE:
MR. CHAIR, RYAN MANASSE.
18:27:47 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
RYAN, WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY
SOMETHING OR ZANE?
18:27:52 >>RYAN MANASSE:
YES, IF I CAN HAVE A MOMENT, CHAIR OR
COUNCILMAN.
18:27:55 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
18:27:58 >>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 OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND BY COUNCILMAN
DINGFELDER AND CLOSED AT 11 P.M. SEVEN 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.
18:28:33 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM THE
PETITIONER.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR THAT FROM THE PETITIONER, MR.
MANASSSE.
18:28:43 >>RYAN MANASSE:
YES, SO THEY ARE AWARE BETWEEN FIRST
AND SECOND READING.
I DON'T WANT THEM TO FALL BETWEEN THE CRACKS.
18:28:49 >> WE AGREE TO THOSE TWO ITEMS.
18:28:50 >>RYAN MANASSE:
THANK YOU.
I WILL REFER TO SUSAN JON FOR THE PACKAGE SALES.
18:29:00 >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ:
THANK YOU, SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ.
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.
18:29:19 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
MISS 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.
18:29:45 >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ:
YOU ARE WELCOME.
18:29:48 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
A QUESTION?
MR. DINGFELDER?
18:29:52 >>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 YOU, THEY DON'T HAVE
THEIR OWN PARKING, DO THEY?
18:30:26 >>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 PARTS OF THE CITY.
AND AS WELL, I COULD MAKE ONE OTHER POINT IS SOME BARS
CAN BE PROCESSED 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.
18:31:19 >>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.
18:32:04 >> MAY I OFFER THOUGHTS ON THE PARKING?
MAY I SPEAK?
THIS IS BRIAN GRIFFIN.
18:32:10 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
LET ME GET TO MR. MIRANDA.
18:32:12 >>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.
18:32:38 >> WE HAVE A SMALL CABINET OF SNACKS THAT ARE
PREPREPARED OFF-SITE.
18:32:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
LAYS POTATO CHIPS.
18:32:49 >> WE DON'T HAVE THEM ON THE MENU AT THE MOMENT.
BUT WE ALSO SERVE COFFEE, SIR.
18:32:52 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL I WANT TO
KNOW.
THANK YOU.
18:32:56 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED
AND MR. VIERA.
18:32:59 >>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.
AND WE 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 ARMATURE WORKS, THE RIVERWALK.
I MYSELF, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN BY TO TAMPA HEIGHTS, I PARK
-- AM I TESTIFYING MISS 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 ARMATURE 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.
18:34:23 >> I THINK YOU WILL BE HAPPY WITH THIS ANSWER.
18:34:26 >> 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.
18:34:41 >>LUIS VIERA:
VERY GOOD.
--
18:34:43 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
VERY GOOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
18:34:45 >>LUIS VIERA:
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO ASKED MY QUESTION.
18:34:53 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
MR. CHAIR, DO WE HAVE SCOOTER GUIDO TO
RIDE ALONG WITH SCOOTER JOE.
18:35:02 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SCOOTER GUIDO IS TOO CHEAP TO PAY
FOR THE SCOOTER.
18:35:05 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
THEY MAY BE COMING UP WITH SEATED
SCOOTERS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND.
18:35:11 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:35:15 >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ:
SUSAN JOHNSON VELEZ.
COUNCILMEMBERS I WANT TO REMIND YOU AND YOU ARE ASKING
THE APPLICANT A LOT OF QUESTIONS OF THEIR PARTICULAR
OPERATIONS, BUT IF YOU APPROVE IT, YOU WILL APPROVING
BEER AND WINE FOR ON-PREMISE CONSUMPTION AND
OFF-PREMISE REGARDLESS OF WHO THE OPERATOR IS AT THIS
LOCATION.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A 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.
18:35:48 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. CHAIRMAN.
18:35:51 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, MR. DINGFELDER.
18:35:55 >>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.
18:36:17 >> 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 ARMATURE 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 AND PLACES 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 ARMATURE 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.
18:38:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYBODY ELSE?
OKAY.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THIS ITEM?
18:38:54 >>CLERK:
NO ONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND WE DO NOT HAVE
ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
18:39:00 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE WILL CLOSE.
18:39:03 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
BILL IS OUR MOST WORLDLY GUY.
WE EXPECTED HIM TO BE OUR KOMBUCHA EXPERT.
18:39:11 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
MANY YEARS AGO AID FRIEND THAT
LIVED ON 21ST STREET IN YBOR CITY.
THE NAME OF THE 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 KOMBUCHA.
18:39:36 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE HAD A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN
DINGFELDER.
SECOND BY COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED.
COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, SINCE YOU KNOW ABOUT KOMBUCHA.
WILL YOU READ IT.
18:39:53 >>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.
18:40:52 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
18:40:53 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
18:40:57 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
18:40:59 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
GENTLEMEN, DON'T LET US DOWN ON THIS.
I HOPE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL DOES WORK, YES.
18:41:04 >>LUIS VIERA:
OH, YES.
18:41:06 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
18:41:07 >>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.
18:41:22 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND SECOND READING
AND ADOPTION JUNE 17 AT 9:30 A.M.
18:41:28 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. VIERA.
18:41:31 >>LUIS VIERA:
I WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT NOW THAT WE
ARE DONE.
WE LIKE TO HAVE INCLUSIVE --
18:41:38 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
SORRY, MR. VIERA.
18:41:40 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
REMEMBER NOT DONE WITH THIS HEARING.
WE HAVE A SECOND HEARING.
18:41:44 >>LUIS VIERA:
OKAY.
I WAS -- I WILL JUST SAY TO THE APPLICANT, YOU LOOK A
LOT LIKE HARRY POTTER.
THAT'S ALL --
[LAUGHTER]
18:41:55 >> DO YOU ALLOW MUGGLES?
SORRY, I HAD TO DO IT.
I HAD TO DO IT.
I HAD TO DO IT.
18:42:01 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I AM SURE HE NEVER HEARD THAT
BEFORE.
18:42:05 >> THE FIRST TIME, HE IS SHOCKED.
18:42:05 >> THANK YOU.
I TAKE THAT AS A COMPLIMENT.
18:42:11 >> HE SHOULD, HE IS A MOVIE STAR.
18:42:15 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
18:42:17 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM 3 AND 4 OUT OF THE WAY.
NOW TO ITEM NUMBER 1.
18:42:29 >>CATE WELLS:
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 27-211.2.1
SUBSECTIONS A.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 25 TO ALLOW MR.
COTTON AND MR. MURPHY ADDITIONAL TIME THAT THE CARPORT
AS INSTALLED CONSTITUTE AN ATTACHED 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 HEARING, CITY COUNCIL IS A DE
NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW.
YOUR DECISION IS NOT LIMITED TO THE DECISION BY THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
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.
18:44:38 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. COTTON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
18:44:41 >>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-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
OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND SUCH.
AND THAT CONCLUDES A SLIDE 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.
18:47:58 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN.
18:47:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES, SIR.
18:48:03 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, COUNCILMAN
DINGFELDER.
18:48:06 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
ERIC, DURING THE INTERIM LOOKING AT
WHAT, THE ATTACHMENT OR THE DISTANCE?
18:48:11 >>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.
18:49:09 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU
HAVEN'T CHANGED THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A DETACHED
STRUCTURE?
18:49:14 >>ERIC COTTON:
CORRECT.
I SPOKE WITH MR. 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 SETBACKS.
18:49:33 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
18:49:35 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WHAT ELSE?
I GUESS WE WILL HEAR, MR. COTTON, FROM THE APPLICANT.
YOU ARE SOUTHERN IN MR. BRICKLEMYER.
18:49:45 >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?
18:49:47 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
SWEAR IN.
18:49:50 >>CLERK:
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT YOU WILL TELL THE
TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
18:49:53 >> YES.
PLANNED MURPHY IS IN ATTENDANCE AT CITY COUNCIL.
HE WILL SPEAK AFTER MY LITTLE PIECE.
18:50:02 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HE IS ON THE SECOND FLOOR?
18:50:04 >> YES.
18:50:08 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
RAISE YOUR HAND, SIR.
18:50:10 >> I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.
JOE MURPHY.
18:50:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
DOES HE WANT TO START WITH HIS
ATTORNEY.
18:50:20 >> START WITH MR. BRICKLEMYER OR GO TO MR. MURPHY.
18:50:24 >> I WILL GO FIRST.
18:50:26 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
OKAY, MR. BRICKLEMYER.
18:50:35 >> IF I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN.
I AM THINKING I AM PICKING THE RIGHT ONE.
I WILL SEE IF WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT.
18:50:58 >> WE WILL SEE THE RESIDENCE.
18:51:00 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I SEE IT.
18:51:02 >> 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 VOTE.
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 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 A HALF 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 CLIENT 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.
18:54:33 >> OKAY.
AIM SUPPOSED TO SEE MYSELF IN ONE OF THE WINDOWS?
18:54:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THEY WILL PULL YOU UP.
18:54:46 >> OKAY.
THERE YOU GO, SIR.
18:54:55 >> 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
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 APPROVED.
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 ARE STRUCTURAL IN NATURE OF THE SIZE AND
DEPTH AND USING A 3X4-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 STRUCTURE 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 PERSON.
18:57:12 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT?
18:57:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEGAL.
18:57:16 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, MR. DINGFELDER.
18:57:21 >>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 MOVE FORWARD TODAY OR 60
DAYS FROM NOW?
18:58:18 >>CATE WELLS:
CATE WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY.
I WILL BE RESPONDING TO THIS QUESTION.
SINCE THIS ITEM IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AS A DE NOVO
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.
NO DISCUSSION IN THIS SECTION WITH REGARD TO A
HARDSHIP, SO 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 VRB,
THAT WAS AN OPTION THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO HIM.
I WANTED TO CLARIFY THE RECORD TO THAT NOTE.
19:00:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
19:00:37 >>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?
19:00:52 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ON THE SECOND
FLOOR REGARDING THIS?
ANYBODY REGARDING THIS?
19:01:00 >>CLERK:
NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM.
19:01:03 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I AM SORRY, MARTIN SHELBY, NO
SPEAKERS AT ALL WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS?
19:01:12 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MADAM CLERK, MR. SHELBY IS ASKING --
OKAY.
19:01:16 >>CLERK:
I AM NOT AWARE IF THERE IS ANYBODY
DOWNSTAIRS.
19:01:22 >>CATE WELLS:
EXCUSE ME, IF I, AGAIN FOR THE RECORD,
CATE WELLS, ASSISTANT CIT ATTORNEY.
I WAS CONTACTED BY DERRILL MCATEER, THE ATTORNEY FOR
MIKE GONZALEZ, A NEIGHBOR THAT FILED THE OTHER PETITION
FOR REVIEW AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. MCATEER
WAS GOING TO BE PARTICIPATING IN TONIGHT'S MEETING.
HE MAY BE ON THE SECOND FLOOR.
19:01:50 >> IF I MAY SPEAK, LISA -- DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
WE DO HAVE PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK.
19:02:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
OKAY.
MR. MURPHY --
19:02:11 >> YES, I AM STILL HERE.
19:02:13 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE ASKING THIS BOARD FOR A
CONTINUANCE FOR 60 DAYS.
19:02:19 >> 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 SEMINOLE 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.
19:03:47 >>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.
19:04:16 >>ERIC COTTON:
MR. CHAIR WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THAT
AND MR. GONZALEZ AND MR. MCATEER TO 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.
19:04:37 >> 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.
19:05:03 >>CATE WELLS:
CATE WELLS, CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY SAYS MY RESPONSE TO THAT, SINCE CITY COUNCIL
WILL REVIEW IT IS A DE NOVO 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.
COUNCIL HAS 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.
19:05:35 >> VERY WELL.
THANK YOU.
19:05:39 >>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?
19:05:56 >> MR. CHAIRMAN, DERRILL MCATEER, 100 ASHLEY BOULEVARD.
THE QUESTION IS WE DO OBJECT TO THE CONTINUANCE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM COMMUNICATING TO YOU
APPROPRIATELY.
19:06:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.
19:06:08 >> 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 THEY
ALSO -- THAT IS NOT THE ONLY POINT THAT THE DECISION
WAS ADJUDICATED 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 THEY REVIEWED 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 "HARDSHIP" WAS USE SHOULD NOT
EXCUSE HIM WHEN COULD NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE OF NAILING
A CARPORT ON A 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 A TERRIBLE
PRECEDENT BY CONTINUING THIS AND CONTINUING THIS.
PEOPLE WILL LOOK -- I CAN NAIL A CARPORT.
A HOME DEPOT CARPORT 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.
19:08:32 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
POINT OF ORDER.
19:08:35 >> I KNOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CONTINUANCE.
19:08:37 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
POINT OF ORDER, MR. DINGFELDER.
19:08:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. MCATEER, WE ARE GETTING IN THE
SUBSTANCE -- FIRST WE NEED TO DECIDE OF A 660-DAY
CONTINUANCE.
IF YOU CAN LIMIT YOURSELF TO THAT MR. CHAIRMAN WILL BE
GREATLY APPRECIATIVE.
19:08:52 >> 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 PORT 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.
19:09:48 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN.
19:09:55 >> THEY GOT TO CLEAN THE MIC.
DO YOU HAVE TO CLEAN THE MIC?
19:10:04 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I DON'T THINK HE GETS A REBUTTAL.
19:10:08 >> WE NEED TO GO THROUGH SANITATION PROCEDURES.
19:10:11 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE DON'T NEED A REBUTTAL, I THINK WE
PRETTY MUCH NEED TO MOVE FORWARD, THAT'S CORRECT?
19:10:16 >>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 COME.
19:10:33 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THEY GO TOGETHER.
19:10:35 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THEY DO.
WHAT REQUEST DOES THIS HAVE ON THE OTHER ITEMS.
19:10:39 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MISS WELLS?
19:10:43 >>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.
19:11:19 >> 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 PERSON ON JUNE 7 OR THEREAFTER WHEN THE
OFFICE IS OPEN AGAIN WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS.
19:12:13 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. COTTON.
MR. COTTON.
19:12:18 >>ERIC COTTON:
YES, SIR GUDES GOOD YOUR RECOLLECTION.
19:12:19 >>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.
19:12:49 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. COTTON, COULD THIS BE
ADMINISTRATIVELY RESOLVED?
19:12:57 >>ERIC COTTON:
IF THERE IS A MEETING OF THE MINDS
REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THAT STRUCTURE -- HOW HE IS
PROPOSING TO ATTACH THAT STRUCTURE, 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.
19:13:40 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT HOME.
WE NEED TO BRING IT HOME.
19:13:43 >>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 BELIEVE THAT
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 OTHER IF HE IS 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.
19:14:38 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I SECOND THAT.
19:14:44 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER MADE A MOTION TO DENY.
MR. MIRANDA SECONDED IT.
19:14:46 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
19:14:47 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
19:14:48 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
19:14:49 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
19:14:50 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
19:14:52 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
19:14:53 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
19:15:03 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19:15:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT
AND FROM THE PUBLIC.
MOVE TO CLOSE ITEM NUMBER 1.
19:15:15 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU TALKED WITH REGARD
TO THE CONTINUANCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF MR. BRICKLEMYER WANTS TO SAVE TIME FOR
REBUTTAL AND HE DID -- I BELIEVE MR. MCATEER 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.
19:15:38 >>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.
19:15:52 >> AM I STILL ALLOWED TO SHOW A COUPLE OF ITEMS IN MY
DEFENSE ON THIS?
19:15:57 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU IN THE
REBUTTAL.
19:16:00 >> YOU WILL COME TO ME.
SO I NEED TO STEP AWAY?
19:16:04 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES, SIR.
19:16:21 >> OKAY.
19:16:27 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
IS MR. MCATEER, STILL THERE.
19:16:28 >> 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 ABOUT 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 IN SO 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 CONFIRM A PERMIT HAS 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 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
DISCUSSED, MR. COTTON'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
BRACKET, NAIL IT AND CALL IT PART OF THE PRINCIPAL
STRUCTURE AND ENGAGE IT YOU ARE REWRITING EVERY
BUILDING CODE IN THE 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 --
19:20:55 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU.
YOUR TIME IS EXPIRED.
19:20:59 >> I THOUGHT I HAD 15 MINUTES.
I CORRECT?
19:21:04 >> 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 A
QUASI JUDICIAL.
AND AS NECESSARY TO AFFORD PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
19:21:45 >>LUIS VIERA:
IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR.
I WILL GIVE THE GENTLEMAN SAT LEAST ANOTHER MINUTE TO
FINISH UP.
19:21:52 >> I WILL BE BRIEF.
19:21:53 >>LUIS VIERA:
WAIT.
IF -- WITH YOUR CONSENT, SIR.
19:21:59 >> I WOULD -- JUST TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE --
19:22:03 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WAIT, MR. MCATEER.
OKAY, GO AND CONTINUE.
ONE MORE MINUTE.
SET THE TIMER UP, MADAM CLERK.
19:22:13 >> 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 CIRCUMSTANCES STANCES.
THE APPROVAL OF THE ACCESSORY STANDARDS WAS JUSTIFIED.
BASICALLY GIVEN THE BRIEF MOMENTS THAT I HAVE HERE, I
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.
19:23:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
OKAY, MR. MURPHY.
19:23:24 >> 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
THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
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 MEETS -- 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 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 FRONT 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
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 FEET 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 GET 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 DELINEATION REPORT.
AND WE ALSO 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 MANMADE FEATURE, THE TWO RESIDENTS.
19:28:33 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WRAP UP, MR. MURPHY.
19:28:35 >> 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.
19:28:56 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY.
19:28:58 >> IT WOULD IMPROVE LIFE.
19:29:00 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
19:29:03 >> THANK YOU.
19:29:07 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
MR. CITRO, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:29:12 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
I DO APOLOGIZE.
IS MR. COTTON STILL THERE.
19:29:16 >>ERIC COTTON:
YES, SIR.
19:29:22 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YOU HAVE BEEN TRIED AND TRUE 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.
19:29:37 >> NO, SIR, HE IS IN A PERMIT PROCESS NOW.
19:29:40 >>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 ITSELF, MEANING THE STRUCTURE, IF IT IS
NOT INSTALLED PROPERLY, DOES THAT REALLY MEAN ANYTHING,
SAYING THAT IT MEETS STANDARDS?
DOES IT HAVE TO BE INSTALLED PROPERLY?
19:30:07 >> THAT IS MORE OF A BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUE.
I HATE TO SAY IT, I AM NOT.
19:30:12 >> I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT.
19:30:15 >> IT WASN'T DONE BY PERMITS, HOW WERE WE ABLE TO SAY
IT WAS DONE PROPERLY.
MR. COTTON, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
19:30:23 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOVE TO CLOSE.
19:30:28 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
19:30:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOVED BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
MR. DINGFELDER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS.
19:30:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I'M GOING TO RESPECTFULLY PASS FOR
MINUTE OR TWO AND HEAR WHAT OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE
TO SAY.
19:30:51 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. CITRO.
19:30:55 >>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 FIND OUT 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.
19:31:54 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANYBODY ELSE?
CLOSE IT.
LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR
DENIAL.
19:32:04 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
A REMINDER, COUNCIL.
MISS WELLS DID PROVIDE 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 ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR.
19:32:25 >> 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.
19:32:45 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
IS THERE A SECOND.
19:32:46 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
SECOND.
19:32:48 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ROLL CALL --
19:32:50 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
QUESTION ON THE MOTION.
19:32:52 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:32:55 >>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 PARENTHESES 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 REASONABLE ALLOWANCE 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.
19:35:32 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR DENIAL.
AND ROLL CALL VOTE.
19:35:36 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
19:35:37 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
19:35:38 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
YES.
19:35:39 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
19:35:41 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
19:35:42 >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
19:35:43 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
19:35:50 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
19:35:52 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ITEM NUMBER TWO.
19:35:53 >> 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.
19:36:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
ITEM NUMBER TWO.
19:36:24 >>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 HEARD.
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 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 WETLANDS, PROTECTION AND
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 EVIDENCE 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 TO MR. COTTON
AND I REMAIN AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU.
19:38:19 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. COTTON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:38:21 >>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 INDICATING, DE 1-20-148 FOR 6915
N. RIVER BOULEVARD FOR SETBACK APPROVAL.
THE APPLICANT 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
FAMILY, SRH PUMP AND FROM 25 FEET TO 7 FEET.
THE REQUEST WAS APPROVED BY THE 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 SURVEY.
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.
19:40:56 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER AND THEN MR. CITRO.
19:40:59 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
I WILL PASS TO JOE.
19:41:01 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
SMITH COTTON, DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY
THIS WILL BE MORE DETRIMENTAL TO TAKE THIS OUT THAN TO
LEAVE IT IN?
19:41:09 >> 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.
19:41:20 >> I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
19:41:26 >> MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
19:41:28 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
LOOK LIKE WE HAVE MR. KNOX TO GIVE
US TESTIMONY AND I WILL BE CAREFUL NOT TO TESTIMONY AS
MR. SHELBY OFTEN WARNS 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 RIPRAP AND 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?
19:42:23 >>ERIC COTTON:
THAT'S CORRECT.
THIS IS --
19:42:26 >> 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 THAT IS THE ONLY PURPOSE THAT IT
SERVING.
BUT EPC RULED IT WAS INDEED A WETLAND AREA AND SO WITH
THAT, WE DO ENFORCE THE WETLAND SETBACK.
19:42:57 >> AND DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PICTURES OF -- OF THAT
DITCH AND OR WETLAND TO HELP COUNCIL SEE WHAT I AM
TALKING ABOUT?
WE MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS.
I GUESS I DIDN'T WANT COUNCIL TO THINK WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT EULALE SPRINGS.
19:43:49 >> LET'S SEE.
IF I CAN SHARE THE SCREEN HERE.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME DOING THIS.
I AM NOT SURE WHAT YOU CAN SEE AT THIS TIME DINGFELDER
WE HAVE GOT YOUR SCREEN.
19:44:39 >> OKAY --
19:44:43 >>CATE WELLS:
RYAN, THIS IS CATE, WE CAN SEE THE
LETTER BUT NO PHOTOGRAPHS.
19:44:47 >>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
EARLIER.
THE PHOTOS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD.
19:45:14 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, MR. KNOX.
19:45:27 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
19:45:38 >> YES, KB BRICKLEMYER, 601 NORTH ASHLEY STREET --
19:45:41 >>CATE WELLS:
THE APPLICANT IS MR. GONZALEZ.
19:45:55 >> OH, I AM SORRY.
19:46:02 >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, DERRILL MCATEER, SOUTH
ASHLEY.
APOLOGIZE IN THE THANKS 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 INJURIOUS 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 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 NEIGHBORHOOD AND 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 FOLLOWED
BY 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 SPRING-FED CREEK THAT FEEDS THE
HILLSBOROUGH RIVER AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP
PLAN.
ENSURE THAT THE ZONING CODE 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 SECOND 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 BALANCED WITH OTHER AREAS OF
OVERRIDING INTEREST.
AND I DO POINT TO THE WORD "SPRING" IN THAT.
AND MOVING BACK TO THE 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 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 THAT, 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 DELINEATION 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 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.
19:53:59 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MCATEER, PUT THAT PHOTO BACK UP.
19:54:02 >> THE ONE WITH THE ARROWS.
19:54:02 >> OKAY.
19:54:04 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THE DISH OR CREEK.
19:54:07 >> I KNOW WE ARE A BIT OF A BATTLE OF MONEY TOES.
19:54:10 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THAT IS THE WATER, RIGHT?
19:54:11 >> THAT IS THE WATER.
19:54:13 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
AND THAT IS THE CREEK, CORRECT?
19:54:18 >> YOU CAN SEE IT REFLECTING, BUT -- SO IT'S THERE.
AND YOU GOT ST. AUGUSTINE ALONG THE SIDE.
ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS AND THE MULCH WHERE THE FORMER
DRIVEWAY THAT HE WAS FORCED TO REMOVE DUE TO A
CITATION.
19:54:33 >>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 SETBACK AS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTENCE THAT
THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WOULD CAUSE --
EPC NEVER 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.
19:55:37 >> 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 THAT WILL DO IT.
AND I WILL SEE IF MR. GONZALEZ WANTS TO COME UP AND
CHANGE THE INPUT TO THREE.
AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL WORK.
19:56:23 >> FULL SCREEN.
19:56:24 >> GO FULL SCREEN.
19:56:25 >> HE SAID CLICK THAT.
19:56:36 >> 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 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.
19:57:24 >> WHAT HAS HAPPENED.
19:57:26 >> USE YOUR ADDRESS.
19:57:31 >> 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.
THERE 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, AQUATIC ADDITION AND IT
FEEDS INTO THE HILLSBOROUGH RIVER.
THE HOUSE I AM WAS MY GRANDPARENTS AND IT LOOKS ALL THE
WAY BACK.
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 --
19:59:05 >> 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 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.
THE MULCH AND PERMEABLE AND GOES INTO THE GROUND.
IMPERMEABLE 18 FEET IN THE WETLAND SETBACK THAT SHOULD
BE REMOVED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
20:00:35 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
QUICK QUESTION.
20:00:37 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:00:40 >>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.
20:00:49 >> YES, SIR.
20:00:51 >>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, CORRECT?
20:01:09 >> NO, I BELIEVE IT IS LESS THAN THAT.
THAT IS WHAT HE PUT ON HIS APPLICATION.
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 --
20:01:32 >>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 WEIGHT OF THE SLAB TO BE
TUMBLING INTO THE CREEK?
IT DOESN'T -- IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.
20:02:16 >> I CAN SHOW NEW A COUPLE OF PICTURES AND IT MIGHT BE
A LOT CLEARER FOR YOU.
CAN I DO THAT, PLEASE.
20:02:25 >>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.
20:02:40 >> THE PICTURE I HAVE GOT UP.
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THAT PICTURE?
20:02:45 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NOT YET.
OKAY.
20:02:48 >> SO -- DO WE HAVE IT?
20:02:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
WE SEE A -- A RANCH HOUSE --
20:02:56 >> 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 SEAWALL.
AND SO NOW AFTER THE STRUCTURE IS PUT IN, BEFORE THE
STRUCTURE 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
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
DIVERTED TO THE LEFT AND STRAIGHTEN BACK UP.
THAT IS WHERE THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION IS COMING FROM.
20:04:14 >> ASK MR. KNOX OUR EXPERT THE SAME QUESTION.
MR. KNOX.
ARE YOU STILL THERE?
20:04:19 >> YES, SIR, I AM.
20:04:22 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
LET'S JUST HOLD THAT PICTURE RIGHT
THERE, 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?
20:04:46 >> 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 THIS 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.
20:05:29 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU, MR. KNOX.
20:05:34 >> MR. SHELBY, POINT OF ORDER CAN ASK MR. KNOX A
QUESTION.
20:05:39 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IS THAT MR. MCATEER?
20:05:43 >> SHOULD I WAIT FOR REBUTTAL ON THAT?
20:05:45 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I GUESS
REBUTTAL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
20:05:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HE WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME IN
REBUTTAL, MR. CHAIRMAN.
20:05:57 >> A TEN-SECOND QUESTION BUT I WILL FOLLOW THE
PROCEDURE THEIR FOLLOWING AT THIS POINT.
20:06:00 >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN.
20:06:02 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. KNOX.
GO AHEAD AND ASK THE QUESTION.
20:06:06 >> MAY QUESTION IS SIMPLY THIS.
MR. KNOX, IS A CONCRETE SLAB PERMEABLE OR IMPERMEABLE?
WATER GET THROUGH THE GROUND OR RUN OFF OF IT.
20:06:17 >> IMPERMEABLE.
20:06:21 >> MULCH PERMEABLE OR IMPERMEABLE?
20:06:23 >> PERMEABLE.
20:06:27 >> WATER GOES INTO THE GROUND WHEN IT RAINS ON MULCH.
20:06:28 >> YES.
20:06:30 >> THAT IS ALL I NEED ASK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME UNLESS YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS.
20:06:37 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
ANYONE ON THE SECOND FLOOR TO SPEAK ON THIS?
20:06:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MR. BRICKELL MYER.
20:06:56 >> MR. MURPHY WILL COME UP.
20:06:59 >> I ALSO HAVE MY ATTORNEY, MR. BRICKLEMYER SOMEWHERE
OUT THERE.
20:07:02 >> 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 SETBACK 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 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 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 TESTIMONY.
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, 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 DELINEATED 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
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 IS
EVIDENT.
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 STAFF HAS FOUND 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.
20:13:08 >> I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS.
THE DITCH.
I HAVE AN OVERHEAD OF THE DITCH.
YOU CAN SEE THIS IS AT LOW TIDE.
IF THIS WAS 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
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 ACTUALLY AT THE MOUTH OF THE
DITCH AND SITTING AT LOW TIDE IN THE MUCK.
AND THEN HE SHOWS THE SPRINGHEAD.
AND THE SPRINGHEAD IS ACTUALLY IN THE CORNER OF HIS
PROPERTY IN THE RIVER.
HE HAS DONE SUCH A GOOD JOB OF 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 --
20:14:44 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
HOLD ONE SECOND.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT.
20:14:50 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:14:54 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
JUST FOR CLARITY, THE PETITIONER IN
THIS, MICHAEL GONZALEZ WHO TESTIFIED US TO EARLIER 6915
N. RIVER BOULEVARD.
20:15:02 >> CORRECT.
20:15:05 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THIS IS HIS HOUSE THE GREEN HOUSE
WITH WHITE WINDOWS.
20:15:07 >> THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT IS HIS HOUSE.
20:15:11 >> THAT IS HIS CONCRETE WITH PATIO FURNITURE
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CREEK.
20:15:15 >> THAT'S CORRECT.
HE IS AT ZERO FEET ON TOP A BANK.
20:15:24 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
MAYBE MR. MCATEER WILL WANT TO TALK
OF THE DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS.
GO AHEAD.
20:15:28 >> 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 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 OF
RUNOFF.
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 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 EASEMENTS, NO UTILITY 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.
20:19:11 >>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.
20:19:40 >> 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 CITED AND IT WAS
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 LOT.
ON MR. 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.
20:21:20 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. 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.
20:21:38 >> 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 REMOVAL OF THIS -- OF
THE DRIVEWAY WHICH HE WAS FORCED TO DO AND REPLACED
WITH MULCH.
20:22:06 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
HE WAS FORCED TO MOVE IT UP TO THE
POINT OF -- OF THE EAVE OF HIS PROPERTY -- OF HIS
HOUSE, CORRECT?
20:22:16 >> 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.
20:22:30 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOUR KLEIN'S ONLY CONTENTION IS THAT
HE DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT.
AND THAT -- THAT IS THE ISSUE.
20:22:37 >> LET ME LET --
20:22:40 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
LET HIM SPEAK BECAUSE I AM CONFUSED.
20:22:41 >> MICHAEL GONZALEZ.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN 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 SEAWALL.
THERE IS NO EROSION, 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.
20:24:18 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
THANK YOU, SIR.
20:24:21 >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR US?
20:24:26 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS?
NO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
MOVE TO CLOSE FROM MR. MANISCALCO.
SECOND.
20:24:34 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
SECOND.
20:24:36 >>LUIS VIERA:
SECOND.
20:24:40 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
SECOND BY MR. VIERA.
20:24:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THIS ONE I HAVE A MOTION ON IF YOU
WANT IT.
MR. CHAIR.
20:24:46 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. DINGFELDER.
20:24:49 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
THANK YOU.
SO I WILL -- I WILL MOVE TO UPHOLD THE NATURAL RESOURCE
COORDINATOR AND HEREBY APPROVE 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 EXPERT WE 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 INJURIOUS 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 THAT I WOULD UPHOLD THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DECISION.
20:26:42 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
20:26:43 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ROLL CALL.
20:26:45 >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
20:26:48 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
NO.
20:26:49 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
20:26:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YES.
20:26:52 >>BILL CARLSON:
NO.
20:26:54 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YES.
20:26:56 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
NO.
20:27:00 >>CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH CARLSON, MIRANDA AND
CITRO VOTING NO.
20:27:07 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN.
MR. VIERA -- SORRY, MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ HAS SOME
INFORMATION.
20:27:28 >>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 WHAT 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.
20:28:49 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
MR. CHAIR, IF I --
20:28:50 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
20:28:53 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
I WILL MAKE IT BRIEF.
THANK YOU, MISS SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ.
DO YOU KNOW OF OTHER CITIES, COUNTIES THAT ARE FIGHTING
THIS.
20:29:01 >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ:
I AM NOT AWARE BUT PART OF THE
REVIEW LOOK AT HOW CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE IMPLEMENTING
NEW LAW.
20:29:08 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
ADDS A WHOLE NEW MEANING TO OPEN
CONTAINER.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
20:29:13 >>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.
20:29:23 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
ANY TYPE OF ALCOHOLIC DRINK IN THE CAR
IS CONSIDERED AN OPEN CONTAINER BUT I UNDERSTAND.
20:29:27 >>SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ:
THANK YOU.
20:29:30 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
.
20:29:31 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. VIERA, ANYTHING?
20:29:33 >>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.
20:30:11 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
SECOND.
20:30:14 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION BY MR. VIERA AND SECOND BY MR.
MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR?
ANY OPPOSED.
20:30:21 >>LUIS VIERA:
THAT'S IT, SIR.
20:30:22 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MANISCALCO.
20:30:24 >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
NO, NOTHING TONIGHT, SIR.
20:30:26 >>BILL CARLSON:
NO, THANK YOU.
20:30:28 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
NOTHING TONIGHT.
20:30:30 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
NOTHING, SIR.
20:30:31 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MR. MIRANDA.
20:30:34 >>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 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 140-YEAR 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.
20:31:22 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
OH, WOW.
20:31:24 >>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.
20:31:36 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
SECOND.
20:31:38 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
QUESTION ON THE MOTION.
20:31:40 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
QUESTION ON THE MOTION, YES, SIR.
20:31:42 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
CHIEF OF STAFF BENNETT'S DAUGHTER
WAS ON THE TEAM THE OTHER DAY.
20:31:47 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I GIVE CREDIT TO THE MOTHER OF THE
GIRL.
[LAUGHTER]
20:31:51 >>JOHN DINGFELDER:
YEAH, SHE WAS INVOLVED TOO.
20:31:53 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
ALL IN FAVOR.
ANY OPPOSED.
ALL RIGHT.
MOTION PASSES.
MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
20:32:01 >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
SO MOVED.
20:32:02 >>JOSEPH CITRO:
SECOND.
20:32:05 >>ORLANDO GUDES:
WE ARE ADJOURNED.
DISCLAIMER:
This file represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript.
Any person who needs a verbatim transcript of the proceedings may need to hire a court reporter.