Evening Session — July 23, 2026 FINAL

Alan Clendenin

5:06:41PM Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Tampa City Council. It is 5:06. We're ready for the 5:01 hearing. Ms. LaChone, would you like to clear our agenda? Roll call, first.

Charlie Miranda

5:06:57PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

5:06:59PM Here.

Lynn Hurtak

5:06:59PM Here.

Naya Young

5:07:00PM Here.

Luis Viera

5:07:01PM Here.

Bill Carlson

5:07:02PM Here.

Alan Clendenin

5:07:03PM Here.

The clerk

5:07:03PM You have a physical quorum.

Alan Clendenin

5:07:05PM We have a quorum. Now would you like it clear the agenda?

LaChone Dock

5:07:11PM Thank you so much, chairman and council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. There are four items to clear on this evening's agenda. The first is item 6, rez-26-23. Applicant requested a continuance to September 10.

Alan Clendenin

5:07:32PM I have a motion to open the public hearing from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Ayes have it. I have a motion to continue item number 6 --

Martin Shelby

5:07:47PM This is the first continuance?

LaChone Dock

5:07:49PM Correct.

Martin Shelby

5:07:55PM Is the applicant here or they communicated by e-mail?

LaChone Dock

5:07:58PM The applicant should be here.

Martin Shelby

5:08:03PM If the applicant is here and wishes to speak, that's okay.

Alan Clendenin

5:08:07PM We can just continue it. We have a motion to continue from Councilman Maniscalco. A second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:25PM So my question is, will this be renoticed?

Martin Shelby

5:08:31PM What is the date?

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:33PM What is the date it is being moved to and will this be renoticed?

LaChone Dock

5:08:37PM This is a request to continue to September 10.

Martin Shelby

5:08:42PM The answer is normally no.

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:44PM I'm going to ask the applicant, will this be renoticed? Come on up, state your name and let us know. 33602. I guess we weren't Planning on renoticing it but happy to renotice if it pleases the council.

5:09:02PM I would like to add to the motion that this be renoticed.

Alan Clendenin

5:09:05PM We already made a motion to continue.

Lynn Hurtak

5:09:08PM I'm adding a new motion that this be renoticed for the public for September 10, 2026 at 501 -- 5:01 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:09:23PM Mr. Shelby, give me legal advice.

Martin Shelby

5:09:27PM You previously told me not to speak.

Alan Clendenin

5:09:29PM I'm reopening that chest. The box is back open. We have a motion that has passed to continue. Is it proper for council to make a motion to request this to be renoticed or do we need to reconsider the motion to continue and then do it?

Martin Shelby

5:09:46PM For purposes of clarity, why don't you move to rescind and start from the beginning. If you want to do a motion to reconsider -- the answer is --

Alan Clendenin

5:10:04PM Applicant, do you have any objection to renoticing?

Lynn Hurtak

5:10:08PM That's why I made the motion.

Alan Clendenin

5:10:12PM Hearing no objection, I'll accept the motion from Councilwoman Hurtak with the date, time and place? Who was the second? Councilman Viera seconded. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

5:10:24PM We have an agreeable applicant.

LaChone Dock

5:10:27PM Thank you. The next item to clear on the agenda is item 10, rez-26-47. The applicant requested to continue the item to August 20.

Alan Clendenin

5:10:40PM Motion from Councilman Viera to continue the item. Who was the second? Second from Councilman Carlson. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:10:52PM Is the applicant here?

5:11:02PM Are you willing to renotice? I don't think we can.

Alan Clendenin

5:11:12PM 8/20. Continuance.

5:11:19PM It's a pretty quick one. We have a motion to continue Councilman Viera, second from Councilman Carlson. Motion to continue to August 20, 5:01 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

LaChone Dock

5:11:44PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination, the next item to clear is item 13. It is rez-26-04. The applicant requests the continuance to November 12.

Alan Clendenin

5:11:59PM I'll anticipate councilwoman Hurtak's question. Is the applicant here? Cycle, so we would like to do November and we're more than happy to renotice.

5:12:11PM Can I get a motion to continue to November 12 with notice? Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Miranda. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:12:20PM November 12, 2026, 5:01 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:12:28PM With the renotice. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

5:12:35PM Remove item 14 from the agenda, Maniscalco, second by Viera. All in favor, aye. Ayes have it.

LaChone Dock

5:12:44PM If I may, chairman, I would like to read the items moving forward of the rezoning cases. Item 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. All of those items are moving forward this evening.

Alan Clendenin

5:13:05PM I concur. Motion to approve the agenda. Councilwoman Hurtak, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Naya Young

5:13:17PM I wanted to let council Know that I may have to step out for one minute, for a couple of minutes and then I'll be back.

Alan Clendenin

5:13:26PM I would like to also recognize Abbye Feeley, please.

Abbye Feeley

5:13:32PM Good morning -- good afternoon, council. Sorry. Long day.

Alan Clendenin

5:13:38PM At least it's good.

Abbye Feeley

5:13:39PM Good afternoon, Abbye Feeley, administrator of development and economic opportunity. Thank you, chairman, for a moment of personal privilege. I would like to take the opportunity to introduce to you Robert Scott. Robert Scott is our new director of Housing and Community Development. He comes to us via columbus, Georgia, where he spent six years as the director of community reinvestment. They just recently won the John sasso award from ncda there, and I just -- Robert is full of passion for housing and also homelessness, community redevelopment, and just has a huge personality. We're super excited to have him with us. I'll just let Robert just say a quick introduction.

Alan Clendenin

5:14:26PM Good evening. How we start here, we always start with your name. I'm currently serving as the housing community development director. I'm honored to have this opportunity to be here. I'm looking forward to continue the amazing work that's already being done.

5:14:42PM Welcome on board, Mr. Scott. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:14:44PM I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Scott at our Affordable Housing Advisory Committee meeting last week. And just full of energy. So not only does he love all of those issues, he's also passionate about community gardens. So I got him immediately introduced to kitty wallace. We'll do a tour of gardens and all sorts of wonderful things. We're really happy to have you. Love your energy. Really looking forward to working with you.

Alan Clendenin

5:15:12PM Welcome on board, Mr. Scott. I apologize for all of the abuse that you'll get from City Council. We'll give that apology in advance. Very good. Welcome to Tampa.

Abbye Feeley

5:15:21PM Thank you, council. We'll move on to item number 1 which is related to our action plan and Michelle Boone will take us there.

Alan Clendenin

5:15:30PM I'm shooting for 8:30 tonight. We're going to keep this going. 8:30 p.m.

Michelle Boone

5:15:42PM Good afternoon. As you are aware, we are here to present our public hearing for the annual action plan for the 2027 fiscal year program year 2026 federal dollars. This is kind of the overview of our presentation, so we will get right into it. As you know, our five-year consolidated plan outlines our goals and objectives and needs for the area for a five-year period. Each year of that five years we do an annual action plan on how we will allocate and expend dollars to meet those needs. The action plan is the fifth year of that five-year plan. So we will do a new plan starting next year. Our annual action plan includes community development block grant funds, home investment partnership program funds, housing opportunities for persons with aids and emergency solution grant funds, all federal dollars. Some of our process requirements, each year we are allocated the funds by formula from HUD. We put out universal application for applications from area agencies to expend those dollars for various types of projects. We recommend funding, include those all in our draft agreements. We released the document for the public to read, make comments on. We have two public hearings. This is the second of the two required public hearings and we also have a 30 day public comment period that ends the 25. Some of our priority needs, homeowner assistance, construction, acquisition of property, rental assistance, public facilities, homelessness assistance programs and public services and public facilities. Our funding allocations from HUD -- and we throw in our SHIP funding allocation. That is our state allocation for this coming year. Our total allocated for entitlement funds is $11,445,497. Again, CDBG, we utilize funds for public services, public facilities, rehabilitation, multifamily, single-family, all types of programs that are eligible under the CDBG funds. These are some of the projects we anticipate funding under the public service program dollars. We have a 15% cap for public service activities. These are some of the agencies and the funding amounts that we will fund for this upcoming year starting in October. Public facilities, we had two applicants that are awarded funds for construction related projects to facilities that support services for the public. Our housing counseling program is an annual agreement with four housing counseling agencies. These agencies provide home buyer education for clients going through our down payment assistance programs. Emergency solutions programs are funded for outreach, emergency shelters, support services and essential services to rapidly rehouse homeless individuals. We do allocate 97% of our allocation directly to the tampa/hillsborough homeless initiative and then they allocate the funds out to organizations through their coc. Our housing for persons with aids, we currently are serving a three county area. Pinellas county will be served through the city of st. pete this year, which reduced our allocation, but we still will fund projects in Hillsborough, hernando, and pasco counties. And these are some of the agencies and funding awards that we will be funding for this upcoming year. Our home investment partnerships, a variety of programs and services that produce housing units for affordable at or below 80% area median income. Some of our proposed programs for our home, we will do tenant based rental assistance, which is a continued program. Home chdo, minimum set aside of 15% must go to an eligible chdo. New construction or rehab for multifamily housing and administration. Again, this is kind of an aggregate of some of the programs and funding allocations for our $11 million across all programs. Again, our citizen participation program starts -- it started June 25th. Will end July 25th. All public comments are welcomed and accepted and included into the plan. And then any questions or comments after today can be sent to this e-mail address and phone number, and we will take comments from the public.

Alan Clendenin

5:20:47PM Thank you. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item 1? Hearing none, can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Get a motion to move the resolution. Motion from Councilman Maniscalco to move the resolution for item number 1. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you very much.

Michelle Boone

5:21:08PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:21:10PM Item number 2. Good evening. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This is a transmittal hearing for ta/cpa 26-03. It is located at 4002 North Dale Mabry Highway and associated parcels. I would like to clarify that the City of Tampa is not initiating the amendment. The site is publicly owned by the Florida Board of Trustees of Hillsborough College. We received a letter from the City of Tampa Legal Department for the amendment to run out of cycle. The amendment is publicly initiated but it is regular scale. Approximately 121.73 acres. And the request is to go from public/semi-public to urban mixed use 60 and regional mixed use 100. Subject site is in the Westshore Planning district, Westshore business center, the Drew Park neighborhood and the Drew Park CRA. This is an aerial of the subject site. The site is bound by North Dale Mabry Highway to the east, West Tampa Bay Boulevard to the south, North Lois Avenue to the west and Dr. Martin Luther King jr. boulevard to the north. The subject site currently has the dale mabry campus of Hillsborough College, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Hillsborough tax collector's office as well as other government facilities. To the south of the site is Tampa international airport and parking for raymond James. To the east along North Dale Mabry Highway is primarily commercial uses, including Raymond James Stadium located here and Al Lopez Park located here. To the north is steinbrenner field, located here. And West Dr. Martin Luther King jr. boulevard is a mix of commercial and industrial uses. To the west is single-family detached neighborhood and some multifamily uses to the southwest. The multifamily is here and the residential single-family neighborhood runs approximately here. This is looking north on North Dale Mabry Highway. The subject site is to the left. This is looking on South North Lois Avenue at the subject site. It is the tax collector. This is looking on East West Lois Avenue at the subject site. This is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. This is looking south on West Tampa Bay Boulevard, and the subject site is behind the photographer. This is looking from East North Lois Avenue towards west Kentucky avenue at the single-family detached neighborhood. The subject site is in the rear. And this is looking on East West Dr. Martin Luther King jr. boulevard. The subject site is off to the right. And this is looking south on North Dale Mabry Highway. The subject site is in the far rear of this. This is steinbrenner field to the right. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is outlined in black and recognized under the public/semi-public future land use designation. This designation is to the north, east, south, and west of the subject site, partially west of the subject site. There are 20 dis-- the r-20 designations is located here with the single-family detached neighborhood to the west. To the north is mix of light industrial. In the gray and the community commercial 35 in the red. This is the proposed future land use map. The subject site is primarily regional mixed use 100 which is the dark magenta color. This strip of land right here is approximately 6.18 acres. It is under the UMU designation. These are the potential impacts of the site. Under the current public/semi-public designation, the maximum residential density and nonresidential intensity are not defined. Instead, the maximum development potential is determined by the compatibility of the proposed project with the context of the surrounding area. Under the proposed UMU 60 and rmu 100 designations, the site can be considered for a maximum of just over 11,900 dwelling units or approximately 18.4 million square feet of residential or nonresidential uses and mixed uses. This amendment would define residential and nonresidential maximums and promote a mixture of uses. It would also remove the requirement for public/semi-public uses to be on the site. The Planning Commission found the amendment consistent with multiple aspects of the comprehensive plan, especially promoting mixed use development by providing an opportunity to support the current and future transit investments along these corridors and additional opportunities to support residential and employment growth in the Westshore business center. It also supports compatibility in neighborhood character, is aimed at protecting existing residential areas while ensuring new development is compatible with the neighborhood and additionally new housing is encouraged by the comprehensive plan to ensure an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs of Tampa's growing population. The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed map amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation if you have any questions.

5:27:07PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:27:07PM So I have a couple of questions for you. First of all, what is the FAA limit in this area?

Emily Phelan

5:27:19PM I am going to defer to City staff on that one because I do not know that answer.

Alan Clendenin

5:27:27PM Is there anybody in the audience -- I don't see --

Lynn Hurtak

5:27:30PM Ms. Dock is coming up.

Alan Clendenin

5:27:32PM Hillsborough county aviation representatives --

LaChone Dock

5:27:36PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. So within this area, with this requested future land use, this would fall under the Westshore overlay. The height is controlled by the aviation authority.

Lynn Hurtak

5:27:51PM Thank you.

LaChone Dock

5:27:51PM You're welcome.

Alan Clendenin

5:27:56PM Anything else? Applicant? Councilman Miranda, for staff.

Charlie Miranda

5:28:04PM If I may, there are cycles that these things are handled by this chamber on and off throughout the year?

Emily Phelan

5:28:12PM We have four cycles a year.

Charlie Miranda

5:28:16PM Is this one of the four cycles?

Emily Phelan

5:28:20PM No, this is out of cycle.

Charlie Miranda

5:28:25PM I've been here a little while. It usually comes before this board before it goes anywhere. I don't know about the other six members, but I've never seen this until it came to our thoughts on July 17. I think the clerk's office received it on July 15. I'm not sure of that and we first saw it on July the 17th I think. Usually it comes before us, goes to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission sends it to tallahassee. Maybe I'm wrong somewhere. I don't know. It comes back to us yea or nay. Am I correct?

Emily Phelan

5:29:04PM Not quite. This went to the Planning Commission for its public hearing on July 13, and then it comes to City Council tonight for a transmittal hearing. Once council, if they approve this to be transmitted to the state, then it will go through the state review. And then it will come back for adoption.

Charlie Miranda

5:29:25PM At the time Planning Commission was any member of this council notified it or -- the City Council has adopted a procedures manual for comprehensive plan amendments. So within that manual it does break out four cycles throughout the year for an applicant to apply for a plan amendment. It also allows publicly initiated amendments to run out of cycle. And this request, I don't know if you want to help me, the Legal Department has sent a letter to us asking for this amendment to run out of cycle.

5:30:09PM I didn't ask that. Was this body ever notified that this was going on at that time?

Alan Clendenin

5:30:17PM Hold on. Let's let them talk. I could too. I could explain it, too, but I'd rather the folks do it from the podium. Maybe -- why don't we start -- somebody explain to Councilman Miranda the process of these publicly initiated and how this is compliant with the process.

Danny Collins

5:30:43PM Again, the procedures manual kind of outlines the process for initiating a plan amendment, both publicly and privately.

Charlie Miranda

5:30:53PM What you're saying to me and to the rest of the six members, that the administration did this.

Alan Clendenin

5:31:03PM You want to do it or want me to?

Bill Carlson

5:31:06PM The simple thing he's asking is that usually these come before us first and then they go to the Planning Commission. Why did it go to the Planning Commission first?

Alan Clendenin

5:31:19PM This is a publicly initiated Planning Commission -- I'm sorry -- future land use change. It went to the Planning Commission. Now they are coming to us for transmittal to send to tallahassee. It's going to come back to us and that's when we normally hear these things.

Charlie Miranda

5:31:37PM Usually the other way around, if I remember.

Alan Clendenin

5:31:40PM No, not for these. Usually these transmittal things are so administrative we don't even pay attention to them. They are just cursory, just administrative kind of functions. That's why I think this is standing out. Usually they are noncontroversial, we transmit and then we --

Charlie Miranda

5:32:04PM Go on.

Alan Clendenin

5:32:06PM Somebody want to --

Danny Collins

5:32:09PM Adopted procedures manual doesn't require publicly initiated amendment to go to council before it goes to the Planning Commission for public hearing.

Charlie Miranda

5:32:19PM Correct.

Bill Carlson

5:32:21PM Who initiated this?

Danny Collins

5:32:25PM Hillsborough College Board of Trustees.

Charlie Miranda

5:32:28PM If I may, back on 3/17 of '26 there was a quitclaim deed 42214 which is in essence what this is all about. It's signed by the governor, by the attorney general, and by the agricultural commissioner. It is not signed by the chief financial officer. The copy I have does not have a date on it when it was notarized.

Alan Clendenin

5:33:03PM What does this have to do with the future land use?

Charlie Miranda

5:33:06PM If it's not correct, how can you apply for it?

Alan Clendenin

5:33:11PM I think the applicant will answer that question when I get to the applicant. Hold the question for the applicant?

Charlie Miranda

5:33:19PM No problem.

Alan Clendenin

5:33:19PM Any more questions for staff? Hearing no more questions, thank you very much. Applicant. Jim Shimberg, shubin law group, 1001 Water Street. I'm really here on behalf of Hillsborough College and the rays. Let me answer councilman Miranda's question first, the document he's talking about had to do with the state governor and cabinet conveying 22 acres of this property back to Hillsborough College. I think that's only required to be signed by three out of the four members of the governor and cabinet. But that's not exactly why we're here today. We're here today for the project that you all are very much aware of and we're not here to talk about the substance of that today. We're here to see if you are willing to transmit to tallahassee to allow them to review it for their 30 days and then come back to the board. I think we talked about September 24 that it would come back for a public hearing, Mr. Chairman. But what happened was, for several months that we started working on this, our office, we took the position that we thought the p/sp category, because it really doesn't have a maximum, we thought we could basically do this project under that category. Really, from day one of the argument on our behalf, the City Legal Department and the City staff was telling us they did not agree with that. They thought the comp plan on this property needed to be changed. We were very concerned about time, as you well know. We were trying to continue to move the deal forward. Finally the beginning of April we agreed. You really got to change the comp plan here. That's why they sent the letter to the Planning Commission and they said please initiate this. It was a couple of weeks out of cycle, I believe. It's gone through every proper process. We posted signs. Planning Commission staff reviewed it, we went to the Planning Commission board. We got a unanimous recommendation. Now we're here to ask you, as you said, to transmit it to the state to allow the state land Planning group and their other agencies to have a chance to comment on this. Then it will come back to City Council for a public hearing at the end of September. I think you require two hearings. At that point, we can talk about the substance of it. We're here, as they said, usually these things are relatively standard. You transmit it up to the state, see what they say and then your board makes the final decision. In my experience and I've been doing this for a long time, this is really not out of order and this is the way these things work. We respectfully ask for you to transmit it up to the state and we'll have a full discussion in September.

5:36:06PM Does that conclude your presentation? I'm here to answer any questions.

5:36:11PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:36:17PM Ms. Phelan, do you have the map you could put up again for me.

Emily Phelan

5:36:27PM Which one would you like? The adopted or proposed?

Lynn Hurtak

5:36:31PM The proposed, please. Can you talk about what has been developed of South Columbus Drive?

Emily Phelan

5:36:46PM This area within the rmu 100, it does encompass the international plaza and the mall as well as other commercial uses.

Lynn Hurtak

5:36:58PM What would you say is the average height of those buildings?

Emily Phelan

5:37:02PM I would not be able to answer that one because when we did our analysis and we looked at this in the field, we did primarily stick to what was currently existing around the proposed site. So I wouldn't be able to tell you what the height is.

Lynn Hurtak

5:37:23PM My concern with this is that the property south of columbus has not been developed as a regional mixed use 100 property. It's been -- it is not that dense. My concern and my question is why you aren't going for UMU 60. Can you tell me what the difference is -- so you stated that with this rmu 100, they can do basically 12,000 units and 8,500,000 square feet of retail residential. What would the difference be for UMU 60?

Emily Phelan

5:38:12PM Can I do the math real quick?

Lynn Hurtak

5:38:14PM Sure.

Emily Phelan

5:38:53PM So at the site, if the entire site was urban mixed use 60, the maximum number of dwelling units would be a little over 7,300. With the f.a.r. Being a 3.25 would be the maximum of the site it would be just about 17.2 million square feet.

Lynn Hurtak

5:39:21PM Other than the housing units, it's pretty negligible. Thank you. I'm going to ask Mr. Shimberg, is there a reason that they are going for rmu 100 instead of UMU 60 which is more appropriate for that location? A couple of quick points to that. I know you were asking about a height earlier, the Westshore overlay district, they lay out different comp plan categories. And both of those would be under this criteria, and it -- basically with respect to height it's determined by FAA. What you can get approved by FAA and the aviation authority. I don't think that would necessarily affect the height. Also, let me say one more thing. In every meeting that we've had with city and county to try to talk about this project, it seemed like, again, we're not talking about money or anything. We're talking about everybody seemed to be, look, the more you can develop there the more tax revenue you'll generate, the better deal it will be. We really haven't faced that question. I would have to go back and talk to my clients before I agree to a change. But, again, both of those are very intense categories. Most of the public comment on this has been for slightly less than either one of those two. Again, this is a comp plan. This is setting the overall parameter. I hear what you're saying and there's not a huge difference between the two.

5:40:53PM See, that's why we're here. That's why it is coming to us because we're the ones who have to determine. It doesn't matter if what you want to build here happens. It's is this -- this comp plan changes it permanently. Right now it's public/semi-public. If we change that, like, it has to fit the surrounding area. Right now I don't see rmu 100 fitting in the area. If you look at the future, what we're seeing. I'm just curious why you didn't go for what would be a smaller amount and when you're basically getting the same thing.

Alan Clendenin

5:41:34PM Remember, we're here for the transmittal. We're not really here --

Lynn Hurtak

5:41:39PM -- something that I don't think is possible. You're making a good point.

Alan Clendenin

5:41:46PM We'll have the opportunity to weigh the good, bad, ugly when it comes back from tallahassee. I hear your point. We're talking about whether we transmit or don't transmit. Not necessarily the good, bad, ugly of the plan.

Charlie Miranda

5:41:58PM This is from your law firm and signed by you. Page 67 of page 2 of 2, specifically amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of the property to mixed use entertainment district that may include a major league ball field, baseball field. Not shall include. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge either. So I don't know what this means.

5:42:33PM I have to vote. Think when this comes back in September, you'll have a better sense as to whether everything is moving forward or not. Again, we're transmitting to the state for their comments and then you guys will make a decision when it comes back in the public hearing. I hear what you're saying and the reason I think we put that, nothing is certain, rays are negotiating right now with the city and county.

5:42:58PM Let me clarify one thing, come back in September if this council passes it.

5:43:05PM I want to make that clear.

5:43:08PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:43:09PM Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing no other questions, we'll move to public comment. Anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item number 2? Start with your name, please. Come on up. Thanks for hearing from me. The phrase we are privatizing the profits --

5:43:33PM Start with your name. Thank you for having me. The phrase we are privatizing the profits and socializing the losses was first coined in 1974 to refer to corporate bailouts. In the 1990s, it also became associated with stadium subsidies. But this situation with this comp plan amendment and this plan is a particularly extreme case of privatizing profits and socializing losses. For one thing, we're giving up the most used tax collector's office. Residents get their driver's license there, and it will likely end up being demolished just as the governor's new voter suppression legislation takes effect. It will be gone when people need it the most. Privatizing the profits, socializing the losses. County is Planning to take sales tax revenue that we all pay, City of Tampa, we pay it just as much as unincorporated residents, to build a tax-free stadium for a billionaire. That's why in the plan amendment that's the only part that remains public/semi-public to protect his properties from property taxes that he would otherwise pay. The comp plan proposal takes public community college land and creates a residential development giveaway any billionaire developer would crave. 11,924 dwelling units. The land was supposed to be set aside for college purposes forever. That's what the deed says. But the billionaire owner is friends with the governor who along with his cabinet decided that we needed land for his friend to make piles of money, more than our students need buildings and classrooms and labs to get a degree. Privatizing the profits for Mr. Zalupski and socializing the losses for our community college students. We should not do this deal. If we're going to do this, we should not put the CART before the horse tonight. The minute we change this from public to semi-public we fundamentally alter the value and the potential of that land and the restrictions on that land, sifting from a public and educational purpose permanently to a profit-making purpose. We should not do that before we have a solid public benefits agreement that truly benefits the public and protects the college and the tax collector's office, truly improves these facilities and programs rather than shrinking and demolishing them. We need more balance to this plan, and we need you all to bring the pressure to create that. Thank you.

5:46:23PM Thank you. Anybody else in the public wishing to speak to the item? Just for clarification, I want to make sure everybody in the public is listening and Ms. Lawson, for tonight, again, this is not a decision-making hearing on the substance of this plan. It's just whether we transmit it to tallahassee to get their comments. It will come back to council in September for us to actually weigh the good and the bad. That's when a lot of the items that you just discussed and -- we'll have that opportunity to weigh all those things in. Tonight -- funny, third year on council, these things usually just go through without even blinking an eye because it is just a transmittal hearing to ask tallahassee to comment on the plan. That's what we're doing tonight. This is not the meat. Just a technical procedure. Applicant, did you have anything else to say? Anybody else? Can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:47:31PM You heard what I think. I'm not even transmitting this because I don't believe it's the correct -- I don't think it is the right thing to do. I think it is a waste of time to send to the state. I move to not transmit to the state.

Charlie Miranda

5:47:49PM Second.

Alan Clendenin

5:47:51PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak, second from Councilman Miranda. Roll call vote, please.

Charlie Miranda

5:48:00PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

5:48:02PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:48:03PM Yes.

Naya Young

5:48:09PM No.

Luis Viera

5:48:10PM No.

Bill Carlson

5:48:13PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:48:14PM No.

The clerk

5:48:17PM Motion carried with young, Viera, and Clendenin voting no.

Alan Clendenin

5:48:28PM It means it doesn't get transmitted. First time probably in history we have not transmitted a comp plan amendment. Or future land use amendment. All right. Thank you.

5:48:48PM From staff, have we ever not transmitted? And a hush fell over the room. All the rest of the hearings are quasi-judicial procedures. They require anybody that is here to testify on any issue that's coming up before council This evening, you have to be sworn in. Please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk. [Oath administered]

5:49:44PM Good evening. How are you? How are you?

5:49:49PM Good. Anxious to hear item 3.

Bria Dixon

5:49:53PM Development Coordination. Agenda item 3 is rez-26-10, request to rezone 2111 East Busch Boulevard from CG commercial general to CI commercial intensive. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the university Planning district, Sulphur Springs neighborhood and it is not located within an evacuation zone. The subject site is outlined in purple. Surrounding area is predominantly commercial with commercial uses along East Busch Boulevard and north 22nd street. Churches to the south and west and single-family homes located to the southwest across East Skagway Avenue. This map shows the site designated as community commercial 35. CMU 35 and cc-35 are primarily concentrated along Busch Boulevard, which is a transit emphasis corridor. To the south is r-10 in that orange color. To the northeast is r-35, and then public/semi-public to the southeast. The request is to rezone from CG to CI. The CI zoning district is consistent with the cc-35 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding commercial development pattern, future redevelopment should incorporate the mixed use corridor design policies, including building orientation, pedestrian connections and appropriate buffering to adjacent residential uses. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:51:32PM Council have questions? Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

5:51:34PM No, sir. I'm sorry.

Alan Clendenin

5:51:36PM Very good. Next.

Bria Dixon

5:51:39PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with the aerial view. You can see that the subject parcel is here outlined in red. To the north, East Busch Boulevard. To the east, north 22nd and to the south, we have East Skagway Avenue. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of East Busch Boulevard and north 22nd avenue. Properties to the immediate south are zoned RS 50 and properties to the east and north and the west are all zoned commercial general CG. The subject site is currently developed with the large vacant building which was previously a walgreens pharmacy. Here we have a look at the survey. Again, we have East Busch Boulevard, north 22nd and skagway. I have photos of the subject parcels. Subject property Busch Boulevard, north 22nd street, East Skagway Avenue. North. Immediately east, place of assembly to the south, residences to the south, and a local charity to the west. The subject parcel is approximately 1.4 acres, given that the surrounding uses primarily consist of commercial uses and the site's location along a major thoroughfare, the request to CI zoning is consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Development Coordination and compliance staff reviewed the application and find the request to be consistent with the City of Tampa regulations land development regulations. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:53:32PM Council have any questions? Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

5:53:35PM Can you put the picture back where it shows the subject site?

Bria Dixon

5:53:40PM Which one? There are three.

Naya Young

5:53:43PM That's it there.

5:53:46PM Gotcha. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:53:47PM Thank you so much. Applicant? Good evening. Aileen Rosario, 2504 West Crest Avenue, Tampa, Florida. My client is requesting to rezone euclid on the property from CG to CI. He does have some really great ideas of what he would like to do with the property. Not doing any kind of major changes. It will not hurt the neighborhood. It actually will probably beautify the neighborhood. I did get a phone call from the church asking me what it is he's going to do. I explained, asked why got rezone because the use that he's intending to do, he has to be CI. He wants to keep things legal and do things the right way and not have something illegal on the property. My client is here if there are any questions.

5:54:51PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none, Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:54:59PM Ms. Rosario, can you share what your client plans to do? Privately owned. You have to come in with appointments. Most all the cars will be indoors. Everything is privately. So it will be private owned, private people coming in and it's going to be exotic cars.

5:55:28PM You had a bit of a pause after the word exotic -- [ laughter ]

Alan Clendenin

5:55:33PM All of our minds went to the same, but then --

Lynn Hurtak

5:55:38PM I wasn't expecting the word cars to come next.

Alan Clendenin

5:55:41PM This is not Drew Park.

Lynn Hurtak

5:55:50PM Thank you. Appreciate that.

Alan Clendenin

5:55:52PM You had my vote before that. You had it at exotic. Then you had to fill in the blank. Can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Carlson, would you like to read item number 3?

Bill Carlson

5:56:10PM Move file rez 26-10, ordinance presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2111 East Busch Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification CG to CI commercial intensive, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

5:56:28PM Motion from Councilman Carlson. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

5:56:34PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:56:48PM Thank you. Item number 4.

Bria Dixon

5:56:51PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item 4 is rez 26-12, request to rezone 1704 West North B Street, 202, 210 and 220 North Rome Avenue, and 1701 and 1711 west north a street from IG, industrial general, to CI, commercial intensive. Now I'll turn it over to Planning Commission.

Alan Clendenin

5:57:11PM Thank you.

Quinn Steele

5:57:18PM Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the central Tampa Planning district, West Tampa urban village and North Hyde Park neighborhood. It's also within evacuation zone c. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant properties. Industrial and commercial uses are concentrated along North Rome Avenue and West Kennedy Boulevard. There are single-family homes immediately west and multifamily development to the northeast. This map shows the site designated as general mixed use 24, which surrounds the site to the north, east, and south. R 35 and r-20 are located immediately west. UMU 60 is concentrated along Kennedy Boulevard, which is a transit emphasis corridor, and then CMU 35 is further north. The request is to rezone from IG to CI. The CI zoning district is consistent with the general mixed use 24 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. This rezoning will provide infill development of a vacant parcel within the West Tampa urban village. Any future redevelopment will be required to provide appropriate buffering and screening from adjacent residential uses. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:58:37PM Any questions? Hearing none, staff.

Bria Dixon

5:58:43PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Start with the aerial photo of the subject parcels. As you can see here, four parcels are outlined here in red. We have North Rome Avenue and located north of west north a street and south of West North B Street. There is approximately 253 feet of frontage along west north a street as well as 352 feet of frontage along North Rome Avenue and another 204 feet of frontage along West North B Street. Given the scope of the request, I have a lot of pictures. Would you like to see all --

Alan Clendenin

5:59:26PM Enough pictures.

Bria Dixon

5:59:28PM Okay. Here is a slightly reduced and I do have more if you would like more. This is the subject property located at West North B Street. Subject property again at 220 North Rome Avenue as well as I believe 210 north Rome. This is the alley. This is the subject property at 1701 west north a street as well as the subject property at 1711 west north a street. This is immediately to the north. To the east. This is a walmart super center to the east. The south. To the south. This is adjacent commercial parking in the CN zoning designation to the west. This is another owned parcel to the west. Given the size and scope -- together, the adjacent parcels create approximately .71 acres. Given that the surrounding use consist primarily of commercial uses, proposal implements transitional zoning between industrial and commercial neighborhood uses and the property is located on a major thoroughfare. The request to CI zoning is consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Development Coordination and compliance staff reviewed the application and find the request to be consistent with the City of Tampa land development regulations. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:00:52PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:00:54PM The pictures kind of answer my question, which is, we just rezoned this not that long ago. So why the difference?

Bria Dixon

6:01:06PM That would be a question for the applicant.

Lynn Hurtak

6:01:08PM Well, then that would be my question for the applicant. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:01:11PM Any further questions? Hearing none, applicant.

6:01:19PM Yes, we can. Were you sworn in? Stacey Wellnitz.

6:01:26PM Hold on a second. We're working on the technology. We have a new program so there is a little delay. Can you turn your camera on? My light is on here.

6:01:48PM It is a brand-new program for us as well. Bear with us. Can you see the request our technology department sent you? Take it. It's not allowing it.

6:02:37PM Hold on one second. Sorry about that. You're helping us work out the kinks. You should be getting a phone call shortly.

Luis Viera

6:03:29PM I will say, if I may -- no, not about singing.

Alan Clendenin

6:03:34PM Literally in every sense of the word, you cannot sing. Okay. We can see you now. Have you been sworn in? And now we can't hear you. Unmute yourself. I have not been sworn in.

6:03:56PM Yeah, turn the music off. As much as we love your music. There we go. To provide is the truth and nothing but the truth?

The clerk

6:04:11PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:04:12PM What was the secret? How did you get it working? I don't know.

6:04:18PM Very good. Tag, you are it. Anything you have to say. We did have a question from Councilwoman Hurtak as to why the request for the change. I am the architect. The architect for the now massage boutique and applicant for the project. I'm going to explain and then I'll answer your question. I'm here to support the proposed zoning from IG to CI. This request was initiated to allow my client to become a tenant in the new commercial development.

6:04:59PM State that again. Having a hard time hearing you. This request was initiated to allow my client, the now massage to become a tenant in this new commercial development. So when this project was originally rezoned, we are not that project architects for the building. Project architects for a tenant that wants to be a tenant in the building. So the zoning from or to IG we were not involved in that. When our client went to secure a suite, we need to be a CI. We need a commercial zoning. We were unaware there was a zoning rezone prior to this.

6:05:45PM Understand. I think that answered the question. Thank you very much. Anything else that you would like to add for the case? Might have.

6:05:54PM Any other questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public who wishes to speak to item 4? Hearing none, can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Viera, would you please read?

Luis Viera

6:06:09PM I move an ordinance presented for first reading consideration, ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1704 West North B Street, 202 -- oh dear. 210 North Rome Avenue, 1701 and 1711 west north a street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1, from zoning district classification IG, industrial general, to CI, commercial intensive, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

6:06:38PM Motion from Councilman Viera, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

The clerk

6:06:46PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

6:07:01PM Thank you. LaChone. Item 5 is rez 26-14 for the property at 1732 West Saint Louis Street. The request is to rezone the property from RS 50, residential single-family, to PD, Planned Development for residential single-family semi detached use. I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her report.

Quinn Steele

6:07:28PM Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. The site is within the central Tampa Planning district, West Tampa urban village and Old West Tampa neighborhood. Also within evacuation zone c. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mixture of uses, including single-family homes to the west with commercial uses to the along East Rome Avenue and of East Rome Avenue are multifamily uses in the Rome yard redevelopment project. There are additional commercial uses two blocks along west North Columbus Drive which is a transit emphasis corridor. This map shows the site designated as residential 35 which surrounds the site to the north, west and south. Community commercial 35 is located directly east with the nmu 35 on the side of East Rome Avenue approaching the Hillsborough River. The request is rezone from RS 50 to PD to allow two single-family semi detached dwelling units. Proposal consistent with the density anticipated under the r 35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal provides front door orientation to West Saint Louis Street, sidewalk connections and alley access, consistent with the comprehensive plan. Between first and second reading, staff is requesting that the site data table be corrected to reflect the r-35 future land use designation and that all front doors be clearly labeled on the site plan. Overall the proposal provides compatible infill within the West Tampa urban village and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:08:54PM Any questions? Hearing none. Ms. Dock.

LaChone Dock

6:08:57PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. This is an aerial of the subject property. So the property is identified in red. This is west saint Louis. This is North Rome Avenue. You can see that the site is surrounded with RS 50 residential single-family zoning as well as the single-family uses. On the side of East Rome Avenue is the Rome yard project. That is the PD. That is the mixed use development that is coming online currently that has that mixture of commercial and residential uses. To the northeast of the site is existing PD. It is an older approval that is for residential multifamily uses. Further north of the site along Columbus Drive, you have your commercial intensive zoning, and you have those uses that are consistent with that commercial intensive zoning designation. And there is a site plan that was submitted with the request. So I'll just zoom in on that. I just did a blow-up of that site plan. So the request would allow for two dwelling units. The setbacks are to the north 20 feet, to the south 15 feet, to the east and west are 5 feet setbacks. So the lot area is 4,879 square feet. A total of 4 parking spaces are required and 4 spaces are provided. So on the site plan, you can see that this is the property boundary. This is the one building that would contain the two units. And access is proposed from the 14-foot alley. So this is within the overlay district, the West Tampa overlay, so it does meet that standard providing the enclosed garage parking spaces as well as room to park outside of the actual garage. And then you can see the front door entry, which orients Saint Louis Street. And then there is pedestrian sidewalk in front of the property, and you have a walkway that makes that connection to the sidewalk. And I have elevations of the site to show. So on the top, that is the north elevation. You can see the front doors, and then this is the rear elevation with just the south elevation. And then the top one is the west elevation. And then this is the east elevation. Then I have a few pictures to show of the property. So this is the subject property. This is residents to the north. This is to the south. This is the commercial to the east. This is to the west, the residential that exists, and this is looking east on saint Louis and this is the alley, just to give you a picture to show it is open and used. There are no waivers with this request. And there are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. With that, the DRC staff finds the request consistent. I'm available if you have any request he is.

Alan Clendenin

6:12:10PM Any questions? Hearing none, applicant. Hope to get the rezoning done.

Lynn Hurtak

6:12:28PM I want to say I like the architecture. The facade is just different than what we've seen. Very interesting.

Alan Clendenin

6:12:38PM Hearing no other questions, anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Hearing none, motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

6:12:50PM File rez-26-14, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1732 West Saint Louis Street, in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RS 50, residential single-family to PD Planned Development, residential, single-family semi detached, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

6:13:16PM I have a motion from Councilwoman Young. A second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

The clerk

6:13:24PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

6:13:38PM Item number 7.

LaChone Dock

6:13:40PM Thank you so much chairman and council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item number 7 is rez 26-31. This request consists of 11 parcels. I wanted to show you on the map the area contained within this request. This is West Kennedy Boulevard. To the north is west north a street. This is albany. And then this is westland. The area encompasses this block in that area. The request is to rezone the property from PD Planned Development. This was approved in 2022 for residential multiple family use, retail sales, restaurant and personal services. And the request is for a PD for storefront residential, residential multiple family and all CG uses. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Quinn Steele

6:14:32PM Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the central Tampa Planning district, North Hyde Park neighborhood in evacuation zone c. The subject site is outlined in purple. Surrounding area contains a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along West Kennedy Boulevard and North Howard Avenue, which are transit emphasis corridors. Single-family detached uses are to the north along with scattered multifamily and duplex developments. This map shows the site designated as urban mixed use 60 which supports high intensity mixed use development and is concentrated along Kennedy Boulevard. CMU 35 is located to the north and west. CMU 35 -- sorry, r-35 to the east. The request is for storefront residential multifamily and commercial uses at just over 283,000 square feet. The PD proposes a 3.25 f.a.r. Through a bpa with the city. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposal and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The project provides walk-up units, commercial entrances oriented to Kennedy Boulevard, six foot sidewalks, bicycle parking and a bus shelter consistent with the comprehensive plan's mixed use corridor policies. Overall, the proposal provides mixed use infill development along a transit emphasis and mixed use corridor and is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:15:49PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, next.

LaChone Dock

6:15:54PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I'll show you the zoning map again to discuss the zoning surrounding the property. To the west of the subject property you have the commercial general zoning. Which is along Kennedy Boulevard. And then to the north you have your residential multifamily zoning with your semi detached uses as well as single-family attached uses and multifamily uses. To the east you have your Planned Development, which is approved for residential single-family attached as well as additional commercial uses surrounding the subject block. So this is the site plan. I just blew up the actual site itself, just enlarged it. So this request would allow for a maximum of 292 residential units. The building height that is proposed is 85 feet. The building setbacks are to the north 10 feet, to the south 5 feet, to the east 10 feet, to the west 10 feet. And the actual lot itself contains 87,354 square feet. There is a total of 319 parking spaces required, the request proposes to provide 392 spaces. So on the site plan itself, which is on the monitor, you'll see this is Kennedy Boulevard. You have north a street, albany, and westland. So this is the tower, the footprint of the building and six floors are proposed. It would contain a total of 75,817 square feet. Vehicles would enter the property from Westland Avenue. And you can see that the commercial is located along Kennedy. So that activates that space along Kennedy Boulevard. You can see the entrances that are proposed for the commercial. And then you have your walk-up units that are located surrounding the site. And then the residential units above. So the subject property was rezoned as I mentioned earlier in 2022. At that time it was for 235 residential units. And 4,986 square feet of retail and restaurant use for that commercial uses. So through the proposed PD, the applicant would be intensifying the site with an increase of 57 residential units, and 1,629 square feet of commercial uses. As compared to the current approved PD rezoning, just to state that for the record. So we reviewed the structure itself and the floors have the elevations of the project. This is the south elevation. This is Kennedy Boulevard. This is the east elevation albany. And this is the north elevation, north a. This is the west elevation. So with the request, there are waivers that are listed. One of the waivers listed previously approved waivers with carry-over to this request, but there is a total of four new waivers requested plus the additional, so there would be five waivers. The first waiver is section 27-243. The request is to amend the placement of the streetscape trees to be in five by ten planter in the right-of-way and the planter offset from the curb two feet. The next waiver is 27-243 to allow local street -- to allow access to a local street greater than 100 feet of the intersection from Kennedy Boulevard. The next waiver is 27-284.3.1 and that is a request to reduce the required 50% tree retention to 0% for non-wooded lot over an acre. And the next waiver is 27-283.15 and that is to allow loading maneuvering within the right-of-way. The next waiver is 27-284.2.5 and that's the request to remove the one non-hazardous grand live oak that was from the previous request but also it would apply with this request also. So we have a revision sheet, a revised revision sheet that I'm going to enter into the record so that way that is listed correctly on the final site plan that is submitted. And there are additional site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading, but with that DRC staff found the request consistent. I'm available if you have any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:20:57PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:20:58PM Do we have any photos?

LaChone Dock

6:21:02PM We do. I'm so sorry. Brevity.

Alan Clendenin

6:21:08PM Brevity is good.

LaChone Dock

6:21:09PM I apologize. I forgot the pictures. So this is the subject property. On Kennedy. That's another view. That's another view. It's encompassing that entire block, so we have a few just to show. On albany. And this is west north a. So this is westland. This is on north a and albany. This is looking northwest. This is north. To the north, that's on north a. This is south of the subject property on Kennedy. This is east of the subject property. And this is another view east of the subject property on albany. With that, I'm available for questions.

Lynn Hurtak

6:22:22PM My first question is, again, could you please repeat the old square footage for retail and the new square footage for retail.

LaChone Dock

6:22:31PM Absolutely. The current approval would allow for 4,986 square feet of retail and restaurant. The current is proposing, on the current plan, increasing by 57 residential units and 1,629 square feet of commercial.

Lynn Hurtak

6:23:08PM That would be 6600 square feet. So my question is, I remember this in 2022. This, if I remember correctly, had a stair step that led to the street behind it, north a. Correct?

LaChone Dock

6:23:29PM Correct.

Lynn Hurtak

6:23:30PM So we're doing away with the stair step.

LaChone Dock

6:23:33PM Correct. On the elevations, it kind of shows that for the most part, yes, it's not going to have the same elevation.

Lynn Hurtak

6:23:43PM I remember that being a huge portion of the community concern. Thank you. I appreciate that.

LaChone Dock

6:23:50PM Would you like to see the elevations again.

Lynn Hurtak

6:23:54PM No. I just wanted to make sure on the record that I was remembering the previous --

LaChone Dock

6:23:59PM Okay. You're welcome.

Alan Clendenin

6:24:01PM Is there an applicant? I see him approaching. Mr. Singer. David singer on behalf of the applicant for the second time. This time, 2026 as opposed to 2022. David singer from older lundy, 1000 West Cass Street. I've been sworn. This is a modification to a PD that was approved in 2022. We're here to add some additional units. Half the new units will be affordable based on the bonus agreement with the city. This really is to unify the block. I'm going to talk about -- some of you may remember the cut-out on the southwest side that had the jersey mike's and we had a kind of staggered site plan that we had to deal with, and we're fixing that basically with the addition of that piece. It increases storefront retail. Importantly, with the addition of that piece and I'll show you this and to councilwoman Hurtak's point, this allows us to lower the height. So one of the residents' main concerns last time, they didn't want major shadows coming onto north a street. And that was the purpose of the stair step. But now that we're lowering the height by two stories, we think we've achieved the same goal with a different design. I want to thank staff for their attention and assistance through this process and remind council the applicant has earned a consistent finding across the board in the staff report. Here's what we're doing. Agree to the bonus agreement, 10% of the overall units will be affordable. As you'll see dramatically more efficient design of the structure, further activation of Kennedy. And unifying that site which results in the building height reduction. Again, here is the location, so you are oriented right on Kennedy, a couple of blocks off of Howard. Again, on the transit corridor, and there will be a bus stop, HART bus stop with a shelter right in front. So this site is bounded here in red. It's an assemblage of 11 parcels, all of which are owned currently by the applicant. Internal alleyways have already been vacated. We shaded in the southwest section. This is really what we're talking about is that southwest section. 2022 wasn't possible. Couldn't come to an agreement with that piece of things. It was a single story commercial structure. It was built in 1979. You just saw the photos and you're probably familiar with it. Now we can unify that site. Here are the updated improvement and statistics regarding the overall build. UMU 60. We're still doing the PD, still mixed use, still two acres. The f.a.r., because we can expand into that shaded green area and jersey mike's expands to 3.25 but requires a bonus agreement. We entered into that with the city attorney's office. Part of the bonus agreement means there will be 10% affordable housing. 292 units. That retail increases to 6600 or so. Again, the parking is 392, even though 319 are required. And that building height goes down to 6 stories. It was 8 previously. I put here the difference between the approved site plan in 2022 and what we're proposing. So if you look down here, this is really what we're talking about. This was that jersey mike's assemblage down here, and there were three different access points on that corner. Now, there's one access point. Makes things a lot safer, allows us to extend sidewalks, and importantly, it allows us to add additional walk-up units here. That wasn't allowed before and also allows for some more landscape buffering. This here is the same site from above, little more detail. Again, these are the walk-up units that can be added. And the unified commercial down here with the unified sidewalk that travels around the corner as well. Two fewer stories. 30 affordable housing units. We're increasing the neighborhood retail to 6600 or so. I want to show you what the height difference looks like. So, again, on this side is what was approved before. And on this side is what is proposed. The proposed elevation comes down two stories. What we have extensive communication with the neighborhood, in person, zoom, telephone calls, e-mails. I think you will fine there's not very significant community opposition to this. I think they are generally happy with what the applicant is proposing. There will be 61 new trees on-site. And each just for council's reference, each unit is going to come with a bike parking space. And we think that's pretty important. I'm here to answer your questions. We think this was a good project in 2022 and it's a better project now. Thanks.

6:30:43PM Councilwoman Hurtak, Maniscalco, then young.

Lynn Hurtak

6:30:46PM I am going to be the naysayer here that says 120% is not affordable housing. Just period. It is not. To me, that's not acceptable. Like, that's not worth it. But my bigger concern is I remember this case, and the reason we had to go from four loading berths to zero was because of that jersey mike's. Now the jersey mike's is gone yet we still have no loading berths and now we have more retail. So we're going to be blocking streets. I'm incredibly disappointed that you did not think about adding a loading berth now that you have the space to do so. That's a no for me just straight off the top. I'm just really surprised. If I remember correctly, the stair step went to four stories at north a. You might be right. I can't tell for sure.

6:31:55PM Eight stories on Kennedy slowing down to four when you get to north a, keeping the same amount of units, I know that's harder to build, but I'm going to be realistic, that fits better with the neighborhood. I understand that you are coming down in height, but you're still not meeting the neighborhood with north a right there where there are single-family homes back there. And there are duplexes next door that have two to three stories. They are not six. And that's a jar -- a very jarring thing, which is why we love to see stair step coming from Kennedy. I'm concerned specifically, the loading berth is a thing that will get me. I remember that's why we didn't have them because of jersey mike's. Now that the problem is solved, I expect loading berths. Again, putting in 120% affordable housing is not worth it to me for the extra density. 120% is simply market rate.

Guido Maniscalco

6:33:11PM I like the changes from what we approved before, and I'll tell you why. First, the front facing Kennedy will be all retail. So you'll close off that ingress and egress into the jersey mikes. I like that on westland, now you have one entrance way instead of multiple. I like that you have the walk-up units. I like that you reduced it, although it doesn't go down to four stories, it will be an overall from eight to six level. So I see a lot of positives in this project, and I want to make those comments. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:33:40PM Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

6:33:42PM My comments were also going to be for the affordable housing. I mean, we have ut that's not far from this development. You have graduating students from ut who may have jobs downtown and want to live close to where they work. We just had a conversation earlier about wanting to have more affordable housing. While 120 is on the chart, it's really not. It's not affordable for people. I don't know -- did you all consider -- if I'm understanding correctly, out of 292 units, 30 of them are going to be at 120, that's a lot of units. Like, the 292, not the 30. I'm just saying, like, I get it, but, yes, it's in the chart, but if we are really thinking about like what people can actually afford, if we're doing a bonus provision, can we consider -- 30, maybe some are 80, or is that something you all thought about? A very deep dive into how to make this project economically feasible for them and they absolutely considered if they could divide the percentage. They determined that they could not. And I think that the 120 is as good as they can get at this point. I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of your analysis. Currently, if the project stands as approved, there's zero that are even at 120. I think they are doing the best they can in a pretty tough market and pretty tough economy and that's the best answer I can give you, again, not disagreeing with you.

6:35:35PM I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:35:37PM Can we get staff?

LaChone Dock

6:35:39PM Thank you so much, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I just want to state on the record regarding the height, the current PD is approved at maximum height of 85 feet. And the request that is before you has a maximum height of 85 feet. So I just want to just state for the record.

Lynn Hurtak

6:36:01PM Can you repeat that?

LaChone Dock

6:36:04PM 22 PD, the Planned Development approved, that is currently on the property, approved at maximum height of 85 feet. The request before you is a request maximum height of 85 feet.

Lynn Hurtak

6:36:19PM It's the same.

LaChone Dock

6:36:20PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

6:36:21PM That's what I wanted to hear again. Can you explain that?

Alan Clendenin

6:36:26PM Stories versus feet. Exactly as Councilman Clendenin said, six stories versus eight stories, and the top of the design feature, the parapets get to that 85. But the actual residential roof does not.

6:36:56PM -- 85 feet period.

Lynn Hurtak

6:36:59PM I'm just trying to figure out how a parapet is 20 feet tall. Proposed. This here gets you to the 85. These two little design features here. Again, I'm not the architect, so it's hard for me to give you a good design reading of this, but that's --

6:37:27PM That's not 85 feet versus 85 feet. The height for both of these was 85 feet. That's not what I'm seeing here. We certainly would make that change between first and second reading.

Alan Clendenin

6:37:43PM Does it matter? My question was, and this is just -- I think you already know this answer. The concern about affordable housing, with what they have asked for is part of our code and plan. That question is kind of asked and answered. If we don't like that, we change the plan.

Lynn Hurtak

6:38:11PM We don't have to approve the resolution.

Alan Clendenin

6:38:13PM Councilman Carlson.

Bill Carlson

6:38:14PM David, the rendering that you just showed, I recall this case, but I don't remember what the renderings look like. You said earlier that it stepped down toward the neighborhood in the previous one and now you have come down two stories. Do you have a side view rendering of what it looked like stepping down? I don't have what it used to look like. This is an elevation rendering looking -- this is north a, and this is westland. So you can see the design now.

6:38:49PM One of the things you talked about also was the shadow, and you said whatever about the 85 feet, but as it is right now, the rendering shows the shadow. I don't know what time of day it is, but shows a shadow in the streets. I don't know if it goes beyond that. Are the residents satisfied that the shadows are sufficiently not -- in the community meetings we've had, everybody seemed pretty happy with this design. We did not get push-back from lowering to six stories. Again, if we don't move forward with this today, they could build it to what it was approved in 2022. I don't think anybody wants to do that. Mitch corti from the development team is here if you do have a specific question about the design, he might be better equipped to answer it. I'm happy to bring him up to the podium.

Alan Clendenin

6:39:51PM If there are no further questions -- any further questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item? I wanted to help him out a little bit. They do have like a previously approved loading berth waiver. Now, talking with the development team, they are going to share like a loading dock with the Solid Waste. Move-in and move-outs. And also proposing on street parking spaces on the northern street which is good for move in and move out. Staff did support this.

Lynn Hurtak

6:40:30PM Can you show us where that would be on the site plan? I'm telling you now, street parking is not going to exist. It will be snapped up. There will be no place to park on the street. Could share for the loading and then proposing like some on-street parking spaces in the right-of-way which will be -- they could use that for loading kind of, too. Point some of that out.

6:41:12PM I appreciate that. I have never known a delivery driver to park any further than they have to park. They are going to park in the street. And if they are going to go to the compactor, they are blocking the side way -- sidewalk, which is a pedestrian issue. This is why I just cannot believe that you would bring a plan that didn't include at least one loading berth. So if your architect is here and is willing to speak to that, I would love to hear it. Because I appreciate you, Mr. Scott, but I don't see that happening in the real world.

Alan Clendenin

6:41:54PM Mr. Singer, is the architect here? He's not the architect. Mitch corti.

6:42:01PM Come forward. Start with your name, please. So, with the loading, we do have some loading here in this area. That has direct access to the retail. This is what we talked through with staff and we all came to an agreement that this was sufficient in conjunction with all the other on-street parking that we're providing. I can tell you we build multifamily projects across the country, and we almost never include loading just because with these infill projects, every one is used to loading on the street and we've had more retail on this in plenty of projects and have had no issues. I think that's how we get comfortable with it just based on experience.

Lynn Hurtak

6:42:52PM Again, my issue is finding a dedicated space to do loading. So whether that be dedicated, if it's dedicated on-street parking for delivery or however you want to do it, and work with Mr. Scott and the parking team to figure that out, because I don't disagree that we need to find a solution for urban living, but if that's just simply blocking a space for delivery, that's fine. But to have an answer to park around the block is just never going to happen. We can try to work to block off a few spaces potentially. I think a lot of loading is also happening not in the middle of the day, like very early in the morning when the spaces are available and not a ton of cars on the street, which is also what we see at other projects. Again, that's how we've gotten comfortable with the design.

6:43:53PM I again appreciate that. In Tampa what we have seen is that if they don't have to go into structured parking, they won't. If they could park on the street, they will, because it's faster. So we really have to find a way to block off -- so those spaces won't be empty early in the morning because somebody who didn't feel like going to structured parking will park in them. We as a community have a lot to talk about to try to avoid that, but the only way we can do it is simply to block the parking for delivery only. I'm amenable to that.

Alan Clendenin

6:44:27PM Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Somebody online that wishes to speak? Okay. Carlos ramirez.

6:44:47PM Hello, Carlos. Have you been sworn in? Were you sworn in?

6:44:56PM He probably was listening when you did it. Let's do it again then. Raise your right hand, please.

The clerk

6:45:04PM Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth and nothing but the truth?

6:45:09PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:45:11PM Start with your name again, please.

6:45:18PM Go ahead. My screen is --

6:45:31PM We can see you.

6:45:38PM We did a moment ago.

6:46:04PM Yes. Carlos ramirez, North Hyde Park. Evening, chairman and council. I have a lot to cover. Let's go ahead and get started. We've been working with the developer and appreciate their engagement with us. Two critical issues still remain that we have not been able to resolve and therefore we can't support this approval. Just has to do with parking and shade trees. Parking, we're asking the developer to maximize on-site parking used by the tenants. This issue is not the number of spaces available but rather the residents actually using what is provided. We've seen repeated saturation of nearby residential streets as apartment tenants park off-site due to reduced parking allocations or parking spaces not being included in the lease. This overflow affects neighborhood quality of life and creates unsafe conditions for fire and rescue vehicles that must be able to pass through the streets without obstruction. Examples around the neighborhood, people parking on that little bulb out for the trees. Over here, as we were talking about, we have u-hauls at the beginning and end of every semester. We see them blocking streets. This street here, we have a lot of cars that park on both sides, which make it really hard for emergency vehicles to get through, creating unsafe conditions. And then it bleeds over to the residential streets, creating damage to the shoulder and eroding it. Also, because there's not a lot of parking available, people start parking closer to the corners, creating site distance issues and safety. Here's one here. Another one here. So we just want to bring this to the attention. We understand that minimizing parking is great, but it only works when there's reliable alternatives. Unfortunately, in Tampa, every step forward in public transit seems to come with two steps back and we remain far behind other cities when the developer has built their units. This slide illustrates the challenge, long transit wait times and significantly hotter temperatures. This environment, reduced parking supply doesn't change behavior. Simply shifts the burden on to surrounding neighborhood streets. For the tree planting, our goal is to maximize type one canopy trees. Decorative are nice, ornamental are nice but we're looking for shade especially the areas abutting the residential areas. These streets provide essential shade and help to transition from higher density, taller buildings, 85 feet to lower density residential uses across the street, creating a more comfortable and visually balanced edge. The emphasis applies primarily along north a street and north half of albany and westland avenues. Heat, type one canopy coverage is not optional. It's critical for liveability and resilience.

6:49:03PM Thank you, Carlos. Ms. Dock.

LaChone Dock

6:49:06PM Yes, council, LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I've heard discussion regarding six stories and agreement to provide six stories from the applicant, except that is not a maximum height. So if the direction from council is to possibly add a loading berth and then maybe if the applicant is revising the plan to a max of six stories, we would like direction as to a maximum height.

Alan Clendenin

6:49:36PM 85 feet, six stories.

LaChone Dock

6:49:39PM Currently, they have a maximum height of 85 feet.

Lynn Hurtak

6:49:45PM 85 feet with eight stories. Six stories, they need to come down.

Alan Clendenin

6:49:50PM I think that would be subject to discussion of council. I don't have a problem with 85 feet. It's Kennedy Boulevard. Anybody else in the public who wishes to speak to this item? Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

6:50:04PM Ms. Dock, do you have a revised revision sheet to enter into the record or you want to determine whether there's more to add to it or not depending on what the discussion is with the applicant's representative?

LaChone Dock

6:50:15PM Correct. Development Coordination. Do I have a revised revision sheet. I added the condition regarding the six stories. Once I get the confirmation of the max height I'll add that. If it is the pleasure of council to vote on this. If the applicant is agreeing to add a loading space, that cannot be added between first and second reading. We need to see what would be shifted in order to provide that loading space. There may not be major changes. There could be a shift. It would be up to the applicant to, one, agree to the changes, and then, two, determine if they agree to add a loading space.

Alan Clendenin

6:50:53PM My observations. One, it's very urban. Very urban-style development. I'm empathetic with the argument from the public comment about the shade tree coverage. That is something that I have some concerns. So before we close this, I want to hear some feedback on the shade tree coverage. Everything I heard, that is the thing that strikes me, that's something that people have to deal with 365 days out of the year. I'm not as concerned, again, the loading thing, this is a real city now. We're not building suburbia. This is like real city. You move to cities and you have those types of momentary inconveniences in had this type of environment. The height, I honestly don't think 85 feet is a problem. Already have approval to build 85 feet, whether that is six or eight stories, I don't know. If you look at the property, the property behind it is not developed. The property on 8th vote to is that developed? Staff is that property developed? It's not like single-family houses sitting back there.

LaChone Dock

6:51:57PM Development Coordination. It is vacant. I have the photos.

Alan Clendenin

6:52:01PM All the area is being redeveloped into more intensive than we've seen in the past in this area. Again, we start thinking about Kennedy Boulevard as a transit corridor, we've got to have the density along Kennedy Boulevard to be able to support transit if we're ever going to get there. Applicant, can you discuss -- can you please discuss the tree situation? We worked with natural resources to provide as many trees as we possibly could. Part of the issue is the utilities that are there and finding space for all the shade trees that we can possibly put. We want as many shade trees as can be there as well. Makes for a better project, better design, safer project, pedestrian capabilities of walking, especially with the walk-up units on a street. There is discussion about moving some of those utilities and hopefully moving them underground. It's not currently required. But as we get to the building permit phase, if it's possible to underground them, we would absolutely put more shade trees and work with natural resources to do that.

6:53:08PM Let me ask you this. With the bonus provisions and everything else, I would want to see those utilities. I would be really happy with the project if you had come before us with undergrounding utility plan to be able to accommodate shade trees and the things that come with underground utilities. Natural resources, is there -- what do you see in this project of expansion, if these utilities were undergrounded, what kind of increase in shade trees able to provide in this important corridor? So this site is governed by the Kennedy corridor overlay. Two of the three trees on the list are type one trees, that would be an oak and an elm, remaining tree is type two, holly, also still more of a canopy tree. So if it was undergrounded, the requirement would be to provide shade trees.

6:54:15PM Okay. Did you want to add something from the development team? I'll give you an opportunity. We've been in extensive discussions with TECO about doing exactly this. We just don't have an answer from them and we don't have the requirements. So I can't tell you at this point whether they are going to have us do it, not do it, where it would go. It is our intent that we would absolutely like to do it. It's a better project. It's a much better project when that happens.

6:54:45PM I haven't heard from Councilman Miranda yet.

Charlie Miranda

6:54:47PM I'm listening and observing. But thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm going back to the parking. You have 292 units and I would imagine that a lot percent has a car. People want to walk, ride bikes, but I ain't seen too many people that don't have a car, that do have a bike. And I'm being sincere with you. You're a great guy. You do a great presentation. But then the question I asked myself is if these are young people, especially some from the University of Tampa which is growing every day. Over 11,000 going there now, and -- what percent going to have visitors that need a parking space? Not only the tenants there, but the visitors that are associated with 292 units. 1%, 5%, no%, 10%, I don't know. But I'm sure there's some scale of economy gone by countrywide what that is. I don't know what that is. I'm afraid that is the one that will tip the iceberg to where they'll park anywhere. I appreciate that comment very much. It's part of the reason why we have exceeded the parking requirement by 73 spaces. Only 319 required. We're providing 393. So we've taken that very much into account and drawing on the experience that the local team has had across the country to provide those extra 73 spaces.

6:56:22PM That being said, I believe, Mr. Chairman, and council members that the university where they build the building, they built for parking also. And they have ample parking. That doesn't mean when they leave they go somewhere else. Wherever they are going may not have the ample parking.

Alan Clendenin

6:56:41PM Thank you. I'll go to the ones that haven't spoken and then come back to you.

Naya Young

6:56:47PM My question was going to be how many parking spaces were they providing.

Alan Clendenin

6:56:50PM Councilman Viera and back to Councilwoman Hurtak.

Luis Viera

6:56:52PM Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. In reading, council members, I think there is a collaborative way to yes on this. But question to Mr. Singer, if I may, on the TECO issue, is that something you can inquire on between first and second reading if that is of some conditional relevancy to council members? Yes, I think it is. Mitch corti. Yes, I think we can. And we've been in constant discussions with them. I think what we've seen with utility companies, sometimes things just change. Like David said, it is our intent, 100% to underground those utilities. But I don't have like an undergrounding plan or utility plan or anything accomplished out with TECO. I will say like we're going to push as hard as we can. I don't know why they wouldn't let us. We can try between first and second reading, we can try to get some kind of response that, yes, that is feasible. From there, I think it's where the location is, whether utilities are kind of in that area and can we fit the trees we want. Like David said, we want the shade trees. We want that great resident experience and pedestrian experience, so we're going to push for that as much as we can.

6:58:08PM I inquire, given the proximity, ut issues, et cetera, need for housing especially for students and so forth, something many of us want to get yes to, if that is an issue, potential consideration.

Alan Clendenin

6:58:20PM I think we could -- if we could get that big bonus, underground the utilities, I think that is a win. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:58:31PM Finally to my question which is simply bonus provision, one of the things is undergrounding, is it not? One of the provisions is undergrounding. I would rather you spend your bonus provision on undergrounding the utilities, than 120% affordable housing which is not affordable. I'm just saying. That might be something to look at because it sounds like trees are a big issue to the neighborhood, undergrounding is something you want to do. Undergrounding is something we want to do. Because that is a part of the bonus provision, I'm still really stuck on this 85 feet. If someone could talk to me about what you actually need for six stories because it clearly isn't 85 feet, if you showed correct renderings. So can you please tell me what you actually need for six stories? The 85 feet was again overruns, other things on top of building. I think we're 71 feet to the top of the top floor essentially or to the top of the sixth floor, yeah.

6:59:47PM What would it take, Ms. Dock, to -- I mean, changing the bonus provision, we can't do that between first and second reading, can we?

Martin Shelby

6:59:58PM That would be a question I believe for Ms. Wells.

Cate Wells

7:00:04PM Good evening. Cate Wells with the Legal Department. It is possible to amend the bonus provision agreement if they are willing to. I would just have to file a substitute agreement with council in advance of second reading.

Naya Young

7:00:23PM We can't do both affordable housing and underground?

Alan Clendenin

7:00:28PM If they chose to do that. How this works is they have like a kind of chinese menu of things they can pick to give us this and we give you that.

Martin Shelby

7:00:40PM My recommendation is to inquire of staff as to what you're requesting, whether it's possible and then it's up to, again, the negotiation with the applicant.

Naya Young

7:00:56PM In my mind, we need both. It's still next to a university. We still need affordable housing. We just talked about that a few hours ago.

Cate Wells

7:01:06PM Section 27-140 isn't really set up to allow both alternatives. And the reason being typically with the increase in f.a.r., there is a calculation that the developer will go through to identify what the monetary value is associated with that increase in f.a.r. A lot of times folks will underground the utilities and then have to document the costs equal to or greater than the amount of the bonus. With affordable housing, there is no calculation as to the value of the increased housing. The code just says you can provide 10% of the units to be used for affordable housing between 80 and 120 percent AMI. So the code isn't currently set up to allow for that alternative. That is something that staff has been working on as a part of the comp plan update and the code update so that you do have that sliding scale, so to speak in the menu, but it's not currently set up that way.

Naya Young

7:02:15PM I appreciate that. Obviously we need both things. In responding to, we did get public comment and it was with the tree, so I understand that point as well. But we need a lot of things in the city and I would rather be able to do as much as we can rather than pick either-or because they are both important. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:02:33PM Very good. If I'm hearing the sentiment of council and somebody correct me if I'm wrong, that this project appears to be fine if you're able to between first and second reading come back to council with a plan for undergrounding utilities to be able to do the type one type of shade trees, that we are able to -- where did we land on this loading dock situation? How do people feel about that? I know councilwoman Hurtak's feelings, but I haven't heard from anybody else. Nobody else cares.

Lynn Hurtak

7:03:11PM I'm shocked that no one else cares. If you saw the photos of the neighborhood -- you clearly don't drive in this neighborhood.

Alan Clendenin

7:03:18PM I live in this neighborhood.

Lynn Hurtak

7:03:20PM You don't live in that neighborhood.

Alan Clendenin

7:03:21PM It's right down the street from me.

Naya Young

7:03:24PM Can you look into having at least one designated, like Councilwoman Hurtak --

Alan Clendenin

7:03:31PM But then that blocks off space for parking.

Lynn Hurtak

7:03:34PM That's fine. People should not be parking on the street who live in that development.

Alan Clendenin

7:03:41PM I'm not hearing a sentiment from council that it's a burning issue. Councilman Carlson. Go ahead.

Bill Carlson

7:03:47PM David, there are a whole bunch of things we talked about. I would be okay voting for this at first, now, and then the most important thing to me would be, listen to the different feedback, talk to Carlos and the neighborhood association and figure out what -- they are the ones that have to live with it every day. Sure people coming in and out of the neighborhood, but this is a traditional grid system in the neighborhood. If you can't turn right one place, you can turn another place. I would talk to them and try to figure out -- talk to them tomorrow and of those things figure out with staff what is the best course of action and put as much of this stuff in. While I still have the floor, council member Hurtak talked about the height and your colleague said you could go to 75 feet. Knowing that there might be some infrastructure in there above, you could work it out with staff, way to say we're going down to 75 feet, but give the ability to put antennas or whatever has to go up on top. Just throwing out ideas. Whole bunch of things on the table. Probably can't do all of them. I would check with the people who live around it to make sure you're proposing the things that they want the most and then come back to us. That would help me.

Alan Clendenin

7:05:09PM Height of 75 feet, there are opportunities for certain types of things to exceed that level. 75 and then if you have accessory things --

LaChone Dock

7:05:25PM Correct. That could be a note added to the site plan. For those allowances.

Alan Clendenin

7:05:31PM This is what I'm hearing. Hearing the undergrounding and type one trees. 75 feet as a height restriction added to the site plan with the additional information that Ms. Dock just said reference the accessory structures. And is that all I'm hearing? Let's get a sense? So the applicant has clear direction.

Luis Viera

7:05:53PM On some of these I'm looking for good faith efforts coming forth and then for further consideration and evaluation. For me, there's not a line in the sand on some of these issues, but just best-faith efforts which, of course, you guys are going to do.

Alan Clendenin

7:06:08PM I do find that Carlos, the person who spoke from the public, is generally very amenable to like urban type of development. He's not one normally the naysayer person.

7:06:25PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

7:06:27PM I'm going to see what you can do between first and second reading. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But those shade trees are very important, and I really -- so for me, it's going to be seeing that, the delivery space that is directly next to the entrance to the parking garage. It should be directly north of that. It should be long enough for a semi, which would be perfect for two amazon vehicles. And that's really what we're looking for, and that's what we need. Again, that's going to be something that you'll have to talk to with Mr. Scott and our parking director. But overall, it's very clear that we have a need for parking issues to be solved in the neighborhood.

Alan Clendenin

7:07:11PM Councilman Carlson, did you have anything to add?

Bill Carlson

7:07:14PM I agree with Chair Clendenin also about the urbanization, I remember as far back as 20 years ago, linda saul-sena led an effort to reimagine Kennedy, and we have to have street facing density to help with transportation and we also need the retail, which is what they are putting in. That's why I really want to support this. But we need to consider everything council said and most importantly the people who live around it.

Alan Clendenin

7:07:47PM I think it's an exciting project. Little tweaks to make this, because every one of these pieces on Kennedy Boulevard is going to add up to a much greater whole. You guys are basically these urban pioneers coming out, bringing this new type of project to this important transit corridor. So I'm excited. I love the fact that you've been able to complete the block face and be able to wrap the retail like this. If we can get this, if we can get the streetscape right and do this right, I think this is going to be a transformational project and I'm excited for you to bring it forward. This is really an important keystone project for this. We've got the underground, we have the 75 feet, and then we're going to keep our minds open between first and second with the restrictions that LaChone Dock is going to read to us before we have this discussion. Go ahead, ma'am.

LaChone Dock

7:08:42PM Thank you, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. The three additional conditions adding a loading space on the site plan in front of the property and also amending the site plan data table and elevations to a maximum height of six stories or 75 feet with some allowances for that additional height. And then the applicant is confirming with TECO if they are able to underground the utilities.

Alan Clendenin

7:09:11PM Street loading space referring to.

LaChone Dock

7:09:13PM Correct. And I would like to mention, council, if I may, the typical time frame between first and second reading is two to three weeks. The applicant already mentioned they had a hard time reaching out to TECO or getting an answer. They are supposed to confirm if they can underground. That may not be enough time to allow it. I did speak with the applicant and stated they may want to ask for additional time between first and second reading. I can't say they can't, but it will be tough to get that confirmation.

Alan Clendenin

7:09:44PM Mr. Shelby you wanted to add something.

Martin Shelby

7:09:47PM Question with regard to -- there was discussion regarding the bonus provision agreement. You had conversations regarding that. Is that remaining the same? And will that appear unchanged at the second reading?

Lynn Hurtak

7:10:00PM That's up to the applicant.

Martin Shelby

7:10:02PM That involves undergrounding -- well, there was some discussion whether that involves undergrounding utilities or not.

Alan Clendenin

7:10:07PM For the bonus, I think where we're at is with the bonus agreement and the affordable housing is what they chose to do, the undergrounding utilities, to get the PD through -- I mean, yeah, that's on top. It's apples and oranges for the bonus agreement. On this particular project. Councilwoman Hurtak, you had something to add.

Lynn Hurtak

7:10:34PM I want to be more specific in the site plan of where the delivery parking. So I wanted that to be on north westland.

Alan Clendenin

7:10:51PM On the utility side.

Lynn Hurtak

7:10:52PM It is the perfect space. Easy to load into, great place to stop. To me, it makes the best sense. If you lose a couple of parking spaces, you lose a couple of parking spaces.

Alan Clendenin

7:11:05PM That's what we'll anticipate then. We're good with this direction. Everybody good? Applicant good?

Naya Young

7:11:12PM My idea has already been canned. I guess.

Alan Clendenin

7:11:16PM Kind of not. Still alive.

Bill Carlson

7:11:22PM You didn't nod. Are you okay with the general direction of this? Second thing is when do you want to come back for second reading? We have heard everything you said. We are okay with the direction this is heading. We would like to discuss with Ms. Wells in between first and second reading the renegotiation of some of the provisions of the bonus agreement. If someone is inclined to move this for approval today, we're fine with you adding the provision that it's 75 feet capped. We would ask that you give us three weeks for second reading.

Alan Clendenin

7:11:54PM Can we get a date from staff?

Lynn Hurtak

7:11:57PM We only do regular meetings every other week.

Alan Clendenin

7:12:14PM August 27. Motion to close?

Bill Carlson

7:12:17PM You are okay with the 27. August 27?

Alan Clendenin

7:12:22PM Motion to close from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Hurtak, you have the privilege of reading this one.

Martin Shelby

7:12:36PM Just for the record I have received and provided to the clerk the amended revision sheet.

Lynn Hurtak

7:12:42PM I can say amended revision sheet?

Martin Shelby

7:12:44PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

7:12:45PM I don't like to legislate from -- or I don't like to change projects from the dais. Just not something I like to do. But I think that ultimately the changes are so minute. So file rez 26-31, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 106, 108, 110, 1112 North Albany Avenue, 108 North Albany Avenue unit 2, 2101, 2117 and 2121 West Kennedy Boulevard, 105 and 107 North Westland Avenue, and 2110 west north a street, in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification Planned Development to Planned Development, storefront residential/residential multiple family and all CG uses, providing an effective date.

7:13:47PM With the amended revised revision sheet.

Alan Clendenin

7:13:50PM I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. A second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it unanimously.

The clerk

7:14:00PM Second reading and adoption held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Luis Viera

7:14:14PM Council, if I may, there was something in my district I need to call Chief Bercaw on. I was messaging with him on it. Five, ten minutes hopefully.

Alan Clendenin

7:14:27PM We should be good on this one.

Bria Dixon

7:14:31PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item 8 is rez 26-43, request to rezone 5024 north 30th street from RS 50, residential single family, to IG, industrial general. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Quinn Steele

7:14:48PM Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the central Tampa Planning district, East Tampa urban village and East Tampa one neighborhood. Also within evacuation zone e. The subject site is outlined in purple, surrounding area contains a mixture of industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant properties. Parcels zoned IG are located to the north, south, and west while single-family homes are primarily east of north 30th street. This map shows the site designated as tu 24 which supports a range of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. R-10 is located immediately east across north 30th street and further north is the cc-35 designation. The request is to rezone from RS 50 to IG. IG zoning district is consistent with tu 24 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Request will continue to recognize industrial lands for the support as key economic engines within the city. Additionally, proposal directs growth within the East Tampa urban village through infill development of a vacant parcel and area characterized by industrial and commercial development. Any future development will be required to provide an appropriate buffering and screening adjacent to nearby residential uses. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:16:11PM Council have any questions? Hearing none.

Bria Dixon

7:16:17PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Start with aerial view of the subject property. Here you can see the subject property outlined in red. It is located at the northwest corner of north 30th as well as east Wilder Avenue. Subject site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Here we have a survey. Shows again north and 30th East Wilder Avenue. I also have photos. Subject property. Same subject property from East Wilder Avenue. To the north. East. South. And several properties to the west. The subject property is approximately 0.14 acres and presently again undeveloped. Given that the surrounding use is primarily consist of industrial uses and few single-family detached residences, the request to IG zoning is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood located within the West Tampa overlay future development must comply with overlay standards at the time of permitting. Development Coordination and compliance staff reviewed the application and found the request to be consistent with the City of Tampa land development regulations. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:17:39PM Council have any questions? Councilwoman Hurtak. Can you put the map up again? Of the current zoning. So the majority of that is what? You have the IG pretty much everything else in this area.

Lynn Hurtak

7:18:06PM Thank you.

Bria Dixon

7:18:07PM You're welcome.

Alan Clendenin

7:18:30PM Why don't we pause a moment until we get another councilperson back. I'll ask the applicant, we have four persons here, which is a quorum. We can wait for the fifth. Are you ready to present? Is the applicant here? Who is the applicant? Here we go. We're good. Maurice Jones.

7:19:11PM Do you have anything to add?

7:19:14PM Does council have any questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Councilman Maniscalco, would you read 8.

Guido Maniscalco

7:19:29PM Ordinance rezoning the property in the general vicinity of 5024 north 30th street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RS 50, residential, single-family, to IG, industrial general, providing an effective date. Anything else?

Alan Clendenin

7:19:49PM Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

7:19:56PM Motion carried with young and Viera absent at vote. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

7:20:11PM Thank you.

LaChone Dock

7:20:14PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item number 9 is rez 26-45, for the property at 2404 and 2408 Stuart Street. The request is to rezone the property from PD, Planned Development. This is a PD approved in 2008 under z-08-58 for a Place of Religious Assembly, to PD, Planned Development, for Place of Religious Assembly and rs-50, residential single-family. I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her report.

Quinn Steele

7:20:47PM Planning Commission staff. We are submitting revised staff reports to the record. Only revision corrects the description of the request. There are no changes to the analysis or our consistency finding. This site is within the central Tampa Planning district, Palmetto Beach neighborhood and located within evacuation zone a in the coastal high hazard area. The property is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is primarily developed with single-family detached homes with some two family residences in public, semi-public uses. Commercial uses are located one block west along south 22nd street. This map shows the site designated as residential ten which surrounds the property on all sides. R-20 located approximately two blocks north. De soto park is one block east shown in green, which is that recreation open space designation. And CMU 35 is one block west along south 22nd street. The request is for Place of Religious Assembly within the PD zoning district on the west and single-family detached home within the RS 50 zoning district on the east. The proposal allows the existing church to remain while creating one single-family residential lot consistent with the density anticipated under the r-10 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Between first and second reading, staff is requesting revisions to the site data table, correction of the f.a.r. And labeling of all front entrances on the site plan as outlined in our staff report. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. I am available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:22:19PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, yes, ma'am.

LaChone Dock

7:22:23PM Thank you again, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. This is an aerial of the subject property. So the property is identified in red. It is located on Stuart Street, which is located here. This is harper to the north. This is south 24th street. You can see the property is surrounded with RS 50 zoning and the use of residential single-family in that surrounding area. And this request would allow the applicant through this PD to take the existing property boundary and split it and create a lot along the east boundary in this location for a single-family residence. So this would create the RS 50 lot here within this boundary, with the proposed two-story residence located there and then the church would remain. And no changes are proposed to the church building on the west side of the property. Once the lot is split, the PD, this would be zoned PD. The church parcel. And this would be the RS 50. And the PD parcel would have 18,704 square feet. The RS 50 site would have 5,035 square feet. The parking required for the Place of Religious Assembly is 36 spaces. And 23 spaces are provided. You can see this is the outline of the church building. Vehicular access to the site is from either south 24th street for the surface parking located here on the west side of the building, or from Stuart Street. And then there's surface parking that's located here on this lot. I have pictures of the subject property. So this is the picture of the property, the church property, the vacant area that shows the rear of it. This is east. This is looking south on 24th street. This is located south. This is if you turn around and look west. This is on Stuart Street. And this is west of the property. And this is to the north. So there are waivers requested, and they are generally just due to the fact that this exists, the site exists. But there are five waivers requested. One is 27-283.7 to reduce the required parking spaces from 36 to 23. The next waiver is 27-284 and to reduce the required ten foot use landscape buffer to five feet along the east. And then the next is 27-132, the special use criteria to reduce the minimum lot size for Place of Religious Assembly from the required 20,000 square feet to the proposed 18,704 square feet. The next is a waiver to 27-284, to reduce the ten foot landscape buffer to zero. This is on the north boundary. The last waiver is 27-284 and it's to omit planting of six required vua trees interior of the vua and to pay into the tree trust fund for trees not planted. So with that, the DRC staff reviewed the request and finds the request inconsistent, and there are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. The inconsistent finding was from transportation and natural resources due to the waivers requested. I'm available if you have any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:26:01PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant? Juan Vasquez is online. Juan, stand by, if you can hear us. We're working to get you up.

7:26:28PM We can hear you. But we have to get you on camera. Is your camera on?

7:26:33PM There you go. Can you raise your right hand to be sworn in by our clerk, please.

The clerk

7:26:38PM Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to provide is the truth and nothing but the truth?

7:26:44PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:26:45PM Thank you. Start with your name, please.

7:26:50PM Do you have anything to add to the case? Juan Vasquez, engineer of record and applicant for this rezoning. As she explained, this property currently has a church on it. It used to have a smaller building where we're putting the house. All that we're asking for is for the lot to be split so that we can have that single-family home stand alone in its own lot, RS 50, which requires a 50-foot width on the lot. So we're keeping the church in the PD, in the original PD and we're splitting out the house and the RS 50 zoning. We are meeting the impervious area ratios, and other zoning codes that are required. There are some waivers, as she explained that we're requesting. Most of these waivers were already part of the original PD. Simply that. Like I said again, there was a smaller building on the right side where we're putting the house. That got torn down and we're putting a new construction home there and it's being split out. That is why we're doing this PD rezone to PD and also to RS 50.

7:28:24PM Thank you very much. Anything else to add? Does council have any questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Seeing none, can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Miranda, second from Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Lynn Hurtak

7:28:40PM All I want to say is I adore this church. It's a beautiful, beautiful church. If you have never been by it, I bike by on Sunday sometimes. Nice part of the community.

Alan Clendenin

7:28:58PM Here we go. Go ahead.

Charlie Miranda

7:29:00PM Item 9, file rests 26--- rez 26-45, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2404 and 2408 Stuart Street in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD Planned Development to PD Planned Development, Place of Religious Assembly, and RS 50, residential single-family, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

7:29:29PM Motion from Miranda. Second from Maniscalco. That's with the revision sheet between first and second.

Charlie Miranda

7:29:36PM With the revision sheet, first and second and any other things needed.

Alan Clendenin

7:29:40PM All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you. Next.

The clerk

7:29:44PM Motion carried with young and Viera -- motion carried with young and Viera absent at vote. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

7:30:02PM Thank you. Ms. Dock.

LaChone Dock

7:30:03PM Thank you, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item 11 is rez 26-56 for the property at 1715 West Overpar Drive. The request is to rezone the property from RS 100 residential single-family to RS 50, residential single-family. I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her report.

Quinn Steele

7:30:25PM Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the university Planning district in the Forest Hills neighborhood. It is not located within an evacuation zone. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is developed almost entirely with single-family homes. This map shows the site designated as residential 10 which surrounds the property on all sides. R 6 and R/Os are to the southeast. The request is to rezone from RS 100 to RS 50. Consideration for two dwelling units consistent with the density anticipated under the r-10 future land use. Planning Commission found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. RS 100 is predominant zoning along this portion of West Overpar Drive, proposed RS 50 zoning remains consistent with the adopted future land use designation and provides for more efficient use of underutilized site. Planning Commission staff finds the rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:31:23PM Council have questions? Hearing none, Ms. Dock.

LaChone Dock

7:31:26PM Thank you, again, council, LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. This is an aerial of the subject property. The property is outlined in red. This is overpar and just for orientation, this is North Armenia Avenue that's located here. So I will provide an analysis of this area as is usually provided whenever there is a request to reduce the zoning designation and the lot frontage required in that designation. You will see that surrounding the subject property to the north, west, south, and east, the zoning is RS 100. And you would have to move two blocks south. You get to the RS 60 zoning that's located here, and then you've got the golf course that has that and some of the parcels that have RS 75 zoning, that's to the southeast and east of the subject property. But an analysis is included in the report, but I also want to show you and talk to the conforming map that was provided. I'm going to read into the record the analysis. This is the subject property, which is hatched. And this is overpar. This is north Armenia. So the first analysis I have is of this block frontage. The second part that I will read into the record is for the frontage on the south side of overpar. And then the next I will read is along the east side of Rome. I provided in the report the west side of Rome, but we'll talk about the overall and then also give a further analysis of the frontages. The subject property is a part of the carol height subdivision. Originally platted in 1955. Lot 9. East 25 feet of lot 8. The area of analysis includes 165 parcels. 97% or 160 parcels have been developed with widths ranging from 50 feet to over 100 feet. 3% or five parcels width of 34.99 feet or less. These parcels are remnant parcels, so they are unbuildable parcels, just to put on the record. So the subject block face on the north side of West Overpar Drive, between north Armenia Avenue and North Rome Avenue contains ten parcels, including the subject parcel, with widths ranging from zero to greater than a hundred feet. Excluding the subject parcel, one remnant parcel measures zero to 34.99 feet in width. Four parcels measure 75 to 79.99 feet in width. Two parcels measure 80 feet to 99.99 feet in width and four parcels measure over 100 feet in width. There are currently no parcels with frontages less than 75 feet. The block face located on the south side of West Overpar Drive between North Oak Leaf Avenue and North Rome Avenue contain nine parcels. One parcel measures 50 to 54.99 feet in width. Five parcels measure 70 to 74.99 feet in width. And three parcels measure 80 to 99.99 feet in width. On east of the subject parcel on the block face on the east side of North Rome Avenue, between west -- drive and West Country Club Drive, contains a total of 11 parcels with two parcels ranging in width from 50 feet to 54.99 feet and three parcels ranging in width from 75 to 79.99 feet. And one parcel ranging in width from 80 to 99.99 feet in width. Five parcels ranging in width of 100 feet or greater. So in the overall study area, what I've done is also provided for you the width -- the percentages that have 70-foot lots wider and also 80-foot wide or larger. You'll see the majority of the lots have at least a 70-foot width. But the overall study area has identified 97 percent of parcels over 50 feet in width. 3% of the parcels at a width of 49.99 feet or less in the study area. 88% of the parcels are greater than 70 feet in width, and 56% of the parcels are greater than 80 feet in width. While there are a variety of lot sizes in the vicinity, the majority of parcels in the overall study area are developed at a width greater than 70 feet. With only three parcels measuring at widths ranging from 50 to 54.99 feet, staff finds the proposed request to be inconsistent with the existing development pattern of the overall study area. With that, I am available if there are any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:36:32PM Council have any questions? Hearing none.

LaChone Dock

7:36:35PM I have pictures of the site. I am so sorry. Forgotten pictures twice. So this is the subject property on overpar. This is the east end of the property. It is pretty wide because it has a hundred feet of frontage. I just wanted to show a couple of pictures. The east side of that property. And then we'll go to the surrounding uses. South of the subject property. This is across the street. This is another view south. South. You can see the residential single-family detached. West of the subject property. Wider frontages. This is north of the property and this is on veronica if you went north to the end of the cul-de-sac. This is northeast on veronica looking east, and then this is northwest of the subject property. With that, that concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:37:34PM Hearing none, applicant. Aileen Rosario, 2504 West Crest Avenue. I've been sworn. My client is requesting to rezone this property euclidean RS 100 to RS 50. Understandably a lot of the lots within this neighborhood, they are 75 feet wide. Some of them are 70 feet. But the zoning, when you look at the zoning page on the property appraiser, it says RS 100. But the majority of the properties are not 100 feet wide. They are 70, 75, 80. So they don't match their zoning. Right directly across the street from my client, there is a lot 50 by 130. My client's lot, yes, it's 100 by 224 feet long. So the only thing he wants to do is make it an RS 50, put two single-family homes and who have the buyer enjoy a really nice pretty lot with a lot of mature trees. We're not trying to get rid of the trees. The trees have to stay. We did have to take a tree out because it was dangerous. When the tree person went out to do the inspection, they said we had to take it out dangerous, because it was literally falling on the car and the houses. It was done in a matter of like three days we got the permit, had someone out there and they took it down. Everything was cleaned up and we're just waiting. That's all he wants to do is do two single-family homes, two families can have beautiful piece of land, because it goes from the front all the way to the other side. You can't build on the other side. Not enough width to build. Whoever does purchase this property will have 50-foot by 220 feet property which is nice for the neighborhood. Did I speak with a couple of people from the neighborhood. They gave me some phone calls and I also explained to them what the zoning is, that an RS 50 is single-family. One house, one family, one kitchen. Unless the property owner is homestead, then they can apply for the adu, but cannot be multifamily when RS 50. They were okay and satisfied with those answers. That's all I have to say.

7:39:55PM Thank you. Anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Anybody in the public? Hello. I didn't see you sitting back there.

Lynn Hurtak

7:40:07PM I do want to say I did receive -- both council member Viera and I received a letter from the Forest Hills neighborhood association. I made a copy. I'll let you see it and then give it to the clerk. I wanted to put that in the record.

Alan Clendenin

7:40:25PM I suspect we'll have somebody standing at the podium momentarily with the name.

Lynn Hurtak

7:40:30PM I felt it was important to say we got this letter.

Alan Clendenin

7:40:34PM Come forward and start with your name, please. I do live in Forest Hills. Beautiful area. Many of you have come and helped us celebrate our hundredth anniversary. It is an established neighborhood and it is a larger park-like setting. I'm here representing people that maybe Ms. Rosario did not speak to. We also sent letters to you on -- Councilwoman Hurtak, from the bb family, and I was hoping you would read that in just how long they have lived there. And expected it to be the same. The neighbors on each side of her, they are unable to come. They are in their senior years. I told them I would speak for them. I've only come to you to speak one time before, and that was to thank you for helping us with the flooding in our area and getting monies to get those people back on their feet. So we have a large area that is prone to flooding. We see that this is at the top of the hill. They have not changed it for a long time. As you put two homes in this area, less permeable area for the water to run down the street. I can tell you that I often talk about that once you've changed something. I have never been here before to speak to you guys about multiple, bigger density. And I did attend a meeting in our community center, talking about a plan in the future for going down to the smaller amount. The homes on each side, as she told you, they are larger lots. We would prefer that there just be one single home that matches the characteristics of the neighborhood there. And it would assure a lot of people that they had planned -- one lady right behind them, to pass down their property for multigenerational purposes. They do not plan to leave. These are their forever homes, and to put a single, two single houses with less than ten feet between them and next to their own property, it's going to be, yes, it's a nice place to live, but it is an eyesore, like a slap in their face a little bit. I would like a little more time for our neighborhood to talk about this because as a person told you, RS 60 is down where I live, closer to the golf course, but we have a lot of greenspace, a lot of trees, and we would like to retain that, if possible. Thank you.

7:43:11PM Thank you very much. Anybody else in the public wishing to speak to this item? Start with your name, please. I live on that street. I guess my concern is I want to put two family dwellings in there. Currently two on there now. Would that make it three? There is an apartment in the back that was built years ago. Not even sure if it showed up or got permits for it. But there is an apartment in the back and then the house. Of course, we would like to keep the neighborhood looking the way it does. I live two houses down and I have a big lot or long lots. Great for kids to be raised and so forth. But to have change like that and to kind of squeeze two houses in there, is it will take away from what I think the neighborhood has been for years. 32 years now. That's my concern. Like I said, there's currently two dwellings on there now. What are they going to do with the other one if they do get approved, which will make it three.

7:44:16PM Thank you. Anybody else in the public wishing to speak to this item? Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to make a correction. In our presentation, we said that the site could be considered for a maximum of two dwelling units. The correct number is maximum of five dwelling units. So this site has frontage on both sides of west overpar, and this cul-de-sac here. I will defer to City staff on what the zoning district would allow, if they could split it up. But the maximum density for this site in the residential ten designation is five units.

7:44:58PM Thank you for the correction. Applicant, would you like a rebuttal? On the property at this moment in time, there is single-family home, and there is an adu that was built -- can't tell you how long ago. At least 40, 50 years ago. So, yes, like this young lady said just now, if they were able to leave that house like that and they wanted to actually take the future land use and do that five dwelling units, then major problems for the neighborhood because it outright allows it, right? But we only want to do two houses, single-family, that building in the back, that's going away.

7:45:47PM Address us. The accessory structure that's in the back, that would go away because when you're going to build a house, you're going to make it look pretty. Not leave a 50-year-old building that nobody even lives in there. It's dilapidated. You're not going to leave that there. Have one single-family home with a really pretty lot and then one extra home. My understanding from doing the research, the property directly across the street, which is RS 50, the property owner in there from the neighbors that called me have said they have done illegal homes, illegal rooms and they are renting out to other people. Of course, that particular house has a lot of cars because they are doing something illegal. We only want to do two pretty single-family homes. Like to have their family be there for the next 30, 40, 50 years, just like they have now. People can't afford hundred foot lots right now. They can probably afford a 50-foot lot and be able to enjoy the same beautiful neighborhood that they have now. That's all. Thank you.

7:47:02PM Thank you. Motion to close from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. I'll say that this is exactly one of those things that I ran on about preservation of neighborhoods. This clearly is not -- this neighborhood is developed in a certain way and neighbors have expectations. As you heard from our City staff on the development, she gave a very detailed description of how these lots are laid out and that is that expectation of that neighborhood. If we were to start carving up these it would completely change the character and the feel of this cherished neighborhood. This is historic neighborhood in the City of Tampa that I think we should protect. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

7:47:49PM I'm just going to go ahead to move to deny rez 26-56 for the property located at 1715 West Overpar Drive due to the failure of the applicant to meet its burden of proof to provide competent and substantial evidence in the record that the rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the city code. I adopt the findings of the City staff report specifically that 88% of the lots in the study area are over 70 feet wide.

Alan Clendenin

7:48:23PM Thank you. Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

The clerk

7:48:33PM Motion to deny carried unanimously. Motion to deny carried with young absent at vote.

Alan Clendenin

7:48:43PM Thank you very much. Item 12.

LaChone Dock

7:48:46PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination.

Alan Clendenin

7:48:49PM Hold on, LaChone.

Martin Shelby

7:49:04PM Two substitute. Substitute ordinance, substitute resolution, but that's not to be adopted until the second reading.

The clerk

7:49:12PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

7:49:17PM I understand that part. Why are we reading the resolution.

LaChone Dock

7:49:22PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item 12 is rez 25-116. This is for the property at 3101 North Florida Avenue. The request is to rezone the property from CI commercial intensive to PD Planned Development for storefront residential/commercial with all CN uses. I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her report.

Quinn Steele

7:49:44PM Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. We are submitting a revised report into the record. This report was transmitted before the deadline but it didn't make it on to onbase. Our recommendation remains consistent but we did have some additional concerns and changes to the analysis that are included in that staff report. This site is within the central Tampa Planning district. The Tampa Heights neighborhood and urban village in evacuation zone e. A portion of the site is also within the Tampa Heights local historic district. The subject site is outlined in purple. Surrounding area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses. North Florida Avenue is a transit emphasis corridor with commercial and vacant properties along the corridor and single-family, two family and multifamily development to the east. This map shows the site designated as community commercial 35, which supports commercial residential and mixed use development. R-20 is located immediately east and transitions to r-10 further east with a pocket of r 35 here. The request is to allow a storefront residential building at 2.0 f.a.r. Through a bonus agreement with the city and is consistent with the maximum intensity anticipated under the cc-35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposal and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The project orients residential entrances towards the street, places parking behind the building, provides six foot sidewalks and bicycle parking and supports many of the mixed use design policies. Although staff have concerns with the location of the dumpster area for roll out due to the updated design, the current design would require the dumpster to be placed on the sidewalk and be rolled along the drive aisle on collection days. Staff encourages the applicant to clarify the design and ensure the dumpster does not block pedestrian use of the sidewalk. Overall, the proposal provides compatible infill within -- along a transit emphasis corridor within the Tampa Heights urban village and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

7:51:46PM Any questions?

LaChone Dock

7:51:47PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I'll provide the aerial map of the subject property. So the property is outlined in red. This is Florida Avenue. And you'll see that along Florida Avenue the CI zoning exists along with those commercial uses. As you head further west, you have the RS 50 zoning, and the majority of this area with the residential single-family development. To the east is the same RS 50 zoning. So you have that commercial corridor that runs along Florida Avenue. I have the site plan submitted by the applicant, but I did want to state on the record that the application was continued at the City Council evening hearing on May 14th. The applicant wanted to redesign the site. I know that a couple of versions of this actual site plan have been submitted over time, and the applicant was working on a redesign, including the location of the Solid Waste. But what is before you within the staff report and the data table is provided the updated square footages provided. So the commercial development is comprised of 700 square feet. You can see that this is the site that is submitted into the record. This is adalee. This is Florida Avenue. You can see the commercial that is located here, which would front Florida Avenue. The retail spaces. These are the entrances for the pedestrians to enter the actual property. And vehicular traffic would enter the site along the south, and there are parking spaces that are located internally on the site. Also, there is a sidewalk that is proposed. For each entry point, there is a walkway that would provide connection to the sidewalk that's proposed. So the lot width itself has 50 feet of frontage. The lot contains 6,098 square feet. The maximum building height proposed is 69 feet. Total of 6 parking spaces required, 6 spaces are provided. Two bicycle parking spaces are required and two spaces are provided. So the plan depicts a four story structure. Contains a total of 700 square feet of retail space as mentioned. There are six dwelling units that are located on floors two through four. Within the structure. What I would like to do is show you the elevations that are submitted. By the applicant. This is the south elevation. This is the north elevation. And then on the left, my left, west elevation and this is the east elevation. Then I have a few pictures of the subject property. So this is the property. This is the south boundary of this property that's located here. And that's Florida. This is east of the property. This is to the south. This is to the west of the property. So the DRC staff reviewed the request. There is one waiver requested. 27-284. Request is to reduce to 15-foot landscape buffer and 6-foot masonry wall to a 5-foot landscape buffer with a 6-foot wooden fence. DRC staff found the request consistent, and there are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. I'm available if you have any questions.

Alan Clendenin

7:55:41PM Thank you. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Good evening. Bryce penson with halff associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Florida. She did a good job covering most of the location and everything. So I'll skip over that.

7:56:01PM Thank you. We appreciate that. Storefront residential for all CN uses. This is from our landscaping plan just to show you a little bit with more color. So the development is requested to have a 2.0 f.a.r., which requires a bonus provision agreement. And the agreement worked out was offering affordable housing unit. There's currently six dwelling units proposed. One of them would be affordable. And then the site is only required to have six parking spaces. With the size of the site, that's all we could provide. I do want to clarify, she mentioned the dumpster location. For the reason we continue to this hearing, we were originally proposing a dumpster over here, and even with cutting the upper stories of the building back to allow for space for the dumpster to pick up, there was no auto turn exhibit, we could physically have the truck turn into the site to front load and pick up the dumpster. So what we worked out with a Solid Waste was being able to roll out the dumpster to this location here, pick it up and then roll it back on trash collection days. We are exceeding the greenspace requirements. Only 39 square feet of greenspace is required. We're providing over 500 square feet. Two new trees are required, which we are providing up here. This goes over the waiver of the use-to-use buffer. And the reason for having a wooden fence instead of masonry wall is because that's what is allowed within the Tampa Heights local historic district. That's why we were complying with the ARC requirements. We received a letter of support, which I can submit into the record, from the Tampa Heights civic association. We did receive a letter of support, and I will submit that to the clerk. That's all I have unless you guys have any questions.

7:58:29PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

7:58:32PM I will say that this is exactly the kind of development that I wanted to see on a 50-foot wide parcel. Like, I know -- and -- your only waiver is something for the historic district. You have more greenspace. I can't wait to see this like be developed and built. Because in this area, this is exactly what we were hoping to see and I hope this is a model going forward for others.

Alan Clendenin

7:59:03PM This is a good project.

Lynn Hurtak

7:59:04PM Amazed. It's beautiful. I'm very excited to see it. You chose a good place to do it. Tampa Heights is all about density and maximizing, but fitting in with the neighborhood. So congratulations for doing a very good job with that.

Alan Clendenin

7:59:21PM Anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none, motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Good project. We left off with -- Councilman Carlson, I think. I think we're back to Carlson. Remember, the substitute ordinance.

Bill Carlson

7:59:45PM Move file rez 25-116, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration.

Alan Clendenin

7:59:55PM Substitute ordinance.

Bill Carlson

7:59:56PM I just left out the word substitute. Substitute ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3101 North Florida Avenue, in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification CI commercial intensive to PD Planned Development, storefront, residential/commercial, all CN uses, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

8:00:27PM We have a motion from Councilman Carlson. Second from Councilwoman Hurtak. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

The clerk

8:00:34PM Motion carried with young absent at vote. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

8:00:54PM That will be next time around us, next round. That concludes our regularly scheduled program. New business, Councilman Carlson.

Bill Carlson

8:01:00PM No, thanks.

Alan Clendenin

8:01:01PM Councilman Viera?

Luis Viera

8:01:02PM Brief one, if I may. I was asked, obviously, we're all friends with the smith family, walter smith. They are having a birthday party for their son. I was asked to do a commendation, it would be in the name of the smith family posthumously for Dr. Walter smith. I can't be there. I think they are speaking to Councilman Young on it, but just making the motion. That's all.

Alan Clendenin

8:01:28PM We have a motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco for a commendation for walter smith family. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Off site. Anything else? No. Councilwoman Hurtak. Councilman Maniscalco?

Guido Maniscalco

8:01:43PM Yes, remember this morning I mentioned that I wanted to make a motion. Give a commendation off-site to the sons of the American Revolution in conjunction -- with the City of Tampa. They are going to be having a liberty tree dedication at Julian b. Lane park August 29 At 10 a.m. this is, of course, in conjunction with the 250th birthday of our country. So I just want to present that commendation off-site.

Alan Clendenin

8:02:11PM Motion from Maniscalco, second from Viera. All in favor, aye. Ayes have it. Thank you. Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

8:02:18PM It's come to my attention that laura deriso, executive aide to HR Director Kelly Austin, is retiring after 30 years of service with the City of Tampa. In celebration of her time with the city, I would like to make a motion to present her with a commendation for her retirement celebration on September the 11. I think it might be off site.

Alan Clendenin

8:02:39PM Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Anything else, Councilman Miranda?

Charlie Miranda

8:02:46PM That's it, sir.

Lynn Hurtak

8:02:50PM Chair.

Alan Clendenin

8:02:51PM I am traveling to Colombia again next week to represent the City of Tampa for LEED. Start in bogota and then barranquilla. And award them a plaque, make a motion to provide off-site commendation to our sister city barranquilla, Colombia, in recognition of obtaining LEED cities gold certification.

Lynn Hurtak

8:03:21PM Motion from Chair Clendenin. Second from Councilman Viera. All in favor, aye.

Charlie Miranda

8:03:28PM Can I go for translation if you need me?

Lynn Hurtak

8:03:34PM Any opposed? Okay.

Alan Clendenin

8:03:37PM Motion to receive and file? Motion to receive and file from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Ayes have it. We beat our timeline by 26 minutes. [ sounding gavel ] 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. ▶ meeting video the information contained in these pages represents an unedited version of realtime captioning which should neither be relied upon for complete accuracy nor used as a verbatim transcript. Persons requiring a verbatim transcript may need to hire a court reporter. © - City of Tampa (813) 274-8211