Evening Session — September 10, 2026 FINAL

Alan Clendenin

5:07:51PM Good evening, everybody. Welcome to a crowded Tampa City Council chamber this evening. It's good to share the pain and have you all with us this evening. I would like to call the meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll.

Charlie Miranda

5:08:05PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

5:08:06PM Here.

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:08PM Here virtually.

Naya Young

5:08:11PM Here.

Luis Viera

5:08:11PM Here.

Bill Carlson

5:08:13PM Here.

Alan Clendenin

5:08:14PM Here.

The clerk

5:08:15PM We have a physical quorum.

Alan Clendenin

5:08:17PM Councilwoman Hurtak is participating virtually this morning. Can I get a motion? Motion from Councilman Carlson, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Lynn Hurtak

5:08:26PM And Chair Clendenin, I just wanted to say that I'm participating virtually today because I'm not feeling well. But I am here and I am listening.

Alan Clendenin

5:08:39PM You are and you are always.

Martin Shelby

5:08:40PM Martin Shelby, City Council attorney, if I may follow up, because we have quasi-judicial hearings tonight, we are going to take the official vote as a roll call vote. Councilwoman, just so you know, when you are not visible on screen, people may not know whether you are or not participating. To the degree you can be on the screen, that would be great.

Lynn Hurtak

5:09:07PM I don't anticipate being off the screen.

Martin Shelby

5:09:09PM Wonderful. Please make sure you're heard to be recognized if there's something you wish to have the chair recognize, and we'll do the roll call vote so we can record your vote separately. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

5:09:21PM Great. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:09:22PM I'll kick off the agenda review. Can I get a motion to remove items 11 and 12 since both of them were misnoticed? Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilwoman Young. All in favor, aye. Opposed?

Lynn Hurtak

5:09:36PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

5:09:37PM That is our simple vote. Everything else will be a roll call vote. I understand we have a couple of requests for continuations. Would you like to do those?

Bria Dixon

5:09:48PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Since we removed two items, you only have two more items to clear from the agenda. Item 7, rez 26-76, requesting continuance and waiver of 180 days. If granted, item continued to November 12, 2026 hearing. The applicant sent an e-mail request today. Staff confirms based on the agenda, which would be the pleasure of council.

Martin Shelby

5:10:12PM Do you know if this is the first continuance on this item?

Bria Dixon

5:10:16PM It is the first continuance.

Alan Clendenin

5:10:18PM Motion to waive the 180 days and the motion to continue to November 12. I have a motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Miranda. 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602, and that is at 5:01 p.m. on November 12, 2027. I have a motion and a second. Roll call, please.

Charlie Miranda

5:10:44PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

5:10:46PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:10:48PM Yes.

Naya Young

5:10:49PM Yes.

Luis Viera

5:10:50PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

5:10:51PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:10:52PM Yes.

The clerk

5:10:53PM Motion carried unanimously to continue item 7.

Bria Dixon

5:10:58PM Next item is item 10, file rez 26-63. Applicant is requesting a continuance and waiver of 180 days. If granted, continued to November 12, 2026 hearing. The request --

Alan Clendenin

5:11:14PM Item number 10, I need a motion to waive the 180 days and then a continuation to November 12, 2026. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda. A second from Councilman Maniscalco.

Martin Shelby

5:11:28PM Question. Is this also the first continuance on this item?

Bria Dixon

5:11:32PM First continuance.

Alan Clendenin

5:11:33PM We have a motion to continue this to November 12 with the waiver to November 12, 2026 at 5:01 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33606. I'm sorry. 33602. I just gave my own zip code.

Bill Carlson

5:11:51PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

5:11:51PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

5:11:54PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:11:54PM Yes.

Naya Young

5:11:55PM Yes.

Luis Viera

5:11:57PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:11:57PM Yes.

The clerk

5:11:58PM Motion carried unanimously to continue item 10.

Alan Clendenin

5:12:01PM That concludes your agenda?

Bria Dixon

5:12:04PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:12:05PM Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Lynn Hurtak

5:12:14PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

5:12:14PM Thank you so much. Mr. Shelby, would you like to read your --

Martin Shelby

5:12:19PM Yes, Mr. Chairman. This evening, it was asked that I bring to council and the public's attention just a few rules regarding quasi-judicial hearings. Rule 6 g states as follows, all persons who provide testimony, information or opinion regarding a petition in a quasi-judicial matter pending before City Council must disclose any direct or indirect business or personal interests between themselves and the petitioner or applicant which is requesting action. The information shall not be used to deny the petition or the matter but goes to the weight of the evidence, information, or opinion provided. Also, one other thing -- actually, two other things. Rule 6-j-3 states as follows: no requests for a continuance by the applicant or petitioner shall be granted at the quasi-judicial public hearing after the applicant petitioner has completed its initial presentation unless upon determination by City Council that it is necessary for purposes of procedural due process. The last thing that I've been asked to remind the public of is please do not display any signs or graphics or anything that would be distracting during the meeting. If you do wish to show anything to the council, it would be during your time at the lectern. If you have any product or evidence or testimony that you wish to give at that time, that would be the appropriate time to display it. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:13:49PM Thank you very much. Since we have a lot of new people this evening in the audience, at each one of the public hearings you'll have an opportunity for public input. If you have never been here before, you are addressing City Council and facing this way. Just like she is facing there. The microphone is embedded into the podium. When you start whatever you have to say, start with your name. Always start with your name. There's going to be a light on the podium. It will turn green. At that point you have three minutes to complete your statement. At two and a half minutes it will turn yellow. That's telling you you have 30 seconds to wrap. Once it turns red you are done. You need to stop and go back and take your seat. Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

5:14:33PM Thank you for reminding me council. If you have a speaker waiver form, which is available outside, then what that does is that allows people who are present in the room to waive their three minutes to grant the speaker an additional minute. Seven people can sign that form giving up their three minutes to allow the speaker to have a total of ten minutes. That's per council's rules. At the time, if you do have a speaker waiver form, please approach and give me the form so I can call the names of the people on the list to make sure you are here and present and you waive your time. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:15:09PM Motion to open the public hearing? Motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed?

Lynn Hurtak

5:15:15PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

5:15:16PM Public hearings are open. Kick us off.

Bria Dixon

5:15:18PM Development Coordination. Agenda item number 1 is rez 26-20, the request is to rezone 4701, 4708, 4710 West McElroy Avenue from rs-75 residential single-family to PD Planned Development residential single-family detached and semi-detached. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission.

Alan Clendenin

5:15:41PM Let's pause here for one second and swear everybody in. If you are here this evening to provide public testimony to any of the cases tonight, because these are all quasi-judicial, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk. If you are here to speak tonight, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk. Even if you don't think so, go ahead and do it just in case. [Oath administered]

5:16:08PM Thank you. Meaghan McCarthy, sworn in, with your Planning Commission staff. 26-20 located within the South Tampa Planning district and the Gandy Sun Bay South neighborhood. Subject site is within evacuation zone a as well as the coastal high hazard area. Surrounding area contains a mixture of residential and commercial uses. There are commercial uses to the along west North Gandy Boulevard which is a transit emphasis corridor. Along South West Shore Boulevard are multifamily and commercial uses. Directly to the north is multifamily apartment complex within the residential 20 designation. To the east is established single-family neighborhood. The subject site is within the residential 10 future land use designation. To the west of the site along South West Shore Boulevard is within the community mixed use CMU 35 future land use designation. To the north are residential 20 designated lands developed as a multifamily apartment complex. Planning Commission staff find the proposed PD would provide an appropriate transition between the commercial development to the west and multifamily development to the north and the established single-family neighborhood to the south and east. The proposed development orients the front entrances of all units towards west McElroy Avenue with pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks consistent with the comprehensive plan direction. Planning Commission staff finds the request will provide additional housing within proximity to local transit emphasis corridors and transit opportunities and supports comprehensive plan policy to direct residential growth to an area with existing infrastructure services and employment opportunities. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff find the request consistent with the comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

5:18:06PM Council have any questions? Hearing none.

Bria Dixon

5:18:16PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Start with an aerial view of the subject parcels. As you can see here, there are three parcels. Each are outlined here in red. Subject parcels are fronting west McElroy Avenue and they are just east of South West Shore Boulevard. The subject property is surrounded by single-family detached dwellings, RS 75 zoning to the south as well as to the east. There is a warehouse over here on the left as a Planned Development. To the north another Planned Development for walgreens pharmacy and immediately north there is also RM 16 zoning designation for single story attached units. Here are site plans as provided by the applicant. You can see here those are the semi detached units. Units 1, 2, 3, 4. Units 5, 6, 7 are single-family detached units. The applicant proposes two two-story semi-detached dwellings totaling four dwellings and one single story and two two-story detached dwellings for total of seven dwellings. Semi detached units will provide single car garages and one single car driveway while each single-family detached residence would propose a two car garage and two car driveway. Access for each unit as you can see here is on McElroy Avenue. The proposed maximum height is 35 feet. Here are elevations. These are the elevations of units 1 and 4 from the north. The south. The east, and the west. 5 and 6 units, two story single-family detached, this is north, south, east, and west. Lastly, here is the single story from the north, the south, the east, and the west. I also have some photos of the subject property. Again, it is three properties -- sorry, three parcels. There are quite a few photos. This is subject property one. Parcel one. Parcel two. Parcel three. Development to the south. Additional development to the south. Development to the north. These are the multifamily -- sorry, the semi -- sorry the attached dwellings to the north. And then this is single-family detached to the east as well as the commercial development to the west. There are no requested waivers. The development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and finds the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Should it be the pleasure of council to approve this application, further modifications to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading as stated on the revision sheet. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:21:39PM Council have questions? Hearing none, thank you. Applicant. Alex Rios with Rios architecture. I'm here to present the case on behalf of the petitioner. The request before you is to rezone these three parcels from RS 75 to PD to allow for seven unit residential development. The subject parcel is surrounded by more intense commercial and multifamily zoning to the west and north. And this design intentionally responds to that transition in intensity. The more intense development is concentrated towards the west with the development gradually transitioning to larger lots and lower scale residential development towards the east. The two western lots contain semi detached townhomes that are compatible in lot width, setbacks, and height regulations for RM zoning standards. While the remaining lots transition to two story and single-family detached homes consistent with the surrounding RS zoning districts. You can see that transition here with the two semi detached structures. Single-family detached two story and one single story detached home. Here is a diagrammatic, schematic rendering of the transition. With the more -- with the townhomes, single-family homes and a part of the single story shown in this image. From a natural resources standpoint, the wider eastern lot also helps preserve several existing on and off-site trees that are located there. Following a conversation with a neighboring property owner to the south, we are also proposing to locate required tree mitigation along the south property line to provide privacy. We recognize that stormwater is a critical -- is critically important to South Tampa. We work with staff to establish a schematic stormwater approach that began with limiting total impervious area per lot to no greater than 55%. We also performed a percolation test and established existing water table to design a large, shallow retention area that demonstrates schematic compliance with the applicable stormwater requirements. That is located in the back right here. This application proposes no waivers, and we are happy to see staff's consistent finding. We respectfully seek your approval. Thank you.

5:24:47PM Does council have any questions? Hearing none, thank you very much. Anybody in the public wishing to speak to item number 1? I never talked to Mr. Rios. Never heard from him. He never called me. I checked my phone. Unless I'm totally wrong. Did I talk to somebody about these lots a long time ago and it may have been the actual developer. I don't know. But bottom line is, I haven't heard from anybody in the last 60 days about this. Now, here's my problem with the project. Overall, I don't have an issue with it. But when everybody starts screaming and hollering about single-family attached, which is really what you call in the real world a duplex, let's just a call it what it is. It's a duplex. This right here is exactly why people don't like duplexes because they go in and they build over 50% impervious surface. So all the duplexes, the two duplexes, are over 50% impervious surface. Why don't they have to follow the same -- they are single-family. Why don't they have to follow the same stormwater requirements as a single-family detached. I don't understand it. It makes no sense to me. This area right here, one of the big reasons why I don't have a problem with it is these properties are all owned by the same folks and they took on a hell of a lot of water during the hurricanes. So these people lost all their homes, their rentals and the one they lived in, and I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is continuing to make the problem worse by you're building this all up, so where will the water go? Go to the people to the south of them, to the east of them. And then on top of that, we're not even building it less than 50% impervious surface. How's that work? I don't have a problem with building seven houses because the lots are huge. I took a look at it. I knew the people who owned the place. But when I look at this, it just makes me sick. Why don't we have the same stormwater standards, if you're going to call it single-family attached, detached, semi detached, it should still be 50%, no ifs, ands or buts about it. I don't care how big a vault they build, not going to hold three feet of water. Thank you.

5:27:22PM Online we have linda Erickson. Linda, are you there?

5:27:29PM I can. We need to have you sworn in. I can't see you.

5:27:36PM Unfortunately, this is a kilowatts judicial hearing and we have to be able to see you to take your testimony.

5:27:46PM Clerk, do you see an issue on our end?

The clerk

5:27:52PM [Inaudible] why. I hit activate camera.

Alan Clendenin

5:28:05PM Click the camera icon. Down below?

5:28:10PM I'm not familiar with the computer that you're on. The mic will click, but the camera won't.

5:28:19PM Do you see an icon on the very bottom of your screen? It. Activate camera. I don't know what to do. Activate cameras. Can you see me now?

5:28:40PM No. I need to talk. I don't know what to do.

Martin Shelby

5:28:47PM If I can, these are council's rules with regard to that. I'll cut to the pertinent section. People needing assistance should contact the office of the city clerk. After that, participants appearing virtually assume the risk of any technology issues that may be related to the incompatibility or failure of their equipment which prevents them from being seen and heard or to see and hear others. If during the course of the hearing an applicant or property owner determines that the use of communications, media technology presents an issue that may impact their due process rights, it is incumbent upon them to raise an objection during the hearing. So should they fail to do so, any such claim is waived. I heard the speaker say that she lives directly behind. Did she state her name for the record?

Alan Clendenin

5:29:46PM We haven't gotten to that yet.

Martin Shelby

5:29:48PM If she could state her name for the record please. And that property floods and floods my backyard and my privacy will be gone. I am a widow --

Alan Clendenin

5:29:59PM Can you state your name, please? E-r-i-c-k-s-o-n.

5:30:07PM Stop right there. I'll get back to you in a second. Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

5:30:12PM Ms. Erickson --

Alan Clendenin

5:30:14PM My rule is unless their camera works --

Martin Shelby

5:30:17PM That is usually the standing rule here.

Alan Clendenin

5:30:20PM You can state your objection because of the technology issue, Ms. Erickson. Unfortunately, because of our rules in this procedure to be equitable, we have to enforce our rules of procedure. We cannot take your testimony unless attorney gives me advice. Any advice from the city perspective?

Martin Shelby

5:30:45PM Just a reminder, council, and this would also be to Ms. Erickson, that should this case continue to go forward and pass first reading at this hearing today, it will come back during the daytime At 10 a.m. on October 1st for you to have another opportunity to speak to this. Do you understand what I'm suggesting? If you can't make it today to give your testimony, then you could come back, assuming this does move forward, on October 1st At 10 a.m. at the second public hearing, which is another full public hearing, which would give you that opportunity to give your testimony. Do you follow what I'm saying?

5:31:32PM If you have any questions, please contact the clerk's office at the City of Tampa to assist you. Maybe they can put you in contact between now and then with members of the cttv that would be able to help you work through your problem. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you wish to hold this for a little bit and perhaps that can be done.

Alan Clendenin

5:31:53PM No, I don't, actually. Ms. Wells, does the city concur with that decision? Very good. Just want to make sure we're in a defensible position. Again, we noted your objection. You'll have an opportunity to speak, if this item moves this evening, you will have an opportunity to speak again. I appreciate Ms. Erickson and have a good night. Take care.

5:32:17PM On October 1st when the issue comes back before us you'll have an opportunity to speak. Have a good night. Thank you. Sorry you are having technical difficulties. Applicant, would you like a rebuttal or anybody else in the audience wishing to speak to the item before I close it? Go ahead. I think the initial concern is stormwater. I did perform outreach. I have e-mails from November 4 through the 20th of last year. I'm glad to attach those to the record with Stephanie. But as far as stormwater compliance, we are being reviewed as a total site compliance, not an individual lot. The intent is to subdivide these as if they were individual lots. From overall impervious area standpoint, line item 1, impervious chart does show we are below 50%. We are allowed to be over 50% single-family lots are also allowed to be over 50%. Even to that point, we are below 50% from an overall site standpoint. Thank you.

5:33:31PM Does that conclude your rebuttal?

5:33:35PM Does council have further questions? Hearing none, can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda.

Lynn Hurtak

5:33:53PM We have to vote on the closure.

Alan Clendenin

5:33:54PM All those in favor of closing the public hearing, aye.

Lynn Hurtak

5:33:56PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

5:33:57PM Now I understand what you're saying. Mr. Carlson, would you like to read this one? Mr. Viera.

Luis Viera

5:34:13PM Move an ordinance presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4706, 4708, and 4710 West McElroy Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RS 75, residential, single-family, to PD Planned Development, residential, single-family detached and semi detached, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

5:34:36PM Motion by Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Miranda. Roll call, please.

Guido Maniscalco

5:34:44PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:34:46PM Yes.

Naya Young

5:34:48PM Yes.

Luis Viera

5:34:49PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

5:34:49PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

5:34:53PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

5:34:53PM Yes.

The clerk

5:34:54PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1st, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:35:13PM Thank you very much.

Christopher Demanche

5:35:16PM Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item 2 is rez 26-34, request to rezone 4400, 4410, 4488 West Boy Scout Boulevard from Planned Development approved for mixed use business and professional office, bank, hotel and restaurant uses to Planned Development for bank with drive-through, office, business and professional office, hotel with accessory commercial, restaurant, and bar lounge uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

5:35:54PM Meaghan McCarthy, sworn in, with the Planning Commission staff. This is rez 26-34 located in the Westshore Planning district, Westshore business center and Carver City Lincoln gardens neighborhood. Subject site is located within evacuation zone e. The surrounding area is characterized by high density and intensity residential and commercial development. To the north across West Boy Scout Boulevard is the Westshore international mall. With Tampa international located further north. Multifamily residential development surrounds the site to the south, east, and west. Commercial uses are primarily concentrated along North Westshore Boulevard, a designated transit emphasis corridor and West Boy Scout Boulevard and West Spruce Street. The subject site is within the regional mixed use 100 designation. Further to the south is Jefferson high school within the public/semi-public designation and established single-family neighborhood within the r-10 designation to the southeast. Within the rmu 100 designation, the proposed PD is subject to applicable mixed use design policies within the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, including internal pedestrian connection and front door orientation. As three buildings are existing and no additional building square footage is proposed, the applicable design policies are primarily considered in the context of the existing site layout. However, the submitted site plan does not provide sufficient information for staff to fully evaluate the site against the applicable design criteria, including identification of front door entrances and any existing or proposed pedestrian infrastructure. City staff confirmed the applicant will be required to revise the site plan between first and second readings to identify the built square footage of the existing three buildings which shall not exceed a 1.5 f.a.r. And including notes stating square footage of the uses identified may be modified as long as the combination of all square footages on the property do not exceed 223,000 square feet. Based on the confirmed changes between first and second reading, the proposed PD is found consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The proposed CG uses are consistent with the rmu 100 designation, and the maximum f.a.r. Of 1.5 is consistent with the allowable intensity. While the submitted site plan does not provide sufficient information to fully evaluate certain existing site conditions against the applicable mixed use center and corridor design policies, the review is based on the existing development and the scope of the proposed change in use. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:38:35PM Anybody have questions? Hearing none.

Christopher Demanche

5:38:50PM For the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Before moving into my presentation, I do want to add to the record, we do have an updated revision sheet. We added one bulleted item under Development Coordination. In consultation with the applicant, we have put together some language that would remove the hours of operation that are currently listed for what is pad 2 on the site plan. That's associated with the proposed bar lounge use. Hours of operation issue would be addressed in the future when the applicant would come back before council for an ab license. I wanted to add that to the record. And pass out revision sheet. Starting off here having a look at the aerial for the subject property. Subject property is outlined in red on the aerial before you. It's located on the south side of West Boy Scout Boulevard. The property also has street frontage along North Manhattan Avenue. Looking at existing uses in the area, north of the subject site, we do have Planned Development alternative zoning for the international plaza mall. Immediately south of the subject property, Planned Development zoning approved for residential multiple family uses. We also have an office professional use which is a utility site. East of the subject property, we have office professional zoning where we do have a fire station as well as vacant parcels and immediately west of the subject site, we also have Planned Development zoning approved for residential, multiple family. The subject site is improved with three structures. There is a four-story office building. There is a six-story parking garage structure, which does have space on the very first floor. Currently, the sapphire restaurant is located on the first floor. And then in the northeast corner, there is a one-story restaurant, which is the eddie v's location. We do have a site plan to show you. The subject site has total of 3.41 acres. With this application, there are no proposed structural or site layout changes to show you. The applicant through this PD rezoning is proposing the ability to add bar/lounge as well as all commercial general uses to the list of permitted uses on the property. Just looking at the overall site as it exists, there are two entrances. There's one off of boy scout and there's also one off north manhattan. There are no elevations to show. I will provide you with some site photos to show you existing condition. There are two waivers requested with this application. First is to section 27-283, this is a waiver to reduce the required parking spaces from 534 spaces to 453 spaces. This would represent a 16% reduction. The second waiver is to section 27-283. This is to allow a reduction in aisle width from 24 feet to 23 feet. Next I'll show photos. The first photo is the four-story office building. This would be identified as pad one for the site. Next we have would be pad two. This is the six story parking garage and, of course, the sapphire restaurant does operate on the bottom floor. This is an additional look at the same building. The back side of that building. And then, of course, in the northeast corner of the site, we do have the eddie v's restaurant. And we have our entrance off of north manhattan. Looking north, looking towards the mall, south, we have the residential multiple family. East, we have two photos, one showing the vacant parcel and the other showing the fire station. West we do have residential multiple family there. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition. We do find the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations, inconsistent findings are from transportation and stormwater, should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve this application, further modifications would need to be made between first and second reading of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet. Of course, these revisions will not resolve transportation's inconsistent finding. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:44:06PM Just to confirm, they are not making any changes to the building. It's the current structure. Everything is the same. Just the use.

Christopher Demanche

5:44:12PM Just the use. Adding basically two uses to the site as it exists today.

Alan Clendenin

5:44:18PM Just making sure people understand that. Okay. Very good. Applicant? Ben strand for the applicant sapphire. This is Matt blydenburgh with my office as well. We'll try to be quick. We know there are a bunch of people waiting here. These are the owners of the sapphire. As Chris said, there's no change to the structures. There's no change to any of the three structures. My office is in one of them. These are existing places, existing parking garage, five or six stories with this restaurant on the bottom. We are just trying to add a use for bar/lounge to the sapphire club so we can eventually get an upgraded licensing with the state, which is our goal. Eddie v has been operating there. We didn't do anything with the stormwater drain-off. Didn't change it in any way. There's no physical construction to the outside that's planned. No other changes. The two inconsistencies were the parking waiver from 534 to 453. Again, there is a large parking garage there, also parking within and around the three structures. We don't anticipate there could be any kind of parking issues. We think that the waiver is reasonable and necessary for this type of situation. The stormwater issue, again, we made no changes to the property. We don't plan to make any changes to the property. This is how it was existing before this request. Again, this is just a very simple adding a use to it. We're hoping that council can approve. We're here to answer any questions you have. We appreciate your time and we do appreciate everything that Planning and development did to help us with this project.

5:46:07PM Thank you. Does council have any questions? Hearing none.

Lynn Hurtak

5:46:10PM Yes. I have a quick question. I just wanted to make sure because it was something that I found yesterday in my prep meeting. So you are fine with taking the hours of operation off of the site plan.

5:46:27PM And coming back with ab license. We had one last year and we got bumped off of the hearing for the ab because we had to add this use on the zoning. We were set last year --

5:46:39PM Okay. I just wanted to make sure you were okay with that. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:46:43PM Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

5:46:45PM Sir, the applicant agrees to abide by the revision sheet, agrees to the revisions between first and second reading? Spoke with Planning and development, and aware of the changes to the site plan required between first and second reading.

5:46:58PM If that can be part of the motion.

Alan Clendenin

5:47:00PM I have a big note next to the motion. That concludes your presentation?

5:47:09PM You'll have an opportunity for rebuttal. Anybody in the public who wishes to speak to the item? Hearing none, assuming -- assuming you don't have rebuttal for nothing.

5:47:22PM Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye.

Lynn Hurtak

5:47:28PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

5:47:28PM Ayes have it. Mr. Carlson, would you like to read number 2 with the revision sheet.

Bill Carlson

5:47:34PM Move item 2, file rez 26-34, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4410, 4400, and 4488 West Boy Scout Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD Planned Development to PD Planned Development, bar/lounge, bank drive-in, hotel, office, restaurant, and all commercial general CG uses, providing an effective date, including the revision she had.

Alan Clendenin

5:48:04PM Motion from Carlson. Second from Maniscalco.

Luis Viera

5:48:07PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

5:48:08PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

5:48:09PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

5:48:10PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

5:48:11PM Yes.

Naya Young

5:48:13PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

5:48:15PM Yes.

The clerk

5:48:16PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1st, 2026, At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:48:30PM Thank you. One of these days I'll make it over there and check out the restaurant. Looking forward to it.

5:48:36PM That's what I hear. Very good. Take care. Bye-bye. Next. Item number 3.

Bria Dixon

5:48:41PM Development Coordination, agenda item 3 is rez 26-61, request to rezone 205 South Fremont Avenue from RM residential multiple family to PD Planned Development, single-family detached and single-family semi detached. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

5:49:09PM Meaghan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is rez 26-61 located within the central Tampa Planning district and the South Howard neighborhood. The subject site is located within evacuation zone c. The surrounding development pattern consists of a mix of residential housing types and light commercial uses with commercial uses primarily concentrated along South Rome Avenue, West Cleveland Street, West Platt Street and Kennedy Boulevard. Multifamily development is located east and southeast of the subject site and one block to the along south West Melville Avenue. The subject site is within the residential 20 designation. South and along west East Platt Street and South Packwood Avenue are parcels designated community mixed use 35 with the residential 35 and residential 50 designations to the south. Further north and east of the site are parcels designated urban mixed use 60 and community commercial 35 designations along West Kennedy Boulevard and South Rome Avenue. The request proposes three residential dwelling units consistent with the r-20 flu category through a bonus provision agreement. Planning Commission staff find the proposed PD will allow for appropriate infill development within the South Howard neighborhood and within proximity to employment generating commercial uses and local transit emphasis corridors, including Kennedy Boulevard to the north. The proposed orientation of units one and two towards south Fremont Avenue generally meets the Tampa Comprehensive Plan policy, along with unit 3 vehicular access from the alleyway while the comprehensive plan does not include guidance on the orientation of single-family detached homes, alternative design with orientation is consistent with other residential units in the area may better support neighborhood compatibility. Based on these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:51:01PM Any questions? Hearing none, next. Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. I will start with an aerial view of the subject property. Subject property here is outlined in red. It is fronting south Fremont Avenue and it is also of South West Cleveland Street. The subject property is adjacent to a mix of residential uses with single-family semi detached. To the north, multiple family residential as well as single-family detached. Further northeast along the West Cleveland Street corridor, multiple office uses, and further along west South Platt Street, there are restaurants, offices, and other commercial uses. Here is a site plan provided by the applicant. You can see the semi detached is fronting south Fremont Avenue and the detached is fronting the alley. There is a two car garage for unit 3, single-family detached and there is a one-car garage with parking spaces in the front for the semi detached residences. The maximum height is 38 feet. The applicant is also entered into a bonus agreement to allow the development of the third or additional unit. I also have here some elevations. These are the elevations for units one and two. Here we have east, west, south, and north. And for the single-family detached we have west, east, south, and north. In addition to elevations provided by the applicant, I also have several photos of the subject property and surrounding uses. Here is the subject property. This is looking down south North Fremont Avenue. This is immediately to the north. Single-family detached to the east. This is looking down south South Fremont Avenue. This is to the south. Single-family attached to the west. And this is the alley looking North Towards West Cleveland Avenue. The applicant is requesting one waiver from section 27-162 to reduce the minimum required separation of 15 feet between principal structures to 10 feet for 33% reduction. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and find the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Should it be the pleasure of council to approve this application, further modification to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading as stated on the revision sheet. I'm available for any questions.

5:53:48PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant. Mr. Michelini. Steve Michelini, representing the petitioner. Yes, I have been sworn. This project is designed to have a single-family detached structure on a portion of the site, which the property owner intends to live in a single-family home and then two townhomes in the front with two-car covered garage in the rear, and those dimensions of the garage -- and I know you are sensitive to that -- are 22 by 22. Then single car garages with space on the driveway for the other two units at 14 by 22 feet. As staff has pointed out, this is rez 20, and we're requesting a change from RM 16 to PD. The two town houses and the one single-family are all attached. The waiver that we're requesting is a separation here between the units. We are asking for a bonus provision. The bonus provision will allow the single-family detached structure to be constructed. We are surrounded by multifamily, commercial, and office uses as the staff has pointed out. Here is a picture of what is immediately adjacent to the property. This is the subject property and those are town houses over there. And that's looking north. And looking south, you find a very similar type of development. Here is a close-up view of the subject property here and the town houses here. So we're not introducing a new element into this neighborhood. It's already developed extensively as town houses. Both the City staff and the Planning Commission have found it to be consistent. Single-family residential detached structure and the residential, semi detached are compatible with the surrounding area. We are required to have enclosed garages which we have provided that. In your staff report, we found that all of the City departments, including the Planning Commission found it to be consistent. The purpose of the infill development is encouraged to make optimal use of public facilities, and the design and development shall be consistent with the general site plan of the surrounding neighborhood, and it was found to be that. Applicability of the provision has been found to be consistent. Minimum of enclosed garages, we provided that. Promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure. The property is designed and considers potential, there are no adverse impacts on the site on natural resources or on the surrounding property. The greenspace is required is 350 per unit or 1,050 square feet. We're providing 1,600 square feet. Promote, encourage development where appropriate in location and character. Subject property is immediately adjacent to mix of residential uses with single-family, semi detached to the north, multifamily to the east, single-family detached to the south and single-family to the west. So all of the uses surrounding there are compatible with what we are proposing. We're requesting to develop three units and again, as I said, we are requesting a bonus agreement to allow the additional single-family detached. The proposed elevations are complementary to the surrounding area. The design is purpose of development is unique and therefore meets the needs, however, there is that one waiver for the interior separation between the town houses and the single-family. Those are not external waivers that are being requested. It will not substantially interfere with the rights of others. This is completely internal to the site, and because of that, it is compatible. Substantial justice be done by allowing for the waiver. I have with me letters from 10 property owners supporting this who were within the notice area. I'd like to have those be received and filed. We did not receive any phone calls or any adverse communication regarding this proposal, and we are respectfully requesting your approval. Be happy to answer any questions.

5:58:55PM Council have any questions? I do. I don't have any problem with the compatibility issue. Obviously, it is a more densely populated. But accommodating the vehicles. The garage is fine, but the driveway is only 18 feet, plus inches. Seems like an awful lot of vehicles in the 19-foot range. Doesn't that automatically build in an overhang, which is really epidemic in South Tampa of cars overhanging driveways and blocking access to other folks. What is the condition of that alley that you have access to in the back? What does that look like? How wide is it? How is that going to impact the alley?

5:59:42PM Back side is two car garage?

5:59:44PM The front side is the one not.

5:59:49PM Front side -- do you have an overhead showing -- is it a sidewalk that's right there? In other words, if you have a 19-foot or 20-foot vehicle, are you going to be overhanging onto a sidewalk? Edge of the curb.

6:00:12PM Where is fremont and where is the alley?

6:00:19PM Let's look at the fremont side. Single car garage and accommodate one car in the driveway, correct? You have to accommodate two cars per unit.

6:00:32PM Only 18 feet long. Where is the sidewalk there? Is it 18 feet to the sidewalk to the front of the building?

6:00:41PM I wish you would have come with a triplex. Ask for a triplex and at least have the accommodation of the vehicles. Again, one of the biggest problems we have there is vehicles overhanging onto sidewalks, pedestrians, bicyclists, whatnot are encountering vehicle. 18 feet is adequate and that's our standard. That's pretty good for a vehicle size. I wouldn't worry about them overhanging in this case.

6:01:18PM Good thing you're not sitting up here making the decision about what to worry about.

6:01:27PM 18 feet, we have a lot of vehicles out there in the 19-foot range, correct? Not?

6:01:36PM No, you are asking for a PD. But we meet the transportation technical standards for the dimensions of a parking space.

6:01:45PM You're asking for a PD to build three units on a single-family lot in an area that we have really big problems with vehicles and parking. People parking and blocking driveways. People parking and blocking sidewalks.

6:02:02PM Currently you're converting from single-family -- you're putting a lot on one lot. I could see where this would be problematic with vehicles hanging over on to the sidewalk. We meet the code and we meet the technical standard.

6:02:25PM -- you wouldn't be here asking for a PD. You would be asking for euclidean zoning.

Martin Shelby

6:02:31PM Council, also, do please keep in mind that there is a request for a bonus provision attached to this application, which would require council's approval at second reading.

Alan Clendenin

6:02:42PM Correct. Again, it's a PD. A whole lot of things that are exceptions here. You hit it right off the hat when you first came up talking about the driveways and the parking been a big issue, especially in this neighborhood. Real problematic in this neighborhood. Parking is problematic. We have a lot of problems in this area. You're correct. F-150, that could be anywhere from 18 to 20 feet. That may be something we want to look in our code.

6:03:21PM Full-size SUV. I took like an f-150, that's a bigger one. They said it's typically like 18 to 20 feet, depending on how big the cabs are and all that stuff. It's hard to accommodate these huge vehicles.

6:03:42PM We have a 22-foot garage. That's good. 22 by 22 -- great size garage. Time and time again, especially in our walk bike Tampa folks come in swinging and batting for pedestrian safety and sidewalks. We see it all the time. I live in a place that has a short driveway. We have the same issues. My place was built in 1980 and it's problematic. I live with it every day. Garage widths and length of driveways. They can't block a sidewalk.

6:04:17PM Then they end up parking on the street. Bingo, that's part of the problem. Long.

6:04:26PM End up parking on the street creating street parking problems. Otherwise call TPD and have them ticketed in five seconds.

6:04:36PM That's exactly the problem we're trying to avoid. That's why we work with you, Mr. Michelini in trying to create the standards for the driveways. Being able to accommodate cars in the driveway versus building two car garages. Part of the compromise. Accommodate the cars in the driveway. Units.i guess you could reduce that or you could cantilever the second level out and provide a little more space on the first level. We would have to make those kind of adjustments between first and second reading.

6:05:10PM You're in a multifamily area. It seems like this would be ripe for a triplex. Hell, if you get you bigger units, too. Single-family. This area here is where the waiver was being requested, the separation between these units. When we start reducing greenspace, we run into other issues. We could cantilever potentially the second level and reduce the first level and have more space for the driveway. But when we're dealing with the city codes as we go through this process and we sit down and we meet the technical standards, it's kind of hard to anticipate another -- we're not asking for a waiver on the parking. We're asking for a waiver on the separation between the two buildings.

6:06:13PM Staff, would it be inappropriate or is it appropriate that we could conditionally approve between first and second reading if they give us an extra two feet of driveway space, if they are going to accommodate that and make the amendment between first and second reading. There are similar requests throughout the area, PDs that are located to the east and to the west that have a very similar design. However, they do not propose ten feet of separation between them. They are exactly connected and joined at the rear and the side. If the applicant were to redesign to move the ten feet of separation, potentially provide additional space and greenspace in other areas, that would be possible.

6:07:00PM When I see this, that's what I see. Is that appropriate to have that revision between first and second reading without going to DRC?

Bria Dixon

6:07:08PM Yes. They were here earlier. I don't know if they left or not. I don't have any objection to examining that and coming back, working with staff. Just keep in mind it may force us to request a greenspace waiver. [Oath administered] between the two buildings?

Alan Clendenin

6:08:07PM Is council okay with that? You all would entertain a motion with the revision between first and second reading? [Indiscernible] Ramy Naguib. R-a-m-y-n-a-g-u-i-b.

6:08:33PM Very good. Sounds good. Anything else you want to present or move forward with public comment? You'll have a chance for rebuttal. You're looking at perhaps 20 feet on the driveway side is that what you're looking at?

6:08:55PM I think that would accommodate 95% of the vehicles.

6:09:01PM I believe that's what we were shooting for when talking about reasonable accommodation and driveways. You got to say it louder.

Bria Dixon

6:09:16PM Development Coordination. For clarification, we're not reducing the separation. We're removing it, correct?

Alan Clendenin

6:09:23PM It will be either, whichever the applicant comes back to us with, as long as he does the greenspace stuff between first and second reading, yes.

6:09:35PM Or to close the gap. Basically become a triplex. Waiver because of that.

6:09:45PM When you move that back, you'll pick some space up. I don't know what the calculation is going to be.

6:09:51PM I don't want to negotiate it from the dais.

Cate Wells

6:09:57PM Cate Wells, Legal Department. I want to mention in the event they close the gap and now a triplex, we would have to go back to first reading because the ordinance presented to you describes the uses as currently requested.

Alan Clendenin

6:10:10PM Thank you for the clarification.

Martin Shelby

6:10:13PM An extension of two feet of the driveways with a ten foot greenspace between the two is a presumption on your part as a council that it would be two feet less perhaps of the greenspace which Mr. Michelini Indicates would then require a greenspace waiver. Am I understanding that correctly? If it requires an additional waiver, we probably have to go back to first reading again. Joseph cermak, forester examiner with Development Coordination. Reducing -- or moving the building back, excess of 213 square feet of greenspace on the current plans that should not require a waiver to reach that point.

Alan Clendenin

6:10:57PM Very good. You could move it two feet and not request a waiver.

6:11:01PM Very good. That concludes your presentation? Took a long time to get there but we got there.

6:11:08PM Exactly. Anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item?

6:11:19PM Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Miranda. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Young, you get the pleasure of reading with the proposed revision between first and second reading.

Martin Shelby

6:11:37PM That does not need to be rearticulated, does that for the purposes of this? Yes, including what is handwritten at the bottom. I believe it is the driveway on fremont. Rather than reading it, if the clerk will accept, why don't we just say and the revised revision sheet and it will be in the notes. Thank you very much.

Naya Young

6:12:23PM Okay. File number rez-26-61, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 205 South Fremont Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RM 16, residential, multifamily -- multiple family to PD Planned Development, residential, single-family, detached and semi detached, providing an effective date. Also including the revision sheet. The revised revision sheet. Say that three times fast.

Alan Clendenin

6:12:59PM Very good. We have a motion from Councilwoman Young. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. Roll call, please.

Lynn Hurtak

6:13:09PM Yes.

Naya Young

6:13:10PM Yes.

Luis Viera

6:13:12PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:13:14PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

6:13:15PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

6:13:16PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

6:13:17PM Yes.

The clerk

6:13:18PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1, 2026, 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

6:13:37PM Item number 4.

Christopher Demanche

6:13:38PM Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination, agenda item 4 is rez 26-62. This is a request to rezone 5600 Mariner Street from OP 1 office professional to Planned Development for residential multiple family, office, business and professional office, all CG uses and all CN uses. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

6:14:14PM Meaghan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is rez 26-62 located within the South Tampa Planning district and the Beach Park neighborhood. The subject site is within the evacuation zone a as well as the coastal high hazard area. The surrounding area is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses are to the north and east of the site. Single-family detached is to the west and south with multifamily to the north. The subject site is within the regional mixed use 100 designation. The rmu 100 designation is to the north, east, and west of the site, and the residential 6 designation is to the west and south of the site. Developed with single-family detached uses. Planning Commission staff has reviewed the request and found no adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Within the rmu 100 designation, development is subject to applicable mixed use policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PD supports these principles by placing the building close to the right-of-way and connecting building entrances to internal sidewalks with connections to the sidewalk along Mariner Street. Additionally, bicycle parking provided internally and shade trees proposed along the right-of-way and throughout the site. The proposed height not to exceed 137 feet is compatible with the heights of the existing multifamily development in the area approximately 8 to 9 stories. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies encouraging residential infill development and would provide additional housing near employment concentrations within the nearby Westshore business district. Overall, the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the development pattern envisioned under the rmu 100 designation. Compatible with the surrounding land uses and align with the city's policies for housing and mixed use centers and corridors. Based on these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:16:10PM Council have any questions? Hearing none.

Christopher Demanche

6:16:26PM For the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. This item -- for this agenda item, we do have an updated revision sheet. In speaking with the applicant, we added one bulleted item under Development Coordination. This is to the site data table where the applicant has their proposed height of 137 feet. There would be an extra note referencing subject to hcaa and f -- so wanted to add that to the record. Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Starting off with rez 26-62, we'll start with an aerial of the subject site. The property is outlined in red. It is located along Mariner Street on the south side, surrounding the subject property, we do have office professional 1, OP 1 zoning. To the north, to the east, we do have a mix of office uses as well as multiple family. West of the subject site, we do have RM 50 zoning with residential multiple family. Further west, we do have single-family detached dwellings and south, to southwest of the subject site, we have single-family detached dwellings. The site is approximately 2.34 acres. We do have a site plan from the applicant. The PD before you depicts a single structure totaling 11 stories. Max height of 137 feet. Proposed for containing 4,000 square feet of business and professional office uses as well as 262 multiple family units. There's also a three-level garage proposed internally within the building. Vehicular access to the site is proposed along the western side of the property. This would give access to the parking garage as well as Solid Waste pickup and a loading area. The proposed plan also depicts a main entrance along Mariner Street as well as a proposed six foot sidewalk which would run east to west along that right-of-way. Additional sidewalks are depicted along the perimeter of the site. They measure five and six feet in width. Do have some elevations to show next. I'll break these up. These are the north-south elevations proposed. Next we have east and west elevations proposed. Proposed at 137 feet. There are five waivers proposed with this application. The first is section 27-283. Request to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 484 spaces down to 445 spaces. This represents an 8% reduction. The second waiver is to section 27-283. This is a request to reduce the required number of loading spaces from 4 to 1. The third waiver is section 27-283, this is a request to allow a 12 by 30 loading space in lieu of the 12 by 60 space. Waiver 4 is section 27-284, this is a request to reduce the required 15-foot use-to-use buffer with 6-foot masonry wall to a 10-foot use-to-use buffer with no wall along the western property boundary. And the fifth and final waiver requested is to section 27-284. This is a request to reduce the required 8-foot vehicle use area landscape buffer to zero feet at the western edge of the eastern surface parking lot due to the angled property boundary. This is a photo of the subject property from mariner. I do have photos going around the entire building, but unless it's council's pleasure, I'll keep it short and show a couple here.

Alan Clendenin

6:21:05PM Council's pleasure to keep it short.

Christopher Demanche

6:21:13PM Looking north. Northwest. South. East. And west. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and does find the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. The finding of inconsistency is from transportation. Should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application, further modification to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading as stated on the revision sheet. These revisions will not resolve the issue of transportation's inconsistent finding. And I am available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:21:55PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant? I had received a memo from the applicant's representative requesting an additional five minutes for the presentation, additional five minutes in rebuttal due to the increase in public interest. I consulted with the City Council attorney, he believes in the interest of due process it would be appropriate. Mr. Shelby, do you have anything to say?

Martin Shelby

6:22:21PM Just if the petitioner would wish to have an additional five minutes for rebuttal, know at the end of time whether due process would require him taking the five minutes. Again, he doesn't have to take the extra time if he doesn't need it.

Alan Clendenin

6:22:36PM Any objection? Hearing no objection, unanimous consent. You can plan on an additional five minutes for presentation, if required for due process, you'll have five minutes extra for rebuttal. If he needs it in rebuttal, yes. Is it too late to go to medical school?

6:23:00PM I make those comments pretty much every day. I'll try and be as quick as possible. Just, while it's fresh in your mind, address the height issue. It's actually 129 feet. We started off at 150 and over a series of redesigns and maybe Chris didn't pick up on that. It's 129. 11 stories. Like to talk a little bit about the developer, northwood ravin out of charlotte, North Carolina. The name might not sound familiar, but some of the projects may be. They are primarily in Westshore. Council approved the redevelopment of the chase suites on rocky point last year for about 300 units. And then there is a sister project on rocky point called the emerson. Northwood ravin has I think about 1500 units. Half of those are already built and others are in permitting. This is, for example, the varela at Westshore. Novus Westshore. They are all upscale luxury apartments. These projects demonstrate that the developer has not only a strong commitment to Tampa, but knows how to develop an urban infill project. One thing unique about northwood ravin, they don't sell the properties off or anything like that. They develop them and then manage them as well. I'd like to introduce the vice president of development for northwood ravin. Name is Mr. Ronn Stewart. Ronn has come down and he wanted to address council on the community engagement process that he went through over the last year and a half or so, and we know how important that is to council to get the neighbors involved. Ronn? Good evening. And thank you, members of City Council. As mark shared, my name is ronn stewart. I'm vice president of development with northwood ravin, although I'm based in charlotte, North Carolina, I am also the market lead for the company overseeing central Florida. So I spend about 30 to 40% of my time in Florida with a large portion of that here in Tampa where our office is located. In regards to our community outreach, we've made significant efforts to engage the community from the beginning of this process. During this time frame, we actually scheduled a total of 8 meetings with residents and the community representatives. Six of those meetings were actually held. Two were actually canceled by the HOAs. Subsequent to that, we also scheduled time with them and their consultants just to address all the concerns that they had. Over the course of the past, I would say, year and a half, again, we've made several attempts to engage with the residents, even before we had the site under contract, we actually held our initial meeting at the platt library just to hear back from the residents. That initial meeting was held February of 2025. Again, given our commitment to the City of Tampa and the surrounding areas, we know how important it is to get public input. So well in advance, of even putting any pen to paper, we tried to kind of communicate with everyone. Once those last two meetings were canceled, our intent was to meet with them in advance of submitting our initial application for rezoning. Again, those two meetings were canceled, at which point everyone in the community stopped communicating with us. So we continued through the process, still requested time with them through multiple phone calls as well as e-mails. Subsequent to all that, a new organization came into the picture, Beach Park preservation society, which was a new entity that we weren't familiar with. Apparently, it was formed back in May of this year. Nonetheless we scheduled a meeting with them as well, roughly about a month or so ago. Had a preliminary meeting with them. Agreed to go back and address some of their concerns. Scheduled a follow-up meeting with that entity and invited all their representatives. That meeting was last week. Unfortunately, only one individual showed up to that meeting. So, again, over the past year and a half, we've done I think everything we felt possible to engage and address their concerns. As our team will show tonight, we've made significant adjustments to the project in response to that. Coming out of the meeting, we're hoping to be able to move forward. Thank you. Council, as a result of these various meetings, the client made these changes to the project. Originally it was 300 units, reduced to 262. There were 13 floors, 13 stories, reduced to 11 floors. The height was 150 feet. Now it's 129. They reduced the commercial area from 6,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet. And undertook measures to mitigate impacts to mariner west, which I'll show you is located directly west of the subject property. They agreed to construct a six-foot masonry wall along with rebuild the seawall, even though it wasn't necessary on our property. In any event, you get the picture, that there's some effort made there. This is a massing study to scale, and the subject property is right here. It's 11 stories and 129 feet. [ sounding gavel ]

6:29:44PM Okay. I know a lot of you guys are not used to Tampa City Council, but this is the opportunity for the applicant to present his case. You will have an opportunity to express what you want to express during your time during the public comment. In the meantime, we don't talk, we don't respond back, don't click, clap, nothing. Listen and learn and silence in the audience, please. Go ahead, Mr. Bentley. West, what they call mariner west. 56-year-old condo complex. To the west of that is single-family. The difference between the single-family and mariner west is about 50 feet. They are about 80 feet tall more or less and we're at 129. A lot of this debate when you really whittle it down is over three stories and 45 feet. The reason I say that, what I'm showing you now, this is a rendering on this new entity that ronn had referenced Tampa -- excuse me, Beach Park preservation society. They created these renderings and put them on their website. That's not our project. So this created I think a lot of the consternation and anxiety in the neighborhood. I want to talk a little bit about what ronn had mentioned in his interaction with preservation society. They were created for the sole purpose of trying to get this project denied. Created by a family who lives on azeele. The corporation does not own any property in Beach Park. Does not have any members. The height, scale, and density on their website is all overstated as well. I think if the proper facts had been out there, perhaps some of these people wouldn't be here tonight. In any event, we received a letter on July 15th, this is the first we heard of the new organization. In the letter, it says basically if you want our support, you're going to build your building exactly like mariner west to your west in terms of the height and the scale. And that's not compatible. That's -- compatible does not mean the same. That's been the only written feedback we ever received through the entire process. Ronn is a great guy and he really worked hard to try and get the feedback. Also in their letter, in the letter from their lawyer that I think you all received last week, they said that Beach Park preservation now represents all the associations, mariner north, south, and Beach Park homeowners association. I just thought it was important that you understand what's going on in terms of who's in support, who's not. One other thing I want to show you and then I'll wrap this up, this is the subject property right here, and then Beach Park preservation society .7 miles away. The house is owned by a family who are also the officers of the corporation. So there's like no way on earth is this property affected by the development over here. [ sounding gavel ]

6:33:23PM Come on guys, you are out of order. If it is again, I will ask you to leave. That is the way this works. You got to give him his due process and ability to state his case. Then you guys will have an opportunity to speak after this is done.

6:33:42PM Lift it up a little bit. Perfect. Thank you. It's a preliminary rendering showing the 11 story building and the amenities. After receiving the feedback, what we did, we got our architects to come up with three alternatives. The first one was to reduce the building height from 13 -- excuse me, from 11 stories to 9 and kind of compress the building. But when you do that, it forces the building to kind of spread out. There's 62-foot separation between mariner west. Right now we're looking at the water. I'm north looking south. So there's 62 feet between the buildings, then when you compress the building by reducing the height, it takes it down to about 35, and that wasn't acceptable to mariner south. So then we took a look at option 2, and that was or is live local. This site is eligible. Under live local, subject to FAA approval, we could have a 200-foot building in the same 262 units or more. So that wasn't acceptable, obviously. So what we arrived at is what's before you tonight. We started off, filed 150 feet, got it down to 129. So there is a 45 difference -- 45-foot difference between mariner south and our project. Back to the letter from the preservation society that said we want you to mirror mariner south. So when you look at mariner south as compared to the single-family house, it's 43 feet taller than the house. So it's okay for mariner south to be -- to tower over the house in the single-family neighborhood, but the difference between our project and mariner south is not acceptable to them. It's 45 feet and three stories. Now, when you talk to your planners, they say that's a good transition. Makes sense. That's Planning 101 when you step down like that. This is out of your comp plan and your land development regulations. It is the definition of compatibility. I'm not going to read it, but the important thing, I think in the definition, which is in the Planning Commission report, is compatibility does not mean the same as. So that's what we were getting a lot from -- input from the neighborhood is we want to you mirror this other building that was built in 1962 or whatever. The next thing I want to talk about is the land use designation for the subject property. Rmu 100 is the most intense designation the city has at all. It's used at midtown. It's water street. You name it. If you look at rmu 100, it says typically up to 24 stories. We're proposing 11. When you go to the next land use designation under regional mixed use, it's called urban mixed use and that one says 10 stories. So we're between urban mixed use and regional mixed use at 11 stories. I'd like to note, too, that our existing zoning, if you want to build an office, allows a height of 200 feet. Here again subject to Tampa international. And the mariner south property, if it was redeveloped could be redeveloped at 200 feet subject to FAA approval, just like us. Now, there's been a lot of discussion, especially on this website. It says this property is in Beach Park, and it's not. Let me demonstrate that to you. We received this from the city. This is the map of neighborhoods and boundaries that they gave us. And you can see that Beach Park does not include our property. This is official map from the city. Westshore business district map, there's one in the comp plan and the Westshore alliance has created one as well. The subject property is in the Westshore business district. Next, Westshore area-wide DRI boundary, the subject property is in the DRI boundary and subject to payment of all the fees and things like that for transportation and marketing. Finally, this is not an anomaly the regional mixed use 100 on our property. This area of Tampa was platted as an office park. If you look at the plat, it's not single-family lots. I think it was for a proposed koger center. Mr. Miranda, you might remember.

Charlie Miranda

6:39:13PM Are you calling me old? You just have a great memory.

Alan Clendenin

6:39:21PM God is doing that. Property, my finger. This entire area is rmu 100, and it's a completely different plat. The point being we are not in Beach Park. And here's from the tax collector, we're paying fees, because we're in the Westshore business district. I just want to talk about the waivers and have randy Coen do his Planning analysis. There are three waivers associated with the loading dock. If we were in the Westshore overlay, we wouldn't need three loading docks. Apartments don't need three loading docks. So we wanted to go from three to one. A parking reduction of 8%, we all know that your parking code was developed in 1989. It's antiquated. It never contemplated ride share or lyft or anything like that. We could also get a 10% reduction administratively if we wanted to. Plus there are ten spaces potentially on mariner that we can develop subject to Transportation Department approval. Parking is not an issue. I know Ms. Hurtak is always really big on secure bike storage. We have that. It's all fully enclosed for 30 bicycles. Plenty of justification for that and also for the loading dock. Right now I'm going to present randy Coen. He'll talk to you about some of the Planning issues associated with the project and site plan. Randy Coen, 4121 West Cypress Street. I have been sworn. I want to talk a little bit about where we're at from a Planning standpoint. But first, I'd like to make one note. I think I heard in the description of the waivers that the waiver for eliminating the six foot masonry wall and 15-foot buffer is on the west side of the site. It is not. It is on the east side of the site. It is between the property and the marina. We want to have a view of the marina. So that's where the waiver actually is. Let's talk about Planning for a minute. I'm not going to give you a whole lot of Planning literature here. I'm simply going to quote from the Planning Commission's report and the City of Tampa's report. We are consistent with the comprehensive plan. We are located in the Westshore business district. The project as proposed is comparable to the existing development pattern. We'll talk about that a little bit more in just a minute. The building height is consistent with and comparable with the surrounding development. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and aligns with the city code. City staff report on zoning, scale of development is appropriate scale and size. That means square footage. That means its height. That means its amount of dwelling units, et cetera. And it is complementary to the surrounding community. Well, how do we really get to that? Words sound really good, but let's take a look at the development in the area. Starting to the west, this is the mosaic apartments building 15, 18 years ago. It's six stories. Has 210 units in it. The mariner apartments that are under construction right now have seven stories, 107 feet, 277 units, more than what we have in this particular proposed project. The novel which finished construction in 2024 is 138 feet, one foot taller than what we proposed in the rezoning as Mr. Bentley Indicated now down to 129. So we're much shorter. Our site is here. The novel is 300 feet. Mariner 600 feet to the northeast of us. Mosaic is 900 feet to the east of us. These are the two mariner buildings which are 80 feet which mark has already discussed. We are certainly compatible, consistent, not the tallest building in the area, not the highest density in the area as well. Happy to answer any questions.

6:43:55PM Does council have any questions? Councilman Carlson.

Bill Carlson

6:43:58PM I want to ask a question. A few minutes ago you showed a picture of the live local option, and then you said it didn't work because the FAA rules. Could you show us what you think you could build under live local? I don't know if you have one without the FAA providing a variance. As you know, everything in that area is subject to Tampa international analysis where you file an application and then you go through the FAA process to determine height.

6:44:50PM What is the FAA -- 138 feet. Novel is about 200 feet from our property. So we know for a fact -- we don't know anything for a fact -- strong likelihood it will be approved at least at 138 feet. Witnessed reduce our height because of FAA. We started when we filed the application at 150, and we just did that in response to some of the concerns trying to get the building down. But we could, like I said, under the existing zoning go up to 200 feet, so could mariner south. 200 feet under live local, that's subject to FAA. But the density -- the height is determined within a mile radius. We found some pretty tall buildings in Westshore that we could emulate, subject to FAA once again. Taller than 150 feet.

Alan Clendenin

6:45:46PM So the novel property is 300 feet closer to Tampa international at 138, is that correct? I don't know what the approval was from FAA, Mr. Chair.

6:45:59PM Have they been approved by FAA to 138?

6:46:10PM Can you show the map where novel is, too? This is our site. This is novel. It was approved by FAA and the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority at 138 feet. We're 300 or more feet to the south.

6:46:36PM The supposition, they would approve at least --

6:46:41PM Further back on the flight path. Like subject to FAA approval because that note wasn't on there.

Bill Carlson

6:46:57PM Just to explain my question, probably most people in the public understand, it used to be if on big projects if we turned them down, there was a chance a developer would sue. Now because the state has created live local, instead of suing us, they are going back and doing whatever the state allows and we have no say. That's why I think it's important to know what they could do, although it sounds like the height would end up being less than this. It's just important to know.

Alan Clendenin

6:47:25PM Again, remind me the height that you are proposing in this project. We started off at 150 and 11 stories.

6:47:35PM Supposition with live local is that you could go back to your original 13 story plan and still fall within that.

Bill Carlson

6:47:45PM Show the 138 rendering again? It's 129 is our height now. That's our building, and then mariner south is about 80, 81 feet. And then the single-family house is --

Alan Clendenin

6:48:10PM I think the councilman was asking your 138-foot depiction. Is that the 138-foot depiction? File another plan. I just told the staff that when I got to the hearing, we'll reduce it another nine feet. [Talking over one another]

Christopher Demanche

6:48:35PM Development Coordination. The site plan of record notes 137 feet. We were notified today by the applicant's agent that they are down to 129. So if they don't have a problem with changing the height if approved this evening between first and second reading to reflect 129 feet, we could certainly add that to the revision sheet. It would be to the applicant to agree to that.

Alan Clendenin

6:49:01PM Since you're standing there, there was a discrepancy about where this waiver is, east or west side, is the document at all showing this on the east side? Are we consistent with the waiver being for that wall on the east side? The west side obviously I don't know if you picked up on that council, early on I said as a result of discussions we've agreed to build a six foot wall.

6:50:19PM I did. That's why I want to make sure we're clear. Everybody has a meeting of the minds, we're clear, the record is clear and the documents are clear. On the plan here, stating that a buffer reduction would be needed to the east side, it wouldn't be. This site would be considered use group c, mixed use because it does have a commercial component to it. The marina to the east is also a c use requiring zero buffer. On the west side this is where I'm presuming they need to reduce the buffer that would be from 15-foot to 10-foot that's going from a c use to a commercial where a 15-foot buffer would have been required.

6:51:15PM Just for information what we're -- what staff would require and what the applicant is consenting is to build a six foot masonry wall between mariner to mariner one, between the east and west building between the two mariner projects, is that correct? I couldn't catch all of that.

6:51:35PM Mr. Bentley.

6:51:40PM Randy, would you like to -- what -- what's -- what's here? West side, that's fine. Our building is actually 50 feet away.

6:51:53PM It doesn't make sense to build a waiver from the fish or build a wall from the fish. On the west side.

6:52:03PM We have an agreement that the applicant is requesting that buffer reduction and a six foot masonry wall between the west property and the property you're proposing. The city I believe is correctly indicating we do not need the waiver at all on the east side.

6:52:21PM No waiver on the east side from the fish.

Martin Shelby

6:52:23PM Is that consistent with what the present site plan is, Mr. Demanche? The revision sheet I mean?

Alan Clendenin

6:52:31PM Is it consistent? Ten foot, and we would strike the six feet masonry wall because we're, in fact, providing that masonry wall on the west side.

6:52:43PM This would be a revised revision sheet between first and second or accommodated in the first one? That would be waiver number 4 stays as -- we're providing the wall. Want to make certain everyone is happy with that. The only revision is to strike the no wall.

6:53:07PM We will have a revised revision sheet with the wall. Is there any further questions of the applicant?

Christopher Demanche

6:53:22PM Development Coordination. Just to note with our discussion here, waiver number 4 would be to section 27-284. It would state request to reduce required 15-foot use-to-use buffer with 6-foot masonry wall to a 10-foot use-to-use buffer with a 6-foot masonry wall along the western property.

Alan Clendenin

6:53:44PM Very good. That would be noted between first and second on revised revision sheet. Along with the height we adjusted from 137 to 129.

6:53:53PM Revision sheet will capture that as well.

6:54:00PM We are now going to our public comment. This is your opportunity to speak to this issue and this issue alone. Because there are so many people standing, we will not close public comment. Fur here to speak to this item, you'll have an opportunity to do that. Once again, you're speaking to council. Once again, the person who is speaking, opportunity to speak, no audience participation. Always start with your name. You'll have three minutes. When the yellow light comes on, you have 30 seconds. The red light, you're done. You have to stop wherever you are at in your presentation. We'll start with the gentleman here in the blue shirt. Sir, start with your name. You'll have three minutes. Ryan whitmore. 4804 West Azeele Street. I was sworn in. This is my son.

6:54:51PM Everybody be quiet. I appreciate everyone letting me go first to get him out of here. Thank you for the time. We bought our house on azeele in 2015. We've watched the neighborhood. We've raised a family there, and with all due respect to Mr. Bentley, there are two things that he said. I'm going to kind of go off the cuff here from what I heard everybody said. There's no way this will affect the residents and I live wherever this entity was formed. He also said --

6:55:26PM I have to pause right now because we have to get this under control before it goes much longer. If you are in this audience, there's no talking back there. When you guys talk, even if you think you are whispering, it amplifies, the acoustic. Carroll ann, everybody else. Everybody, quiet. Because I cannot hear the speaker. We can't hear the speaker and this is their time to talk. When you're up there, it's your time to talk as well. If you are in the audience and not standing at the podium, you cannot talk. If you need to speak, please go outside beyond the glass doors. Thank you. Has everybody here been sworn in? If you have not been sworn in, please raise your right hand. Please raise your right hand and be sworn in by the clerk [oath administered]

6:56:16PM We'll start your time over because of the disruption. Sorry about that. As I was saying, with all due respect to Mr. Bentley, two things that would take issue with, one is there's no way anyone would be affected down azeele. The second one is that the technicality of where this building is being proposed is not in Beach Park. That may be true. Honestly, I don't know, but I'll assume that's true. The fact is the majority of the traffic will have to go through there to get to this building. I can't speak for everyone here, but my primary concerns is the traffic levels that have come through Beach Park. I appreciate their willingness to lower the height a little bit at the end of the day, it probably makes sense to be a little bit higher and consistent with the other buildings. I do believe it's too high. But having lived there, my primary issue is that in 2019, I submitted an application surrounded by all of our adjacent neighbors according to the city's requirements to get a sidewalk put in because I want the safety for our family and all the other families. The city, I kept calling, kept calling, and nothing happened. Finally they said it's just not in the budget. It's not going to happen. And then I've talked twice to police officers nearby that are radaring on Westshore. I said would you mind radaring on our neighborhood because people drive too fast. There's so much traffic now cutting through there. We all know what's happening on Westshore. We all know what's going to be happening. I understand development needs to happen. I understand that. But again, the police officer stated we don't have the budget to sit there and radar inside the neighborhood. My problem is that our children, our families are not being protected. I'd like to see the council take note of that and look to ways that can improve the neighborhood while we try to also offer development and have it be consistent. This does not feel like it's consistent with the neighborhood, according to the height and the size and the density is becoming a problem. Obviously, there has to be some compromise. My proposal to council and to the developers, I would love it if there was some way to contribute funds to getting sidewalks put in, at least up and down azeele all the way to Westshore and put in over there in mariner. I feel that would be a fair compromise for everyone. Thank you for your time, everyone.

6:58:53PM Thank you very much. Hello, young man. Welcome to Tampa City Council. It's boring, isn't it? [ laughter ] start with your name, please. You have three minutes. People who are speaking on behalf of tonight officially on behalf of Beach Park homeowners association, as well as mariner south and mariner north condominiums.

Martin Shelby

6:59:22PM Can I ask you to state -- I'm handing you a presentation so you have all the information on who is speaking in what order tonight. These are the people specifically speaking on behalf of Beach Park homeowners association, the women's club, Beach Park women's club as well as the mariner south condominiums and mariner north condominiums. I might add the umbrella organization that the applicant spoke of being the preservation society is simply an umbrella for all those to help coordinate the efforts.

Alan Clendenin

6:59:56PM Each person is going to speak independently. Each person will get three minutes, but you are proposing an order.

7:00:04PM Would you like me to call them in that order or are you already staggered?

7:00:12PM Does council object to me calling them up in this order? Okay. I will do that. You must be Michelle fleeter. State your name, please. I live at 5218 West Neptune Way in Tampa. I am the vice president of Beach Park's homeowner association. We have approximately 1300 homes in Beach Park. I would like to read into the record that the following resolutions of our association passed unanimously. It also shall be noted that the address, 5600 Mariner Street is part of Beach Park. Whereas, the Beach Park homeowners association represents the Beach Park neighborhood and advocates on matters affecting zoning, transportation, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. Whereas, the proposed rezoning of 5600 Mariner Street city file resolution 26-000062 would permit multifamily commercial development of scale Beach Park HOA believes is not compatible with the surrounding residential area and existing infrastructure. Whereas, Beach Park already faces significant traffic, limited access, incomplete sidewalks and growing development pressure in the Westshore corridor. And whereas, the Beach Park HOA membership voted unanimously on April 28, 2026, to oppose the proposed rezoning. Now, therefore, be it resolved, resolved that Beach Park HOA formally opposes resolution 26-000062 as presently proposed and respectfully requests that the city deny the application. Further resolved that Beach Park HOA remains willing to engage constructively regarding an approximately scaled alternative and further resolved that the secretary is authorized to transmit this resolution to the appropriate city officials, the applicant, the property owner, and the Beach Park HOA membership. Signed Abbye grimaldi, president of the Beach Park homeowner association. Thank you.

7:02:41PM Submit that to our attorney, please. Does that complete your presentation? Thank you, Michelle. Paula perry. Start with your name, please. I'm also a resident of Beach Park. I've been a resident for nearly 30 years. I'm a member and a past president of the Beach Park women's club, which was founded in 1930. We're dedicated to promoting education, philanthropy, preservation and community betterment. I'm presenting a resolution on behalf of the women's club opposing this. Unanimously approved by board and all of our general membership. Beach Park -- I'll summarize this for you. You each have a copy in the packet. One of the oldest treasured residential communities founded more than a century ago. Located within coastal high hazard area, chha, neighborhood including residents along Mariner Street suffered significant damage from hurricanes helene and milton with many families still rebuilding their homes and recovering at this time. 5600 Mariner Street chha and FEMA flood zones ve and ae. And according to FEMA's coastal hazards and flood mapping visual guide 2021 designates these zones as coastal areas subject to high velocity wave action during base flood event with wave heights larger than three feet. I'm sure some of the residents can speak to larger waves than that. Structures located within zone ve are subject to more stringent building requirements due to an increased risk from coastal flooding and wave action. Request to rezone from office professional commercial to Planned Development, which would permit 262 multifamily residential units into a coastal high hazard area. The future land use designation of rmu 100 does not by itself entitle or require residential development at the maximum density potentially contemplated by that designation. The City of Tampa's own comprehensive plan must be considered in its entirety, including specific policies regarding population concentration in a coastal high hazard. Objective 1.1, direct future population away from coastal high hazard area to achieve no net increase in overall residential density within the chha. 1.1.6, limit new development in the coastal high hazard area to uses that are vested or shown on the future land use map and defined in the urban design and land use elements. The proposed structure would introduce 262 residential units increasing the concentration of population in an area where the comprehensive plan expressly directs future population concentrations away from the chha. The proposed structures inconsistent with the existing scale, mass, character, surrounding residential neighborhood by noticing all the waivers from the reduced parking from 484 to 445 with 65% of those reduced to compact dimensions. Reduced loading berth. Reduced dimensions, et cetera. Beach Park women's club stands in opposition to this rezoning for the property, finds that it presents substantial concerns regarding compatibility, residential density, public safety, infrastructure, traffic, storm and flood hazards and the character. Thank you, please deny this request.

7:06:09PM Deb zanovi followed by mark miller. Deb, start with your name, please. You have three minutes.

Martin Shelby

7:06:32PM She has three names. Stan fields. Are you standing to speak, sir? No. I'm asking Mr. Fields if he's standing -- he's shaking his head no. Todd schnitt. Michelle schnitt. Thank you. Three additional minutes for a total of 6.

Alan Clendenin

7:06:55PM Start with your name. You have 6 minutes. The 44 residents of the community which is located directly across the street from the proposed building. I respectfully ask that you withhold approval of the project as it is inconsistent with the surroundings. The applicant has not met the burden of proof regarding the impacts on the traffic, emergency access, hurricane evacuation, parking, drainage, flooding, water, wastewater, pedestrian safety and neighborhood character. I want to be very clear from the beginning, this is not about being against development. It is about responsible development that is appropriate for the road, the neighborhood, and the infrastructure that already exists. This proposed construction as is creates numerous issues for quality of life standard of living for those in the area, wildlife and residents in the Beach Park community. I believe these need to be addressed before being approved. First, traffic congestion. We're talking about 262 additional units and potentially 500 additional vehicles being added to a road that already has significant development underway. There have been additional 555 units and potential 1100 vehicles and 4,000 trips per day added already in just the past 24 months. Adding another 262 units and corresponding vehicles would put an enormous burden on Mariner Street. All of that traffic ultimately has to leave this area via one road, as one road in, one road out. It empties into a three-way stop which we already have accidents occurring. This is not downtown environment. This is designed for the level of density and traffic. If we wanted to live in congestion, we would live downtown or in the Westshore overlay district or midtown. We chose to live in Beach Park because it's primarily a single-family residential neighborhood with light traffic. We should not be turning the residential street into a high density traffic corridor simply because a developer wants to squeeze more units on the property. Second, parking. Where will all of these vehicles go? The developer is already proposing parking waivers for their residents to park on the street if there is not enough site parking. Overflow of residents and guest parking will flood the street. Street parking cannot become the overflow situation. We have to think about the ordinary everyday. What happens during a hurricane or an emergency evacuation and everyone is trying to get out at the same time? Third, emergency access, waste management service vehicles. We have serious concerns about whether emergency vehicles, waste management, et cetera, will be able to adequately access the proposed building. This is not a theoretical concern. City should reject the rezoning. Simply not enough infrastructure to accommodate all of the uses. Fourth, drainage, stormwater runoff and flooding. Beach Park is not immune to flooding and adding a large amount of impervious surface can change how water moves through an area. We need clear answers about where the stormwater will go, how the runoff will be managed and what protections will be in place for the surrounding properties. We should not approve a project and then discover after the next major storm that neighboring homes are experiencing increased flooding or drainage issues. Fifth, water pressure and infrastructure capacity. Applicant has not proven that the infrastructure can actually support this development. What will the additional demand do to the current water pressure? Will the surrounding systems have adequate capacity for the additional residents and building including the two that are under construction that are not yet occupied. Perhaps most importantly, will there be sufficient water pressure and capacity for fire suppression systems and emergency needs? These questions need to be answered with engineering data, not assumptions. Sixth, pedestrians, bicyclists and people walking their dogs. This is the pedestrian neighborhood yet we are concerned that there are no adequate easements or dedicated space for pedestrians, cyclists or dog walkers and no continuous sidewalk system. 7, road improvements. If this development requires significant road improvements and five waivers make -- to make it work, we need to ask the very basic question. Is this project appropriate for this location in the first place? We should not have to fundamentally change the character and function of a residential neighborhood to accommodate a development that is simply too large for the existing infrastructure. Finally, there is an issue of scale and character at Beach Park. The proposed building is more than twice the size of the building next door and across the street. It will significantly change the visual character of the street and absolutely obstruct existing views of those who have already paid for and enjoy the right of those views, not to mention the damage to the existing property values. At some point, Beach Park stops being a neighborhood that residents choose to live in. We are asking the city to look at the cumulative impact of development not just this one project in isolation. All of these issues are connected. We are not asking the city to stop growth. We are asking the city to require growth that is responsible, safe, and appropriate for the neighborhood. Beach Park has a character that cannot simply be re-created once it is gone. We ask to you protect the safety, accessibility, infrastructure, and residential character of this community. Please do not approve this project of this size. Please help us to preserve Beach Park, not by preventing responsible development, but by preventing development that overwhelms the infrastructure and character of the neighborhood. Thank you.

7:12:35PM Thank you, deb. Mark miller, followed by carroll ann Bennett. A couple of things. One, I would welcome questions at the end from council.

7:13:05PM How this works, if you don't have a speaker waiver form -- you have two. Okay. Once he confirms that, you'll end up getting five minutes total. That's all you'll have.

7:13:20PM You'll have five minutes.

Martin Shelby

7:13:24PM I have two speaker waiver forms. It looks like there are 11 names. We were very cautious.

7:13:37PM I'll call them in order. When we get to the first seven, you'll have a total of ten minutes.

Alan Clendenin

7:13:44PM Seven plus three, yes.

Martin Shelby

7:13:55PM When documents are passed around --

Alan Clendenin

7:14:03PM He's been giving them.

Martin Shelby

7:14:07PM Last name is agarwill. Thank you. Jamie zingaretti. Willie mcmillen. Willie mcmillen? You are standing but you're not talking, is that correct? Xavier Jones. Thank you. Kenneth Jones. Thank you. John rick delari. Selema philips. That's seven names.

Alan Clendenin

7:14:45PM With seven names that will give you ten minutes. Once you state your name, you'll have the ten minutes. Since the applicant was given an extra five minutes that I might be able to get that especially with a couple of inconsistencies that were reported in their opening?

7:15:06PM I don't believe that would be appropriate because this is public comment for public hearing. But I'll defer that to the attorney. He says because he's representing this group, he wants additional time. My position is that is a different request and not appropriate for this hearing.

Martin Shelby

7:15:24PM Let me deal with this issue if I can. I've been provided with two piles of paper. One pile for the clerk. I don't know whether this is identical to which of these two things I have in front of me. This one looks substantially thicker. Them for her benefit. Clip, not stapled, as she likes.

7:15:53PM Two piles here from different thicknesses for City Council. Prior to the deadline. We just wanted in case --

Alan Clendenin

7:16:10PM That's receive and file.

Martin Shelby

7:16:15PM Is it going to be distributed to count.

Alan Clendenin

7:16:18PM He said he already submitted those to onbase. But the package you have there, yes.

Martin Shelby

7:16:33PM These have been reproduced for council to have in front of them, is that your intention?

Alan Clendenin

7:16:39PM Distribute the documents.

Martin Shelby

7:16:58PM Council, thank you for your indulgence on this. My goal here is to make sure the record is accurate and complete.

Alan Clendenin

7:17:16PM Hold on one second. When we're done, I'll make sure Mr. Shelby can chime in. Once he is not discombobulated or distracted. Better way to put it. Mr. Shelby, the gentleman at the podium is representing -- I'm assuming --

Martin Shelby

7:17:35PM He's representing seven people. That's why he gave me the speaker waiver form. Those seven people are not speaking. You have a maximum of ten minutes. Granted to the applicant for their extra time.

7:17:52PM What is your standing in this case, sir? Covers Beach Park women's club, Beach Park homeowners association, mariner south condominiums and mariner north condominiums. And I don't think I'll need all five minutes, but there were some clarifications made and statements made by the other side that I think need addressing that are not part of my formal presentation.

7:18:25PM So you're requesting a total of 15 minutes. Let me ask you this -- so your client is the umbrella organization. Statement.

7:18:41PM Hold on just a minute. I believe that was Ms. Perry's Documents. Mr. Bentley, it looks like you want a sidebar with me. Do you want the discussion at the lectern? The purported umbrella organization is actually Beach Park preservation society. They have no relationship to any of these other entities. They are an independent corporation. Actually, you received a letter from their lawyer last week, a young lady named Ms. Burkey who said she was representing all these different entities. And to be an umbrella organization, you have to have some kind of relationship, legal relationship. There's absolutely no relationship between the Beach Park preservation society and any of these entities at all. It's not the umbrella for anything. It's an independent corporation. Now, if he wants to represent them, they don't have any members. They don't have any assets in Beach Park, that's fine with me. So they wouldn't have any standing if this goes anywhere. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:20:09PM Mr. Shelby, my position is he -- so my position is that he gets three minutes plus the seven for ten, and in accordance with our hearing rules, total of ten minutes, not extra, unless you give me different guidance. If the council would ask me questions about live local at the end of everyone's presentation --

7:20:39PM That would be up to the council members. Then I would be satisfied with the original ten minutes. I'll make it very easy on the council.

Martin Shelby

7:20:49PM And me as well. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:20:51PM Let's go with that. If council has questions, I'm not mandating they ask a question, if council has questions, they are within their right to ask the questions. Start with your name, please. You'll have ten minutes. Once again, my name is mark miller. I live at 5218 West Neptune Way. I've been practicing real estate law and transactional law and also a commercial developer for the past 42 years here in Tampa. I think it is fair to say I am prodevelopment. More importantly, the residents of Beach Park and the mariner condominiums are prodevelopment. We understand that there is going to be residential development on this site. Therefore we proposed compromises to the developer over the past two years. More on that later. But any compromise on the part of Beach Park is with the qualification that such development be context sensitive appropriate development. In other words, reasonable and compatible with the surroundings and consistent with the intent of Tampa's land use policies. I'm here to demonstrate tonight why the applicant's proposal of 11 stories, 262 apartments and formally for the record 137 now 129 and necessitating five waivers to even fit on the lot is neither reasonable, compatible with the surroundings or compliant with the City of Tampa land use policies. Please judge for yourselves if what I'm about to show is you either reasonable or compatible. Here is a picture on the front there of the single-family homes just across the canal, just across the canal from the subject site. Look how close they are to 5600 mariner as shown in the bottom panel on the screen. Here is a picture of the current two-story building on the subject site with the same homes and many more single-family homes just across the canal. And here is a transparent outline of the size of the proposed 11 story -- sorry, transparent -- of the proposed 11 story, 137, 129, 260 apartment complex requiring five waivers. And here, finally, this photo will give you a sense of the massive wall of concrete and glass that all those single-family homes on sandpiper and beyond will be looking at day in and day out and please keep in mind that all the residents of those 262 units will be staring down into the backyards of those single-family homes. And to stuff this oversized complex on the site, the developer is requesting -- I'm sorry -- requiring five waivers. So let me say that just to deal with one of those and that is the parking. Developer is requiring 8% reduction of parking spaces. Follow the math please. Parking for 262 units by code for this project is 484 parking spaces. The 8% reduction from code therefore puts the proposed project 39 parking spaces short. And that is just for the residents of the apartment building. Let's be ultraconservative and say that on a given Friday or Saturday night, 1%, just 1% of the apartments have a dinner party for ten guests and another 1% have a party with 15 guests, total of 104 possible cars on a typical weekend night. That is assuming only five apartments out of 262 have guests over. Let's do more math together. 104 cars on the street, bumper to bumper without accounting for driveways and fire hydrants would stretch the entire length of Mariner Street twice over. It is no wonder mariner south and north condo owners are panicked along with all the single-family homeowners on mariner. Simply put, this project is excessive, inconsistent, inappropriate, considering the site's location, which is internal to the Beach Park neighborhood. The two apartment buildings that this applicant is comparing their property to are not only shorter than the 11 stories proposed, they are both fronting the interstate 275 off ramp on Kennedy Boulevard. And they are both in the Westshore overlay district. The two compared properties as compared to the 5600 mariner apartments that front Mariner Street, two-lane neighborhood street which is a full quarter mile into the neighborhood from Kennedy Boulevard. Here are the photos side by side. On the left is the apartment building under construction at the corner of Kennedy and hoover on the outskirts of our neighborhood. And yet it is only seven stories compared to the applicant's 11. On the right is the novel apartments which are seen here from the off-ramp of 275 and is only 9 stories compared to the applicant's 11 stories. Applicant comparison to the two properties is absurd. Given the two other properties, both have fewer floors, are in the Westshore overlay district, in the outskirts of the single-family neighborhood of Beach Park and both front an interstate highway and Kennedy Boulevard. While the applicant's project stares down at the backyards of a multitude of single-family homes, across a narrow canal as I showed you earlier, a full mile, quarter mile into the neighborhood. It is common knowledge among land use practitioners that the height of buildings are supposed to cascade down as you move into the neighborhood. Why should we allow this applicant's project to be an exception that well established policy. Let me say this about traffic. You either exit out of Beach Park neighborhood into Westshore Boulevard or Kennedy Boulevard. That's it. Now keep in mind that Westshore Boulevard to Kennedy Boulevard are all failing roads with an f grading because of chronic safety problems, drainage failures and backed up traffic. If your child comes home from school with f grade you would take away their phone and tv privileges. But this applicant wants to be rewarded with rezoning with oversized development requiring five waivers. Which will guarantee an f grade on our roadways out into the future. Stress our infrastructure and environment and jeopardize the safety of our school-bound children every weekday morning. Now, let me get back to the neighborhood effort to compromise and my summary. In meeting with the developer about two years ago and since we suggested, we suggested they match the height of mariner south condominium at 73 feet. We even offered to appear before City Council to support such a proposal. Now this developer will tell you they compromised from that first meeting two years ago when they indicated they might do as many as 300 units. They might have said 500 units and say they cut it in half. Keep in mind, they can't fit the 262 units on the proposed site without requiring five waivers. Beach Park neighborhood has banned together and compromised with developers in the recent past and several members of the council approved those compromises. We have been cooperative. With the apartments almost complete, we asked the developer to reduce to seven stories. They agreed, even though they are on send boulevard. And we came out in favor of them. With the soon-to-be completed 200 south hoover, we not only came to an arrangement with them that shows a coming down, a cascading down, the perfect fit, we actually came -- I personally came before council and supported it and told you how proud Beach Park homeowners association was of that development. 5600 mariner applicant has ignored our compromise offer to match the height of the mariner south condominiums. There has been no compromise by the current applicant, no claim to the contrary. Nothing meaningful whatsoever. I believe I have fairly demonstrated to you tonight as I set out to do, the applicant's project is not context sensitive appropriate development. Next very qualified presenter is going to provide with you the legal ammunition to hang your hat on to deny this request for rezoning. I would like to ask all our distinguished council members to deny the applicant's request for rezoning and multiple waivers. I also share with you 974 petitions from the neighbors. Requesting that same rejection of this rezoning request. I especially want to appeal to you, Councilman Miranda, as our Beach Park district 6 representative and to you, Councilman Maniscalco, as our immediate past district 6 representative. You both have been such wonderful stewards of Beach Park, and we hope you carry out that tradition, especially in light of the fact that our neighborhood has repeatedly welcomed compatible, multifamily development. Thank you very much. One minute to spare.

7:30:01PM If you would like to submit the petitions for the record. [ applause ]

7:30:05PM No, no. [ sounding gavel ] I told you all I would throw you out if you do it. No clapping, no whistling, nothing else. Ask the lady in the back right. She will tell you I throw people out.

Martin Shelby

7:30:19PM Mr. Chairman I just want to let council Know and the public know that signed petitions in and of themselves are not competent, substantial evidence. They are not relevant and material to your decision, and it would be inappropriate for you to consider them as part of this project.

Alan Clendenin

7:30:38PM Do you still put it in the record, though?

Martin Shelby

7:30:42PM I had seen it attached to the counselor's letter which was electronically provided. I don't think the clerk would appreciate 900 odd pieces of paper that are not relevant to your decision.

Alan Clendenin

7:30:54PM We'll go with Mr. Shelby, you can keep your paper. If you are done with the placards, I would appreciate it if you take them down. We have security outside and it restricts our visibility.

7:31:10PM That would be great. I've been having angst because of this. As soon as you are finished, I would like them down because they are quite large, with our line of sight with security.

Luis Viera

7:31:29PM First off, I salute the thud. Way to go, attorney. If I may ask you, sir, you had talked about the live local act and you wanted to speak to that. I'm curious as to your position, the applicant -- I don't want to put words in her mouth, better the devil you know than the devil you don't know. I guess we know the devil, if that's your position, I should say. What's your position with any distinguishing points? I'm just curious. Don't approve. If we don't allow you, as if we have that option, to approve, that they will shove live local down our throats, and we find that abhorrent and could not possibly be what was intended by our governor when they passed live local. I find that truly obnoxious. I also have to say that Mr. Bentley's characterization of the Beach Park umbrella organization, where does he come off telling us who represents who and who is under our umbrella? I find that to be also obnoxious.

7:32:44PM I wanted to see if there were any -- I understand your characterization. There are threats, maybe there's statements of law that have basic foreseeable facts and so forth. I just didn't know if there was some distinction from what was alleged. We live under the understanding that compatibility with single-family homes that live right across the canal is what's important here. The rest of Mariner Street that is single-family. The condominiums, they were built many, many years ago, decades ago. To compare them to that and that's why those are there next to the existing single-family homes, that's red herring.

7:33:31PM Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.

Alan Clendenin

7:33:34PM Hearing no other questions, carroll ann Bennett is next. Thank you. Carroll ann, go for it.

7:33:41PM No, I don't have to school you. You've got the routine down.

Martin Shelby

7:35:27PM Ms. Bennett Has several names. When we get to seven. Sharon alvers. Thank you. Keith carnotti. Thank you. Kelly. Debra sysko. Thank you. Ron sparks. I see the hand. You're not going to be talking, Mr. Sparks, is that correct? I see you are standing, you're not going to be talking. Okay. Jennifer sparks. Thank you. There is an additional name, David Ingram. I see that. That brings you to seven plus three is ten. Would you like these other pages back?

7:36:12PM Ten minutes, Mr. Chairman.

Alan Clendenin

7:36:14PM Ms. Bennett, start with your name. You have ten minutes. Carroll ann Bennett. Professional planner patricia Ortiz prepared a comprehensive report that has been submitted into the record. However, she cannot be here tonight, so I'm presenting in her place. Beach Park supports development and feels RM 75 zoning is appropriate. They do not support this project because it is not reasonable in its height, scale, mass, density and compatibility. The city's adopted Planning framework in the comp plan states that the central Planning district, Westshore Planning district, and university Planning districts are intended as centers of employment, commerce, and mixed use, and have the greatest growth potential. Conversely, South Tampa and New Tampa have different characteristics and are not appropriate for great growth. The Westshore overlay is intended as a transition between the intense development of the Westshore Planning district and the lower density South Tampa district, including Beach Park and established low density single-family neighborhood. This project is outside both the high density Westshore Planning district and the transition area of the Westshore overlay. Instead, it's in the low density, South Tampa district, making this project inappropriate for this location. Additionally, rmu 100 can only use f.a.r. In South Tampa for mixed use projects. This project should be considered single use, not mixed use, because only 1.12 percent is nonresidential. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate consistency with the comp plan, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and compliance with the city code. The developer has not proved consistency with the comp plan, particularly the compact city growth strategy, which steers intense development to the Westshore, university, and central Planning districts. A mixed use rmu 100 project allows f.a.r. For determining density potential, but even then, the maximum is not automatic. It must be compatible. I quote, potential development shall be compatible in character and scale with the surrounding residential built environment. But this project should not be considered mixed use because only 1% of the building is nonresidential. As a single use project, they are not allowed to use f.a.r. Is this true mixed use? This unspecified nonresidential does not create a substantially mixed use development. The general rule of thumb for mixed use is 10% nonresidential. Ten times more than this. And the status of this nonresidential is unspecified, including whether it is for public or private use. A PD requires compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The burden of proof is on the applicant. Their proposal is unlike the development to the south and the west. Their development is not in the Westshore overlay, which is the transitional boundary between high intensity Westshore and low intensity South Tampa. A PD requires consistency with the land development code. The burden of proof is on the applicant and 27-226 and 27-136 say a PD should be approved when standard zoning cannot provide planned diversification and integration of use. Standard RM 75 can easily provide that. The developer is misusing the PD as a means to achieve maximum development. Height and mass should transition, rather than jump to the maximum and overwhelm the neighborhood, especially since this site is a quarter mile from Kennedy Boulevard, down a winding two-lane road and is not in the Westshore Planning district or the Westshore overlay. Here is the boundary of the overlay, both the mariner and novel are in the overlay. This project is not. Yet it will be as tall as -- almost as tall depending on as novel and taller than the mariner. Mariner north and south next to it are appropriate heights. This is the typical home in the neighborhood. The proposed building is five times that size. This is the abutting property next door at 80 feet tall, significantly smaller than the proposal. These two properties are both in the Westshore overlay, and they are the same size approximately or smaller than what is being proposed outside the overlay. Therefore, this project is incompatible with the comp plan's intentions for the South Tampa Planning district. These five waivers -- five -- are only needed to allow a maximization of the land and would not be necessary if the intensity was appropriate. The consequences are severe and unreversible. Blurs the distinction between a high growth area and area where established neighborhoods are supposed to be preserved and protected. It will create a precedent for taller, larger buildings outside the overlay where they don't belong. It will increase pressure on Mariner Street and shift the development pattern. It will affect views, privacy, shadows, and traffic. Denial will promote reasonable development. The standard RM 75 zoning is viable and reasonable. It would allow is 175 units on this site. RM 75 also reinforces the relationship between building height and spatial separation. Beach Park does not oppose multifamily that is compatible in intensity, mass, and height. In fact, the current zoning of OP 1 allows multifamily development. Beach Park does not oppose redevelopment of the site. It only opposes this inappropriate intensity that is inconsistent with the South Tampa Planning context and the established character of the neighborhood. I am now speaking my own personal comments. In 2021, the mayor came to the Gandy civic association with a dozen staff members and department heads to discuss inappropriate growth in South Tampa. Planning Commission staff, City staff, the mayor, and City Council all agreed growth was not occurring where it was most beneficial. Both the Planning Commission and Stephen benson from the city presented data to council showing that areas that should have the highest and most intense rate of growth had only grown 1% in ten years. But South Tampa, which should have the lowest growth, had grown 13 times as fast and, in fact, had the highest growth rate in the city. There were parts of the city that were starving from a lack of financial investment while South Tampa was gagging and choking on the financial investment that was being shoved down our throats. Some council members suggested a moratorium on growth in South Tampa, like Hillsborough county had at that time. But that was very scary. So the city advocated for something less impactful. The elimination of f.a.r. As a tool for supervised growth in New Tampa and South Tampa. This change to the comp plan was initiated by you, City Council, four of you were on council then and I'm sure you remember that. You initiated this amendment to the comp plan and you approved it unanimously. Tampa City Council has initiated this policy change to better plan for areas of growth and mitigate the impacts of single use multifamily residential developments. There was a great fear at the time that developers would try to circumvent the intent of your amendment with projects that had only token mixed use. This was discussed at great length for months by staff and council. Meeting to discuss modified moratorium from randy goers, Abbye Feeley, Cate Wells, Stephen benson, require a mixed use, second use must be at least 30% of the f.a.r. From Abbye Feeley, 30%, when receiving the benefit of an f.a.r., the percentage should be meaningful. Then in July, it was changed. They proposed that 10% would be more reasonable. You can see here this was submitted to council. And then again it was submitted to council in October. 10% mixed use. Planning Commission did not think it was appropriate to put percentages in the comp plan. They thought it should be in the land development code, because the LDC was going to be rewritten and because bureaucratic change proceeds at a snail's pace, this is still in process. But in the meantime, council should not allow the circumvention of their own intentions by being tricked into approving a fake mixed use development. I want to say that the people I've spoken to here said they never requested that the nonresidential be reduced. Staff found this inconsistent. They need five waivers. It doesn't comply with the growth goals of the comp plan. It is not the only viable option, therefore it doesn't comply with criteria for PDs. It contradicts the purpose of the Westshore overlay. Please deny is for all of those reasons. Thank you.

7:46:20PM No clapping. You caught yourself. You wanted to but you caught yourself. I heard that. [ laughter ] Mr. Bentley. Think inappropriate. You had a nonexpert testifying --

7:46:39PM Hey, no, no. [ sounding gavel ] lessons learned, remember. Mr. Bentley, state your objection. You had a nonexpert testifying to an expert, purported expert's opinion, which is all hearsay. We didn't have the opportunity to question the expert. So just for the record, I think that testimony should be stricken. Whatever she said about her personal experience, she's got a right to do that, but all the other analysis based on some expert's report should be stricken. Thank you.

7:47:12PM Your objection is noted. Thank you. The next speaker is brand -- probably slaughtered it.

Martin Shelby

7:47:27PM One additional name. Renee Ingram. Thank you. That's four minutes.

Alan Clendenin

7:47:33PM Start with your name. You have four minutes. My name is Gordon dornyak. I am a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida with a bachelor and master degree in civil engineering from ucf specializing in transportation systems engineering. I'm also a vision sustainability professional and SMART cities practitioner. I want to briefly address the traffic engineering report before you as exhibit 2 prepared by drew rourke, who is a pe, ptoe, and ctl. His independent review identified several significant issues with transportation analysis submitted for 5600 mariner. First, the trip generation appears to be underestimated. The analysis does not match the current site plan and incorrect p.m. peak hour factor was used. As a result potential commercial trip generation is underestimated by approximately 50%. Second, the trip assignments do not appear to follow the existing travel patterns despite the methodology agreement stating that the existing traffic distribution would be used. At Mariner Street and hoover boulevard, for example, existing eastbound right turns represent approximately 27% of the approaching traffic while development analysis assigns only 14%, leaving 13% of traffic unaccounted for. Third, background traffic was not properly adjusted to the peak season conditions. As we all know, in Florida, seasonal adjustment factors are important because traffic fluctuates significantly throughout the year. Evaluating annual -- average annual conditions rather than peak season conditions can understate the traffic conditions this network will actually experience. There is another unusual factor here. At least 60 nearby homes remain unoccupied following hurricanes helene and milton. At approximately 9.5 daily trips per single-family residence, that represents more than 650 daily trips currently absent from the surrounding network. Those trips will return once those homes are reoccupied. Taken together, these issues raise a fundamental engineering concern. Does the analysis before you accurately represent the traffic conditions that this development will create. The concern is amplified because this is also a high flood risk area within hurricane evacuation zone a. Adding more than 260 residential units means potentially hundreds of additional residents relying on the same transportation network during an evacuation. Finally, when the development adds traffic to a constrained network, drivers seek alternate routes naturally. As Mariner Street, hoover boulevard, and Kennedy Boulevard become more congested, cut-thru traffic can migrate to residential streets such as west cleveland and west azeele, bringing additional volume, higher speeds, and potential safety concerns into already established neighborhoods. I myself am prodevelopment, but development must be context sensitive, supported by sound engineering analysis, and compatible with the infrastructure and the community surrounding it. Before approving this level of density, I respectfully ask the council to ensure that the transportation analysis accurately reflects peak conditions, existing travel patterns, returning residential traffic, and cumulative impact on the community and then we will really know what the impact of this development is. Thank you.

7:51:19PM Thank you, sir. If nobody is using the presentation, if we could remove the placard and put it down against the wall. Who is going to use it? The next speaker. The next speaker is debra cramer.

Martin Shelby

7:51:41PM Excuse me, council. Martin Shelby, City Council attorney. I just want to assure the public that the goal here is to have an accurate record that would adequately and legally support whatever City Council's decision is. If an attorney or somebody who has standing has the ability to make an objection, my recommendation would be they do so to preserve that objection for the record.

Alan Clendenin

7:52:07PM Thank you. Mr. Bentley. State your objection. The problem you just heard is that this gentleman who holds himself out as a professional said that he testified to Mr. O'rourke's report that he did not author. I didn't have an opportunity to question Mr. Rourke. Also, hearsay testimony. Doesn't rise to the level of substantial competent evidence under the law, in quasi-judicial proceedings is what you need to rely on. Therefore we object to his testimony and request that it be stricken.

7:52:43PM Mr. Bentley, your objection is noted. You'll have an opportunity during rebuttal to address the specifics of your objections. Next, start with your name.

Martin Shelby

7:53:03PM Ms. Cramer Has five names. Robert cramer. Thank you. Judy rorty. Thank you. Jim holloway.

7:53:21PM Crossed out. Okay. Carmen omara. Tara curry. Thank you. Four names plus three equals seven.

Alan Clendenin

7:53:32PM Start with your name, you have seven minutes. I am an owner and resident of 5700 mariner, mariner south condominiums, not mariner west. Directly west of this development. I'm also a member of our homeowners board at mariner south. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of the rezoning for 5600 mariner on behalf of the board and ownership of mariner south. Members of City Council, I appeal to you to represent us to hear our concerns of the 43 residents of mariner south and 44 residents of mariner north, as well as those of our single-family neighbors on mariner and in Beach Park. These are our major concerns. The 262 units and the extra traffic on the already failing roads of Kennedy and Westshore and the burden on the small roads being mariner, hoover, azeele, and cleveland that our families use multiple times a day. The insufficient parking for the residents magnified by the parking waivers requested by the applicant for the proposed building will result in cars spilling over on to Mariner Street. The lack of parking for their number of guests will certainly pour on to mariner in search of parking and likely take away the surface parking intended for our own residents and our guests. The back of house facilities, especially trash that are to be placed on the project's west side, extremely close to our building. Please allow me to say a little more about parking. Where will these renters park? Where will their guests park? Where will retail customers park? And where will the large delivery moving trucks park? If done correctly, there would be no need for a waiver. But unfortunately, the developer is looking to maximize everything about this site except the essentials, like parking. Instead, the overflow of residents and their guests will park on our parking spots and on the street. This street has no sidewalks. So people who walk, run, bike, or take their babies out will have no safety. So this becomes a hardship, not only for our owners, but a danger to all pedestrians. It will also cost us money to protect and secure our own parking lot. Why should the developer desire to maximize profit be allowed to burden us? Will they share in that tour and that cost for us? The current plan for 5600 mariner calls for all back of house facilities to be on their west side, next to our building. That includes trash, trash compactor, delivery vehicles, moving trucks, delivery vans, generators, trash and recycling trucks as well as owners and renters own personal vehicles. This brings noise, pollution, dirt, and trash right to the edge of our property. We have asked on several occasions going back several years to have these functions moved to the east side of the building where there are no neighbors. The applicant has said that due to the geometry of the lot configuration, it's too hard to get garbage trucks and fire equipment around the building and still maintain the turning radius needed. They would not be able to navigate the three-point turn. All these excuses from the developer and little to no compromise. Despite the fact these conditions are based on the developer's own making. I've been involved with this project since the very beginning. I have gone to every single meeting, including a meeting held at mariner south for mariner north and our owners. The last time I spoke to the developer was on August 12. At that conversation, he proposed two compromises. One was a fence or a wall instead of a fence. Initially, the project on the border of our two properties was a fence. He said, I can put up a six foot wall. Considering the height of their building compared to ours, six foot doesn't really cut it. And what I want is trees. Lots of trees, tall trees. I want a buffer to protect us from the sound and noise and pollution that will come from what they are putting on the west side. The other compromise he offered was to come down in height. Okay, the trick about that is, when you come down on height, you go wide. Wide means closer to our building, which goes against everything we've been asking for. So that is not a fix. I think what's happening is they are overbuilding on an irregular too small lot. So we are not against development of any kind, not this development however. That is something that I cannot support the way it looks now. Thank you.

7:58:32PM Thank you very much, debra. Stephanie poynor followed by robby sherry. When they are handing paper work to Mr. Shelby as well.

Martin Shelby

7:59:31PM Mark sackalowski. Are you here? Going once, I don't hear anybody. Garrett garcia? Thank you. Lisa t. Thank you. That's two. Robert singleton. That's three for a total of six minutes.

Alan Clendenin

8:00:00PM Stephanie, start with your name. You have six minutes. Mr. Bentley in my opinion has already used his five minutes of additional response, rebuttal time. He's been up here more than any other attorney I've ever seen at City Council in all the time that I've been here. I wish I may. I wish I might. I wish I could move this site. Carroll ann, bring me my laptop, please. I'm accused of being antidevelopment. I'm not. I'm anti-stupid development. This one falls into that category. Eight meetings with the neighborhood means that they didn't listen to the neighborhood the first seven times they met with them because they are still here and still upset. This is not Beach Park's first rodeo. Their first rodeo was back in 2021-22 time frame. They got from this kind of process all the way to yes and supported that process. Why? Because the developer wanted to work with them, not try to intimidate and bully them, but to work with them. Who cares who takes the lead in the neighborhood. Sometimes it's somebody two streets over. You know why? There are people in the world who do not want to come down here and speak to City Council. They care very much about their neighborhood but do not want to come down here and speak to City Council. So other people, like yours truly here, show up and scream bloody murder. Why? Because other people don't always feel comfortable doing that. Questioning a neighbor for not being close enough is inappropriate. Mr. Bentley said that this project is not in Beach Park. That is absolutely untrue. It is part of Beach Park, and it has been since 2021 when we made it part of Beach Park because the last project was approved without any of the neighborhoods being notified, just like the publix across from stuart, just like there are other projects outside of boundaries because the neighborhoods weren't notified because they weren't on the map properly. So that was changed. I was president of than. The applicant put up the definition of rmu 100. I think this is wonderful that he did this. But he neglected to point out this part. I'm sorry, it's kind of blurry. Bottom line it says rmu 100 not for South Tampa and not for New Tampa. Just like carroll ann told you. This is not in the comp plan because it was put in there 30 years ago. It's in the comp plan because our community was raped, robbed, and pillaged with redevelopment. And then as part of this, they came back, the Beach Park community came back, and in 2022 at some point -- let me get this down here --

8:02:52PM Bring it down. 2022 the rmu 100, which is what this probably could or should be. But, no, they are coming for a PD because they want to skirt around the f.a.r. Requirement. This isn't something from long ago and far away. This is our reality. There is a reason why these rules are in place. I'm sorry, but a developer coming in here and saying, oh, wait a minute -- sorry, I left my laptop back there. I got excited because I thought I would be last. First of all, this is in Beach Park. Number one. I'll be happy to show you the neighborhood maps. Bring them back up here if you like. This is also in the South Tampa Planning district. This is in the South Tampa Planning district. You cannot wish it where you want it to be. Nobody here can change that. Trust me. So why are we even talk about Westshore district. I don't know. The requirement in the comp plan is not random. The waivers, it's not even -- oh, we're reducing from four loading docks to one. No, it's reducing it from four loading docks to half a loading dock. If you look, it says reducing the loading dock 12 by 60 to 12 by 30. That's half. That's half. So we -- this blows my mind. I don't have to try really hard to figure this stuff out. The note the applicant in here claims to reduce the project, we came in here tonight with one set of expectations. We walked over to the Planning department folks to the land use department folks and said, oh, we're going to reduce it by ten feet. Oh, we're going to do this and that. We just now got around to it, why? Because this entire gallery is full of people who object to this project because it's crap. If it was a great project, nobody would be here complaining. You guys approve 90 plus percent of what comes in front of you because 90 plus percent of what comes in front of you either, one, works with the neighborhood and makes it a great project or they bring you a great project to start with. This one is poop. If it was a great project, these folks have shown up in the past and said this is a good project, and we can live with it. This is not an untested group of neighbors. This is a group of neighbors who has gotten to yes with an applicant before. And tonight, they are here going not no, but hell no. why? Because cocky arrogant people think that they don't have to communicate with our community. Mr. Bentley Started out this evening letting us all know that they don't live here. They don't live here. All of these people and I do. You do. But these people get to come in here and say I've met with them eight times, and I don't really -- this is where we're at. But yet you got five waivers and a building that's too big for the damn space. Thank you very much. That's why I tried to be last. Sorry.

8:06:24PM Robby. Spanish main from Beach Park. You heard from a lot of -- [ sounding gavel ]

8:06:31PM Hold it down. This guy is speaking. Planners, our traffic engineer, condos as well than. One point reiterate. Heard it several times, Beach Park does say yes to development, and pretty emphatically stated in the last speaker. We understand completely that the city needs housing and thousands of apartments have gone up around us, and I have this -- I don't know if this turns on.

8:07:03PM Can we get the wolf? We supported. The novel, Beach Park, mariner, under construction, mark mentioned. Westshore plaza redevelopment, 200 hoover. The apartments at Kennedy and hoover, Mr. Miller Talked about those. They are going up right now, and that developer came to us, and we asked them to come down to seven stories. Guess what, they did. And we backed that project wholeheartedly, and you also heard, and this is one, as you reference the time back to early 2020, 2021, when we got active and worked on 200 south hoover. And we helped that developer shape those steps and step it down from Kennedy into a single-family neighborhood. Context sensitive. Heard that word, appropriate development. Mr. Miller who was here and spoke for us this evening, was actually here. Reiterate what he said. He didn't just say no objection, he applauded that effort. A number of you here voted for it. So that's our record for Beach Park. That's what we do. Let's talk about their record, and you've heard that also. They told you tonight that they compromised, but ask them what they gave up. A lot of numbers were thrown out today, but at the end of the day, they say they are down to 300 units but as mark said, you could have started with 520 divided by two and would you get to 260. Changing the number is not a compromise. The part that doesn't need anyone to have a word at all, depending on anybody's word is it still doesn't fit, not on this lot, not under the zoning because it takes five waivers. We heard it all night. Five waivers. As we've said, we have come forward, and there's one specific number we put forward to them. 73 feet. And, by the way, even if they drop it to 129, 129 and 73 feet, that's 56 feet difference, not 45 that's been put up here. And that is the height of mariner south. It is context sensitive, appropriate, and responsible. None of these are in their application. There's been no compromise here. You've heard that. Council member, every developer, reiterate this, every developer who has come and worked with us has gotten to yes. In good faith we get them to yes. And when they present a context sensitive project down the road, we will support these developers as well. But so far they haven't. That's their choice, and tonight it's your choice. Please deny this petition.

8:09:34PM Thank you, ravi. How many more people want to speak tonight? Remember, if you signed a speaker waiver form, you can't speak. I see one, two, three. If you all would line up against the wall. Sandy, go ahead, start with your name. You have three minutes. I came here to give a minute, but something caught my eye, so I had to stay. Before I say that, I have a statement I'd like to make. About 15 years ago when I got involved with my community, I talked to LaChone, I talked to Abbye Feeley, I talked to Eric Cotton, David Hey, different people from the county and they told me if I wanted to find information I had to use either the comp plan or the land development code. When we private tax-paying citizens come up here and we quote from those two bibles that we have been told to use, you should not dismiss what we had to say. That's the first thing I would like to say. The other thing that caught my eye was the loading docks. This is something that's come up with all the monoliths that you're putting up. Let me remind you of something. We live in a world of delivery. Every day amazon, ups, dhl, and a number of companies deliver packages all day long, and they are disorganized, especially amazon. Sometimes there are four amazon trucks parked in two blocks. When they come to the address, they have to park the car, the truck. They have to get out of the truck, find the package because they are not organized either, and then deliver it to the home. It takes time. If you don't have a loading dock and you have a resident like this that's probably going to have 300, 350 people, you're going to get deliveries all the time. There are people that work at home and they get deliveries, and let's not forget uber eats and door dash. Those run 24 hours a day. I have two gamers, adult gamers that live in my block, and they get delivery at 1:00 in the morning, 3:00 in the morning, whenever they feel. Where are these trucks going to park if they don't have a place, a loading dock to load and unload? Not to mention, what about the 292 apartments that are going to be filled with people? They have to bring u-hauls, SUVs, they need places to park those cars. What are they going to park? On mariner and walk and find that. Uber eats has to go to every apartment. They can't leave food down stairs like packages. It ties it up. I just want you to think about that, because they are coming up. Every time, the last four I have watched and I know Councilwoman Hurtak is passionate about the loading docks, but they are important. You cannot ignore them because traffic on mariner, if they have to park there, and you are also adding 150 cars to mariner. That is an evacuation route for those people. Please think about this. Thank you.

8:12:56PM Thank you. Next speaker, start with your name. You'll have three minutes. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen and allowing me to speak. I want to make a couple of points. As a bit of history, first of all, I'm here as an owner. Two units at mariner south. My parents lived there for almost 29 years. I have been there countless times through the years. Parking is already an issue. And this monstrosity of a building, they want less parking than is required. With that many apartment units, there's going to be four to five hundred cars minimum. There's just no way around it. Parking on the street is just not practical on Mariner Street. Speaking of Mariner Street, mariner south, and this whole area is in an evacuation zone a, if I'm not mistaken. And evacuation out of that street, off of mariner is very difficult when a storm comes, unless you are a week ahead of it. Right now, there's construction on the corner of I believe it's mariner and hoover. It's an apartment building, and the traffic is horrendous. Just getting in and out of mariner, it's terrible. Other people have talked about Kennedy and those other areas. This is all going to be impacted if you permit such a huge complex. I have no issue with development. I think that the appropriate development is what is required. And with the appropriate infrastructure in place. Thank you so much.

8:14:51PM Thank you very much. Next speaker, start with your name. You have three minutes. 4501 West Rosemary Road, local, own the house. I have to say this is my first time being at city hall, in the city meeting. So thank you. I appreciate what each of you do. I'm amazed. I wouldn't want to do what each of you do, to be here at this hour. Most of my life has been spent helping big companies on big projects. I sense from a lot of the conversation that there is some concern around potential litigation from the applicant, et cetera and from that perspective, I appreciate what you're trying to do in not getting the city sued because that will come out of my pocket in taxes. I have to think if you live in that area, you would see there are real traffic issues and concerns and talked about safety. I'm concerned specifically in that, you know, hearing, I thought I heard earlier, traffic isn't a problem. Looked at it, isn't a problem. I don't believe that. I thought I heard that earlier. I don't believe that. If anybody goes over there and looks at the base, when the base goes out in that time frame, it's a zoo already. And when there are problems, when 275 is a problem, that's a nightmare. Not many corridors that come in in that section. It's a nightmare. You add that kind of zoning, it's ridiculous. I appreciate the fact that from a nimby perspective, nobody wants a big thing in their backyard. As everybody here has said, if it is a reasonable location and there is a reasonable size, I think everybody is open to that. As we talked about in an earlier application, we were talking about another piece of property, don't quite remember where it was, just listening in, there were concerns about parking on the street. We're going to have exactly the same thing. Hearing, oh, well, the zoning codes for parking are 1963, that's ludicrous. Come down to South Tampa and see what parking looks like. There are cars all over the place. Can I barely get down my street with construction things like that. It will only get worse. I guess that's kind of my biggest concern is we don't -- again, this is just my perception, it doesn't seem like we have to give in to these waivers, these waiver requests. If there is a concern that somehow we'll get sued because we're not giving into the zoning appropriately, that shouldn't be a concern. I can't imagine, again, I don't know the rules. If you talked to me about accounting, things like that, I could give you rules. I can't imagine that we're required to give exceptions because of this monstrosity that's coming in for parking. That just seems ridiculous. Anyways, I appreciate it. Thank you.

8:17:26PM Thank you very much. I believe this is the last public speaker. Anybody else that wants to speak? Sir, bring it home. You are the last speaker. Michael banks. I'm actually a resident, 46 Sandpiper Road. I don't have a picture, but it's the blue house that's directly across from this project. The idea that this is not part of Beach Park is ludicrous. Our house is directly there. We're going to be affected by light pollution, noise pollution, everything else that goes on at this building. We're separated by less than a hundred feet for the homes there at the end of sandpiper. What I will say and just in conclusion, I'm glad that we're here. I'm glad this is a vote. I stopped going to the meetings with this group after they said they had a hundred percent success rate pushing stuff through. And I am so glad that you get to decide independently and make the decision about this, and it's not based on the attorney, do I have standing, don't I have standing, or the rest of this group here, and you get to do that as an independent group and make the decision for our neighborhood that's going to impact it for the next 50 years. This is not something that is going to happen and be done in a matter of a year or two. It is going to impact our street. And, by the way, our street is still 25% empty from the hurricane. So, again, there are not enough people to even come here tonight because of the houses that flooded during helene. But, again, I appreciate your attention to all of this, and I truly hope that you can make the correct decision and say this is not the right project for the neighborhood. Thank you.

8:19:27PM Thank you very much. I have a question for staff, please. There's been contradicting information about this parcel and where it lies. One is it in the South Tampa Planning district? Two, is it in the Westshore overlay district?

Meaghan McCarthy

8:19:48PM Planning Commission staff. This is within the South Tampa Planning district as well as from what I can see the Beach Park neighborhood and is not within the Westshore overlay.

Alan Clendenin

8:20:00PM It is in the South Tampa Planning district. It is not in the Westshore overlay district. And it is -- not that the neighborhoods are like statutory. That's not relevant to this discussion.

Meaghan McCarthy

8:20:10PM Correct.

Alan Clendenin

8:20:11PM For Planning purposes, this is within the South Tampa Planning district.

Meaghan McCarthy

8:20:15PM That is correct.

Alan Clendenin

8:20:16PM Thank you very much. Does council have any further questions before I go to rebuttal? Mr. Bentley. Five plus five if he needs it. Go over a couple of the points, first of all, some of the testimony was inappropriate and I don't need to go down that path again. I objected to it. People testifying on other people's opinion and hearsay, et cetera, so that wouldn't be substantial competent evidence. Luckily this is not a referendum or popularity contest for this project, but it's a quasi-judicial proceeding which your decision has to be based on substantial competent evidence. Just the facts and evidence have been presented to you within the four corners of this room tonight. The first thing I would like to address is transportation. That issue came up a lot and mischaracterization of some of the facts. Also, I'd point out that Transportation Department approved the methodology and approved the report that was prepared by Mr. Coen. Randy. Randy Coen. I have been sworn. Let's talk a little bit about traffic. I'll be as brief as I can. They made some allegations regarding trip generation. Relative to the office retail portion of this project. Well, unfortunately, in reading the expert's reports, they compare office from net external traffic to retail based upon gross traffic. When you apply the internalization rate that was approved as a part of the methodology and pass by capture, that is a part of the methodology process in calculating trips, the numbers are exactly the same between retail and office in this particular case. That is because both of these are rather small elements, 4,000 square feet in maximum. By the way, there was also not listed, but the fact that we didn't revise the traffic study once we reduced the amount of dwelling units from 300 to 262 in the amount of the office from 6,000 to 4,000. We overestimated traffic by 16 trips in the morning and 29 trips in the afternoon. City of Tampa process is if you go down, you don't have to redo your traffic study. Distribution. It's great when you decide to do a distribution based upon one intersection. This property is served by two intersections. Hoover and mariner and hoover and bay center. When you look at both of those intersections together, to get a true direction of approach and departure, our numbers are exactly consistent with the methodology, which is based on the turning movement volumes in the area. Those two intersections provide access to this property. Talk about peak season. I think the reviewer perhaps was confused. Hillsborough county requires a peak season traffic analysis, City of Tampa does not. Moreover, peak season was not a part of the methodology, therefore it is not appropriate. Fourth one, unoccupied homes. That's kind of a new one on me. Let's talk about it. First, the quoting of 650 daily trips is totally irrelevant in a zoning process. We look at the morning peak hour and we look in the afternoon peak hour. It's not 650 trips. It's substantially less than a hundred trips. This is an exhibit provided by their consultant of where these unoccupied homes are. This is hoover. This is the project. There are 12 homes here, if you come over to here, take a third, 23 homes, you find out that the traffic that would be generated by those homes is virtually the same as what we estimate project traffic because we brought down the development project from 300 to 262 units. Total traffic though was assessed. Actually does, one could say, include these homes. Homes over on Westshore, et cetera and way to the south, would not be coming up here. Finally, want to talk about a couple of other things. Visitor parking, city requires us to have .25 parking spaces per unit. We've provided that in this particular project. So we have adequate visitor parking. Two other things just to bring to your attention, the first is project will provide the city with substantial amount of fees, over half a million dollars.

8:25:04PM Bring it down. Final item, since we talked a lot about traffic in general, you could build the same size building on this property today under the OP 1 zoning as an office building. Comparison. Office building in blue, multifamily proposed in green. Daily traffic more than double. A.m. peak hour traffic --

8:25:37PM There is a wheel on the top of that unit, there is a wheel, if you spin it, you can zoom in to get the whole document. I'm assuming you need additional time. How much time of your five do you want? Reset the timer to five minutes, please. Sorry about that. Blue represents the same size building as office. The green is the multifamily that's proposed. If you look on a daily basis, equivalent office building that could be built today under the existing zoning would be twice the amount of traffic for a whole day. A.m., it would be four times the amount of traffic as the multifamily that's proposed. P.m., it would be approximately three times the amount. So when we talk about development, we also need to talk about the uses on the property. Traffic is a concern, then certainly multifamily would be desirable over office that generates substantially more traffic. The FEMA issue. Have been sworn. The project is designed with a seawall, retaining walls, if approved by this council, we will apply for a conditional letter of map revision with FEMA. That will move the limits of moderate wave action line toward the seawall and the water -- so the project would be landward, moderate wave action and no longer in that area. As for stormwater, the project will be required to comply with the City of Tampa's stormwater technical manual for project new development as well as the Southwest Florida Water Management District erp applicant handbook for criteria of stormwater. Cvs and reports. I want to mention with respect to the parking waiver, which is 8%, the council historically, I think, will consider like a 10% waiver. Actually, one of the petitions before us received a 16% reduction for parking tonight. With respect to the live local that it's a threat. No, it is a practical concern. We're just weighing all our options, and that's one of them. We didn't think that was the best option, not necessarily for the client, but consideration of the neighborhood, they wouldn't have any input over live local at all, whether architecturally access, things like that. So that's just a practical consideration by our client. Also note once again, both your staff reports you did the law are considered substantial competent evidence. By professional planners. Both staffs have determined that the project is compatible and consistent with the comp plan and also stated policies. With respect to the loading docks, here again, we're not in the Westshore overlay, but if we were, we would have met their requirements. We asked to go from three to one. That's typically granted, and we asked for reduction from 60 feet in length to 30. And that's pretty much it. We sincerely appreciate your time. Thank you.

8:29:11PM Council have any further questions? Smoothly by definition, obviously, but I want to point out that all the effort the client made, in our last meeting, where every association was invited was September 2, and one person attended out of this entire group here. I don't know how good they are of putting out the word, but we were blown away, hey, some of these changes had really made an impact on the community. I hear the cat calls and the unprofessionalism by some of these so-called professionals and I'll just end right there. Thank you.

8:29:50PM If you have documents, you can hand them to the attorney to be received and filed. And added to the record. Take care.

8:29:59PM Very good. Not even the hearsay accusations?

8:30:07PM No. the time is up. Anybody else have any concerns, questions? If there's nothing else, I would like a motion to close. [ sounding gavel ]

8:30:21PM No, no.

Martin Shelby

8:30:28PM -- no questions or anything, appropriate for a motion to close, I want to make a statement before you do discuss it amongst yourselves.

Alan Clendenin

8:30:34PM Close it first and then get the attorney statement. Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

8:30:46PM As we do on Thursday nights, I have provided to you the Planned Development, the PD code criteria section 27-136, the purpose, which is one through nine. Reverse page is PD plan, plan development code criteria for section 27-139, sub 4, the waivers. Obviously, you do have the staff reports in front of you, and you do have the Planning Commission and land development staff reports for your use. My suggestion, council, is you are the finders of fact, and you've heard, and you know what is relevant and material upon which you must base your decision, that's competent and substantial evidence. And my suggestion would be that you look at the facts as you find them to be and you compare them to the code criteria in front of you, and if there are land development sections that you wish to cite, do so, if they are code sections you wish to cite, I would recommend, I would suggest, please do cite the sections so that it's clear for the record that it complies with state law.

Alan Clendenin

8:31:59PM That being said, I think this is complicated. I'll give council a few minutes to read and review what Mr. Shelby just said and the documents that are provided to gather your thoughts.

Bill Carlson

8:32:12PM I'm happy to start with a motion.

Lynn Hurtak

8:32:17PM If Councilman Carlson wants to make a motion, that's fine. I can add if necessary.

Alan Clendenin

8:32:22PM You're ready to make a motion, Councilman Carlson?

Bill Carlson

8:32:26PM If she wants to make --

Alan Clendenin

8:32:28PM Councilman Carlson.

Bill Carlson

8:32:29PM I would like to make a motion to deny the request and I'll cite the staff's report regarding rezoning. The waivers that were requested, the fact that it's not compatible with the character and scale with the surrounding residential built environment, land use policy 1.2.28 says limit the use of Planned Development district rezoning petitions to allow development consistent with the future land use designation otherwise not permitted in the current standard zoning so the idea being to limit that. Land use policy 8.14.3, Planning development rezoning process is not to be used for the sole purpose of waiving established land use development regulations, land use policy 9.6.2, promote a residential development pattern consistent with compact city form strategy. Land use policy 9.6.4, balance the objective to increase opportunities for new housing development to ensure adequate housing for Tampa's residents with the equally important objective of ensuring that new development is compatible with neighborhood character. Going to the PD criteria, just a couple of examples, number two, PD code, says allow the integration of different land uses and densities in one development that would not otherwise be provided for or allowed under general zoning districts, meaning that this is a monolithic thing that doesn't meet that. Number six, promote and encourage development where appropriate in location, character and compatibility with the surrounding impacted neighborhood, built environment, existing geography, which this does not. Section -- I'll stop there and let anybody add.

Alan Clendenin

8:34:34PM Councilwoman Hurtak, did you want to add anything to that?

Lynn Hurtak

8:34:37PM Well, I was going to ask if you could add the actual section number for the PD and for the waivers, that would be helpful. I don't have them on me at the moment.

Alan Clendenin

8:34:53PM Asking to -- [indiscernible]

Lynn Hurtak

8:34:57PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

8:34:58PM Take that as a friendly amendment.

Martin Shelby

8:35:01PM My suggestion is, what you're saying now should be all considered part of the motion upon which you are basing your decision. Also, Councilwoman Hurtak, I don't believe there was any reference to section 27 or any of the criteria in 27-139.

Lynn Hurtak

8:35:21PM There was a discussion about waivers. By the way, I'm seconding this to have the conversation. But, yes, council member Carlson mentioned waivers. So I was hoping we could have, just cite the section.

Martin Shelby

8:35:37PM The question is for anyone on council, what is it about the waivers that make it an issue?

Lynn Hurtak

8:35:44PM Oh. Well, for me, the waivers are -- the waivers are too much. We talk about needing more parking, but really, in the area for me as someone in the public mentioned, I particularly am concerned about having enough delivery space. So that's my issue with the waivers.

Alan Clendenin

8:36:19PM The case is closed now.

Bill Carlson

8:36:33PM Just going through the criteria, section, this is the waiver criteria. Do I need to state the waivers? They are already on the record?

Martin Shelby

8:36:41PM You have issues with particular waivers?

Bill Carlson

8:36:45PM The other criteria, number one, this is 27-139-4, number one is the design of the proposed development is unique and therefore in need of waivers. From the evidence presented, I didn't see a justification for reducing the parking or reducing the dock size, reducing the buffer, et cetera and reducing the vehicle use area landscape. Number two, the waiver if allowed will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by allowance of the waivers. We see clearly that the neighborhood is concerned about the parking, and they feel that it is insufficient. They also have concerns about the deliveries, which would be affected by the dock size. Number three, the waiver is in harmony with and serves the general intent and purpose of the chapter, other applicable City of Tampa land development and the comprehensive plan. I went through some of that already for allowing the waiver would result in substantial justice being done considering the public benefits intended to be secured by this chapter, other applicable City of Tampa land development regulations, Tampa Comprehensive Plan and the -- hardships suffered by failure of city. Failure of city to grant the waiver. I don't see any hardships in here regarding why the waivers of parking, dock size reduction, et cetera, need to be waived.

Martin Shelby

8:38:20PM Going back to number three, Mr. Carlson, did you say by number three that the applicant met that criteria or did not meet that criteria?

Bill Carlson

8:38:32PM Did not.

Alan Clendenin

8:38:34PM For clarification, your statement was contrary.

Bill Carlson

8:38:38PM Number three says the waiver is in harmony with and serves general intent. My comment was I went through several other citations of zoning and comprehensive plan to state that it wasn't.

Alan Clendenin

8:38:51PM That would be an amendment to your initial motion, friendly amendment to your own motion.

Bill Carlson

8:38:57PM Plus the other things added in.

Alan Clendenin

8:38:59PM Councilwoman Hurtak, I already had a second from Councilman Miranda on this, I believe.

Lynn Hurtak

8:39:02PM Oh, okay.

Alan Clendenin

8:39:04PM We already had it seconded. Councilman Viera, you had a question.

Luis Viera

8:39:09PM I had a question. What is that saying, match point or whatever, it sort of can go either way for me. Just a question for council to consider that a lot of the waivers of incompatibility that are asserted, tell me if you all agree or disagree, number one, a lot of these waivers, like the parking reduction, 8%. It's nothing, some significant issue. There are allegations of parking, but 8% I don't think rise to that level that is being alleged. So my question is, how are these waivers related to the competent, substantial evidence that has been asserted against this project? If I may, I ask that as a general curious question. It's not a leading question. I ask that as a pilgrim in search of information to make my decision.

Alan Clendenin

8:39:57PM Councilwoman Hurtak, you are recognized.

Lynn Hurtak

8:39:58PM Well, I'm going to talk to you about the loading berths because that's my issue. The loading berths are a big deal for an apartment complex of this size. And the deliveries that will come to them. So not only are they reducing from 4 to 1, but the 1 isn't even going to be a normal size. It's going to be half the normal size. So to me that is a significant waiver. Also, the distance separation is also an issue. As you look at the mass and scale of what's next door.

Luis Viera

8:40:34PM Thank you, ma'am, very much.

Alan Clendenin

8:40:35PM Councilman Viera, I want to draw your attention to 27-136, reference for the Planned Development from the euclidean zoning, and I believe that councilman Carlson's motion encompassed quite a bit of 27-136 -- [inaudible] Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

8:40:57PM No, had -- [inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

8:40:59PM Okay. Very good. Any further discussion?

Charlie Miranda

8:41:04PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

8:41:05PM Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, I'm going to close this and clerk, would you please call the roll? Call the vote.

Martin Shelby

8:41:20PM Motion to deny the application.

Alan Clendenin

8:41:21PM Yes. Motion to deny was made by Councilman Bill Carlson. Second from Councilman Miranda. It was with the amendments that he made to the initial motion.

Naya Young

8:41:32PM Yes.

Luis Viera

8:41:33PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

8:41:33PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

8:41:35PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

8:41:38PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

8:41:38PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

8:41:41PM Yes.

The clerk

8:41:42PM The motion carried unanimously for motion to deny.

Alan Clendenin

8:41:47PM Thank you very much. [ applause ] [ sounding gavel ] you are out of order. I'll ask you all to leave. [ laughter ] let's do a ten-minute break. Real ten-minute break. 8:43. Back at 8:53. We are in recess until 8:53. [Recess]

8:56:59PM Welcome back. Calling this meeting back to order. Clerk, please call the roll.

Charlie Miranda

8:57:07PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

8:57:07PM Here.

Lynn Hurtak

8:57:07PM Here.

Naya Young

8:57:07PM Here.

Bill Carlson

8:57:08PM Here.

Alan Clendenin

8:57:14PM Here.

The clerk

8:57:14PM We have a physical quorum. Thank you, item number 5. [Audio interference] development, approved for residential single-family detached to Planned Development for residential single-family detached. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

8:57:54PM Meaghan McCarthy, sworn in, with the Planning Commission staff. Rez 26-64, located within the South Tampa Planning district and the Interbay South of Gandy neighborhood. Subject site is located within evacuation zone a and b. Surrounding area contains mostly single-family detached homes with some multifamily and two family residences. Commercial uses are scattered to the along North Interbay Boulevard, particularly near the intersection of Interbay Boulevard and South Macdill Avenue. South is the caribbean american club and sky view park, mack still air force base is located approximately one mile south of the site. The subject site is within the residential 20 future land use designation. Recreational open space is located to the south and residential 10 is located directly west and north of the site. To the northeast of the site there is a portion of the surrounding area designated community mixed use 35 at the intersection of Interbay Boulevard and South Macdill Avenue. The proposed request as existing approved rezoning associated with the site rez 22-51 and not proposing an increase in units for the new request. While the subject site is located within the r-20 flu category its allowable density is limited to ten dwelling units an acre due to the site's location within the MacDill Air Force Base flight path, the request proposes approximately 5.74 dwelling units an acre and therefore consistent with lu policy 8.1.3 on the flight path, limiting density within the flight path. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found the proposal meeting policy direction for infill development on underutilized parcels and comparable and compatible with the existing neighborhood development pattern. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to improve south 6th street and the PD proposes the addition of sidewalks along Interbay Boulevard and South Martindale Avenue where sidewalks are currently lacking. Consistent with the comprehensive plan mobility policies. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with comprehensive plan and I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

8:59:58PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, Christopher.

Christopher Demanche

9:00:17PM For the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Before I jump into my presentation, I do want to note that this evening due to the very narrow scope of this application, we do have a member of the Water department on hand in case there are some questions related to the specific change that is being asked this evening by the applicant. We'll start with the presentation -- we'll start the presentation off with an aerial of the subject property. Comprised of five parcels. Located on the side of South Interbay Boulevard. To the west of the subject property is 6th street and east of the subject site we have South Martindale Avenue. The surrounding properties are comprised of single-family detached dwellings to the north. We have commercial neighborhood and RS 50 zoning to the north. South of the subject property, we have RS 60, east of the subject property, we have a mix of RM 16, RS 60 as well as Planned Development zoning. The properties to the immediate east of the subject property are comprised of vacant parcels, single-family detached and single-family semi detached. West of the subject property we do have a property zoned Planned Development that is approved for strip shopping center, restaurant, day care, as well as single-family detached dwellings. That site is currently under construction, and I will point that out during the photo phase of my presentation. Next we have site plan. Subject property approximately 38,951 square feet in area. The applicant through this PD rezoning proposes a modification to the previously approved water conditions. These conditions detail how each of the five parcels receive water service from the city. The PD request before you retains the previously approved single-family detached dwelling units. So there's no proposed change to the layout of the PD, the number of parcels. This is strictly a change relating to the water conditions. All project entitlements remain the same. I do want to note that looking at the site plan, parcels one and two are currently under construction. Parcel three is vacant. Parcel four is constructed with a home, however there is not a certificate of occupancy issued for this particular parcel and north of the project, parcel four is parcel five, which is vacant. And, of course, because some of these parcels are undeveloped, I can't show you elevations. There is a single-family elevation proposed as well as a two story elevation option. Max height is 30 feet, as noted on the site plan. There are no waivers with the requested application. And I do want to put forth on the screen the water conditions and our friends at the Water department made us aware of a very minor change that we want to enter into the record. We have the proposed water condition here. The area highlighted in orange there is the new language proposed by the applicant. If it's council's pleasure, I can show you the old condition as well. The new condition is highlighted in orange. There is one very minor edit that we were made aware of this evening. It relates to the second sentence, so it should read, there are not existing water facilities located within 6th street. And then it kind of goes on there, and then it jumps into the new language. I do want to enter that change into the record. Having a look here at the subject parcels, we have parcel one along Interbay. Parcel two next door. Another view of parcel two. South of parcel two, we have parcel three. Jumping over to martindale, we have parcel four. That's the house that does not have a co issued just yet. Parcel five is vacant. North of Interbay, south of parcel 5 on martindale. Immediately east of parcel one. This is east of parcels four and five on martindale, and west of the subject site along 6th street and this is the PD site. A portion of the PD site that you can see in this picture currently under construction. Development review and compliance staff reviewed the petition. We do find the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application, further modifications to the site plan must be completed between first and second readings. I am available for any questions. I just want to check one last thing. We have one item on that revision sheet under Development Coordination, and, of course, the item I asked to be entered into the record as well. I'm available for any questions from council This evening.

Alan Clendenin

9:06:15PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant. Matt newton from schumaker, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, suite 2800 here for the applicant. I do have a very lengthy presentation prepared, but as I sat there for the last four hours, I thought what can I do to make City Council's life easier tonight? You want to hear it all. All right.

9:06:50PM We'll say what Mrs. Maniscalco Says no, no, Mr. Maniscalco. Artifact from 2022, it only affects this lot, lot three. This is the plat from 1912, by the way. Insert the joke about Charlie Miranda. Apologize, councilman. Went as well as I thought it would.

9:07:19PM I'm the only funny one on council. This is something that's typically in front of staff as opposed to City Council. We're requesting the flexibility which staff finds consistent to have the option to get water through an easement this way from what used to be Port Tampa Boulevard but is now Interbay or through this lot as well. That's it. If you have any questions or if you would like me to elaborate more, I am happy to do so.

9:07:50PM Why not go down the street? Logistical obstacles. Really, it's about money. Going down the street, would he testify cost 100 to 200 thousand dollars based on engineering concerns. This way it costs about 40,000. So when you price a project and consider conditions, there's supposed to be a proportionate consideration as to what that would cost. To add that hundred, two hundred thousand dollar cost to single-family home for one house to build that line --

9:08:22PM Do you have permission from those single-family houses? We negotiated an easement with this lot.

9:08:39PM So you negotiated an easement with the lot owner.

9:08:50PM For an easement. Is that in perpetuity? I have a copy of it right here.

9:08:56PM Staff is that good and cover for the city? We are fine with having the easement run through a private lot. What we require a joint use and private use agreement in perpetuity and needs to be filed with the clerk prior to the Water department providing a commitment for water service for said lot.

9:09:19PM Is there anything negative for the city for granting this type of easement for the water supply for this lot? Protecting future homeowners and existing homeowners. And this is consistent.

9:09:30PM Consistent with your part.

9:09:34PM Any other questions?

Lynn Hurtak

9:09:35PM I have a question.

Alan Clendenin

9:09:36PM Councilwoman Hurtak. Let me get you back up on tv so we can see. We got you.

Lynn Hurtak

9:09:48PM I'm curious, how are you going to prevent people from building on top of this easement? Matt newton for the record. Easement agreements provide that -- I can pull up some language of this proposed one that the property owner leave that clear, because there may be maintenance in the future.

9:10:15PM Well, my question isn't really about the legality. It's about the practicality. People aren't supposed to build in alleys and they do it all the time. My concern is that somebody builds like a big barbeque grill on top of this like two homeowners in, and then you need to access it, what protections does the city have to access that water?

Alan Clendenin

9:10:41PM This would be a question for staff.

Lynn Hurtak

9:10:44PM Sure. So the Water department -- the notes actually give options for either-or options. The original requirement of a water main running down 6th street or running through private property in an easement. Shown here, we have the solid line that would represent the water service going in the public right-of-way.

9:11:17PM I can't see it because the wolf isn't on.

Alan Clendenin

9:11:22PM That's interesting, because we show that it is.

Lynn Hurtak

9:11:25PM Now I can see it. Requirement of running a public water main down 6th street. The revised language provides the option to run either one. On the right side here, you can see a solid line. That would represent the public side with the water meter right there at the property line. Everything dashed there would be private. It's no different than if you have a townhome complex with private easements running that way. Typically when we see these occur, they are set on or within the setback area, too, as well. So one of the requirements to address your concern about if there is a private dispute, if it is damaged in some sort of way, that's what the easement is for, recorded with the clerk's office and gives maintenance requirement. If one is damaged, it will outline who is responsible for what in whatever circumstances that it's damaged.

9:12:21PM Okay. I had one more question. What about the other lots that are south on 6th street? Line. There would be no other greater benefit to the city to run a water main down 6th street so no one else could benefit from it. All the other lots that potentially have it, have the giant hurdle of a ditch running down 6th street and also service coming off a different side street.

9:12:48PM Oh, okay. Thank you. That's it.

Alan Clendenin

9:12:50PM Any other questions? Anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? We have a motion to close from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye.

Luis Viera

9:13:01PM I'll take this one, if I may. Motion to deny -- I'm joking. I move an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 6200 and 6202 Interbay Boulevard, 6206 south 6th street and 6205 and 6207 South Martindale Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD, Planned Development, residential, single-family, detached to PD, Planned Development, residential, single-family, detached; providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

9:13:36PM With the revision.

Charlie Miranda

9:13:42PM Water note from the Water department, onto it.

Luis Viera

9:13:46PM Yes, sir.

Christopher Demanche

9:13:50PM Development Coordination. Include not only the revision sheet but this item that we entered into the record with the one word we're adding.

Alan Clendenin

9:13:58PM With the revision and said item. Revision and note from water. Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Miranda, right? All -- roll call.

Bill Carlson

9:14:17PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

9:14:19PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

9:14:22PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

9:14:25PM Yes.

Naya Young

9:14:26PM Yes.

Luis Viera

9:14:27PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

9:14:28PM Yes.

The clerk

9:14:30PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held October 1st, 2026, At 10 a.m. at old city hall, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third, floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

9:14:45PM Item number 6.

Christopher Demanche

9:14:48PM Development Coordination. Rez 26-66, request to rezone 2910 East Clark Street from RM 16 to Planned Development to allow for residential single-family attached uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

9:15:12PM Meaghan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. Rez 26-66, located within the central Tampa Planning district and the Palmetto Beach neighborhood. The subject site is located within evacuation zone a as well as coastal high hazard area. Surrounding area contains primarily residential uses with a mixture of two family and single-family dwelling units. To the west of south 30th street and industrial uses generally east of south 30th street. Public quasi-public uses are located east of the site. De soto park and de soto elementary school are located approximately one block south and southwest of the site. The subject site is within the residential 35 future land use designation. Recreational open space and environmentally sensitive areas designations exist south and southeast of the subject site. The residential 10 designation generally exists to the west approximately one block from the subject site with pockets of residential 20 to the north and southwest and commercial uses are within the community mixed use 35 flu designation along to the west along north 22nd street. Planning Commission staff has reviewed the application and found no adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning will allow for additional housing within the Palmetto Beach neighborhood in proximity to employment generating industrial uses and meets policy direction for infill development on underutilized parcels. The comprehensive plan land use category residential 35 supports medium density residential development, including attached and detached single-family as well as multifamily. Due to the mixture of residential uses within proximity to light industrial east of south 30th street, Planning Commission staff has determined that the Planned Development for four single-family attached units at a density of approximately 21 units per acre is compatible with the surrounding area. While this is higher than average -- higher than the existing average density along this portion of East Clark Street, the request is consistent with policy that single-family attached housing at slightly higher densities in single-family areas. Additionally, the proposed pedestrian connection to East Clark Street is consistent with policy encouraging single-family attached development to include front doors facing the right-of-way with connection to neighborhood sidewalks. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the comprehensive plan and this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

9:17:38PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, Christopher.

Christopher Demanche

9:17:45PM Again, for the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. We'll start with an aerial of the subject site outlined in red. Subject property is located on the north side of East Clark Street. The subject property is located on a block located between south 30th street to the east and north 28th street to the west. Subject property is developed with a single-family detached dwelling, surrounding zoning is RM 16. We do have an RM 24 zoning southwest of the subject site. This area to the north, to the south and to the west is made up of a mixture of single-family detached and semi detached uses. East of the subject site, we do have IG zoning. There is light manufacturing. There is a light manufacturing use there. The applicant's site plan shows a subject property totaling 8,583 square feet in area. It includes one structure which has four units. Each unit is two stories. Containing a one-car garage and each front door has a covered entryway. There is a covered porch on the rear of each unit as well. Each of the units does connect to a sidewalk, running east to along east West Clark Street. There is one guest parking spot that is adjacent to the driveway on unit number 3. Next we have elevations. Elevations proposed for the site. Max height is proposed at 35 feet. There is one waiver request with this application. It is section 27-282. This is to reduce the required enclosed parking spaces from 2 to 1. Each unit would have one enclosed parking space, and then the second space for each unit would be provided in the driveway. Next we have photos. Subject site. North of the subject site, south of the subject site. East of the subject site. That's IG zoned property. And west of the subject site. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition. We do find the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations, and should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application, further modification to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading. And I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

9:21:03PM Does council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant. Good evening. Start with your name, please. My name is Matan Klaff. I am the authorized agent and owner for rez 26-66 located at 2910 East Clark Street in Palmetto Beach neighborhood. We are requesting a rezoning from RM 16 to PD. Before submitting, we reached out to our neighbors and members of the community and have received 16 letters of support. Which are included in the record. I am pleased to note that City of Tampa staff reviewed the application and found it consistent. Thank you for your time and consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

9:21:54PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item? We have a motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Who would like to read this one? Go ahead, Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

9:22:11PM Item 6, rez 26-66, an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2910 East Clark Street in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification RM 16, residential, multifamily, to PD, Planned Development, residential, single-family, attached, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

9:22:34PM Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. Clerk?

Charlie Miranda

9:22:39PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

9:22:41PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

9:22:42PM Yes.

Naya Young

9:22:44PM Yes.

Luis Viera

9:22:45PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

9:22:46PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

9:22:47PM Yes.

The clerk

9:22:48PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

9:23:06PM Thank you for your patience tonight. Number 8.

Christopher Demanche

9:23:11PM Development Coordination. Agenda item 8 is rez 25-119, this is a request to rezone 915 east 23rd avenue from RS 50 to Planned Development for residential single-family attached uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

9:23:35PM Meaghan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. Rez 25-119 located within the central Tampa Planning district. The East Tampa urban village and Vm Ybor neighborhood. The subject site is within evacuation zone e. The surrounding area contains mostly single-family detached homes with some two-family residences in the area. Commercial uses are concentrated along North Nebraska Avenue. Interstate 275 is further to the west of the site. The subject site is within the residential 20 future land use designation, surrounding the subject site, the residential 10 designation is located to the east of north 10th street and the community mixed use 35 is located to the along north West Nebraska Avenue. Planning Commission staff has reviewed the application and found no adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. The rezoning will allow for additional housing within the East Tampa urban village and meets policy direction for infill development on underutilized parcels. The comprehensive plan future land use category residential 20 supports low to medium density residential development, including attached and detached single-family, as well as multifamily. While the proposed density of approximately 15.6 dwelling units per acre is higher than the existing density along this portion of east 23rd avenue, it is consistent with the density anticipated under the r-20 designation and supports policy that allows single-family attached housing at slightly higher densities in single-family areas. Additionally, the proposed design meets the intent of the comprehensive plan policy 9.2.6 by orienting units toward east 23rd avenue with remaining units facing internal sidewalk connections. However, there is still potential for pedestrian conflict with vehicles as cars back out of garages. The request supports compatible residential infill development in appropriate location within an urban village, incorporates design elements that enhance neighborhood character and provides sidewalks in an area where they are currently lacking. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan and I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

9:25:41PM Questions? Hearing none.

Christopher Demanche

9:25:51PM For the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. This item was continued from City Council at the evening meeting held on June 11 of this year to tonight's meeting, September 10, 2026. During this time, the applicant was directed by council when the case was continued regarding concerns over the following: proposed building massing compared to surrounding properties. Two buildings, project currently proposed would be different type of development altogether. Two way drive aisle between the two buildings was a concern, and the building setback in relation to east 23rd avenue and compared to surrounding properties. Additionally, City Council provided the following recommendation to the applicant. Council prefers forward facing units only on east 23rd avenue in a single building as well as rear entry garages. To substantiate the proposed front yard setback and better elevations that are more tied aesthetically to the existing neighborhood. To date, the applicant has not submitted a revised site plan to review, and we have not provided any analysis given that we have not received a new plan. Staff's findings as stated in this staff report are based on the previous analysis that we had completed for the June 11 hearing. Staff has been informed that the applicant will be presenting updated elevation before council This evening. Staff has not reviewed or formally commented on the elevations. I'd like to ask if it is the pleasure of City Council to hear a full presentation of staff or more of a condensed version.

Alan Clendenin

9:27:38PM Condensed because you don't have everything that he's got, is that what I'm hearing?

Christopher Demanche

9:27:44PM That's correct. They will be showing some elevations. They haven't been officially submitted to staff to review, provide analysis. So our staff report reflects what was presented before council in June.

Alan Clendenin

9:27:57PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

9:27:59PM I'm not sure how we could hear this tonight if our staff hasn't had a chance to review the new elevations, if there are new elevations. I'm not comfortable voting on that.

Alan Clendenin

9:28:16PM Mr. Shelby or somebody from the city.

Martin Shelby

9:28:20PM My suggestion, this is a continued public hearing. Perhaps we should hear from the petitioner and see whether it's necessary for you to have to go forward after he explains --

Alan Clendenin

9:28:34PM Mr. Michelini, do you represent --

Martin Shelby

9:28:40PM Yes, councilwoman. I'm sorry.

Lynn Hurtak

9:28:42PM You specifically read from the record -- or from our rules today that if we start a presentation, we need to finish it.

Martin Shelby

9:28:53PM That's true. But that didn't happen on June 11. Council gave specific direction to come back with certain work product that was to have been accomplished by this date. And from what staff says, he has not done that. We're sort of -- I understand your position, and I accept it, it may be inappropriate to hear from the petitioner. At least you should be brought up to date as why he was asked by council to do certain things and he has not.

Alan Clendenin

9:29:28PM In the interest of the record, I'll ask Mr. Michelini to come to the podium. Without getting into the presentation, could you address these concerns, please? What happened was that following the first hearing back in June, the owner and the representatives met with the homeowner association to determine exactly what they were looking for. I have an e-mail from them supporting what we were presenting tonight. The reason that the staff didn't have something to review was because the site plan didn't change. What changed was the elevations that addressed the comments from council and from the neighborhood association. And I have very specific direction from them, which we had planned to present into the record and make those revisions, present it to staff. Normally what would happen would be we would have to present those within 30 days prior to this evening. We didn't receive the changes in the elevations until it was inside the 30 days. And there were no site plan changes. So we didn't have a DRC to review site plan changes. I have the documents ready to present to you. It would be for first reading consideration, and that those changes would have to be made between first and second reading, which we were agreeable to making.

9:31:21PM Mr. Michelini, a couple of points. One, council would not have had sufficient opportunity to review these documents prior to this public meeting and seeing them for the first time, wouldn't be able to give this a fair hearing. We did give very specific instructions, come back with a revised site plan, not just elevations I believe in that first hearing. Association said they didn't want us to make changes to the site plan, and they were the ones driving that. I was surprised as anyone else was because I was prepared based upon the instructions that you all gave me was to come back with a revised plan.

9:32:05PM This doesn't seem ripe to be able to be heard this evening. Mr. Shelby, what are my options?

Martin Shelby

9:32:14PM Well, your options are to grant a continuance if Mr. Michelini Wants it. Or the question then is, in light of what you have in front of you now, do you wish to hear a presentation and then make a vote? Have you had an adequate opportunity to review the record to be able to take action? Expedient, that we probably would appreciate a continuance so that we can, with a motion from council, allowing us to submit the revisions to staff so that they will have an opportunity to comment on it and bring it back to you at a future date.

Luis Viera

9:32:56PM So moved, if I may.

Charlie Miranda

9:32:58PM Second.

Alan Clendenin

9:33:00PM I need a date. I have a motion. I have a second. I need a state from staff of when it can be heard. Hold on. I'll get to you in one second before we take a vote.

Martin Shelby

9:33:18PM The date really has to be agreed to by the petitioner and to be able to be accomplished by the time it comes back. What's there, but they need the time to look at them.

9:33:36PM Mr. Michelini, at that future hearing, will you have the neighbors here to present testimony or what evidence would you have to support your position? Petition as revised.

9:33:51PM And them being all the neighbors? She has a family issue.

Alan Clendenin

9:33:59PM I don't know if this is relevant. I have a motion and second. I need a date.

Christopher Demanche

9:34:09PM Development Coordination. Could staff receive some direction from council? Because when we were here in June, the idea was that there were going to be some revisions made not just to the elevations and site plans. Our intent was to have this go before DRC again, route it to staff, get new comments, feedback, put together a new staff report and then me back before you on this date. But here we are --

Alan Clendenin

9:34:35PM I see you, Councilwoman Hurtak. Let me finish this up.

Lynn Hurtak

9:34:38PM That was my whole point. That's what I want to say.

Alan Clendenin

9:34:42PM I have a motion and a second. I'll get to you for further discussion. Again, I think that's self-evident. Christopher what you said I think is self-evident.

Christopher Demanche

9:34:53PM Development Coordination. And we can't suggest a date to you unless we know whether we'll go back to DRC or if this is just going to be a review of the elevations because we've got --

Alan Clendenin

9:35:07PM I'm going to pause you for a second. I have a motion and a second. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

9:35:12PM Thank you. While I appreciate that a neighborhood wanted or wrote a letter, that was not council's direction. Council's direction was a new site plan. So regardless of what the neighborhood things, we really should be going by what council's direction was. It was very clear. My assumption then would be to put a December date and just go with that. And that would be my direction to Mr. Demanche and the staff is what council asked for, not what the neighborhood did.

Alan Clendenin

9:35:53PM I agree, Councilwoman Hurtak. Staff, can we get a date in December? Is there one available?

Christopher Demanche

9:36:00PM December 10.

Luis Viera

9:36:03PM So move on that date.

Alan Clendenin

9:36:05PM Mr. Michelini, do you concur?

Steve Michelini

9:36:07PM I prefer November if that's possible.

Alan Clendenin

9:36:10PM I think you should take this. [ laughter ]

Christopher Demanche

9:36:22PM Is the direction from council for them to go back to DRC?

Alan Clendenin

9:36:26PM Yes.

Christopher Demanche

9:36:27PM New plans, new elevations, route it, and then we come back to you in December, you have a fresh staff report --

Alan Clendenin

9:36:37PM I believe where we are now, that is what we need to do. Yes. The staff regarding the neighborhood association.

9:36:49PM What you all do back there is fine, but you have council's direction. I have a motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Miranda to continue this item to December 10 at 5:01 p.m. 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Roll call, please.

Guido Maniscalco

9:37:18PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

9:37:20PM Yes.

Naya Young

9:37:22PM Yes.

Luis Viera

9:37:23PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

9:37:24PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

9:37:25PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

9:37:27PM Yes.

The clerk

9:37:28PM Motion carried unanimously to have item 8 continued to December 10.

Alan Clendenin

9:37:35PM Very good. Thank you very much. Previous hearing that I had. 205 fremont. I'm not sure that you read the bonus agreement, the resolution. Okay. You don't. Got it. I'm good. Thank you.

9:37:57PM It's getting late. We know. Last order of business, number 9.

Christopher Demanche

9:38:06PM For the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item 9, rez 26-23. This is a request to rezone 104 South Tampania Avenue and 2522 West Kennedy Boulevard from Planned Development approved for restaurant, office and all CG uses to Planned Development for Medical Office and business and professional office uses. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Meaghan McCarthy

9:38:36PM Planning Commission staff. Rez 26-23, located within the central Tampa Planning district and the Palma Ceia Pines neighborhood. The subject site is located within evacuation zone c. The surrounding area primarily contains commercial development fronting west Kennedy Boulevard, which is a mixed use center and transit emphasis corridor. Moving north and south off the corridor are residential neighborhoods containing a mixture of housing types. The eastern portion of the block front south Armenia Avenue, also a mixed use center and transit emphasis corridor and contains a mixture of commercial and multifamily uses. The subject site is within two future land use designations. The residential 20 designation and the urban mixed use 60 designation. The surrounding area is predominantly designated UMU along 60 West Kennedy Boulevard and South Armenia Avenue, both of which mixed use and transit emphasis corridors. Further to the north and south, transitions to the residential neighborhoods within the r-20 and r 35 flu designations. The proposed PD is utilizing land use policy 5.1.6 to blend entitlements from both flu designations across the site as the site is located along an arterial roadway and is within one half mile of an urban village. Allowing the proposed 10,628 square foot Medical Office to be located anywhere on the site. With this Planning Commission staff request that between first and second readings, the applicant revise the proposed f.a.r. To .63 as a portion of the site is located within the UMU 60 designation, proposing an entryway oriented toward west Kennedy Boulevard with the pedestrian connection to the public sidewalk. Consistent with mixed use policy direction of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. While the proposal includes screening and landscaping along portions of the ground floor parking area, additional screening along the parking area fronting west Kennedy Boulevard would better satisfy the intent of the comprehensive plan policy, directing parking areas to be architecturally compatible and appropriately screened. Furthermore, additional ground floor activation along West Kennedy Boulevard would better reinforce the pedestrian oriented character envisioned for mixed use centers and transit corridors. Enhancement to parking and screening and ground floor would further strengthen the site's contribution to pedestrian environments and corridor character along West Kennedy Boulevard, the proposed development is found to be compatible with the surrounding area and consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

9:41:10PM Thank you. Does council have any questions? Yes, sir. For the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item 9 as I introduced, this item was previously continued at the July 23rd, 2026 council hearing. The applicant since the approval of that continuance has worked with staff. They have revised their parking waiver request in reducing the number of spaces that would be affected. Additionally, they have also reduced the overall size of the building from three stories down to two. We did not go through a presentation in July, so I'll run you through. Briefly here. Subject property is outlined in red. It's located at the southeast corner of the intersection of West Kennedy Boulevard and North Tampania Avenue. Surrounding uses include storefront residential uses and Medical Office uses along, on the north side of West Kennedy Boulevard. Of course, have PD zoning there, CG zoning. South of the subject site, we have RO 1 zoning, where there is an office building. East of the subject site, RM 24 zoning. There is a bank to the immediate east of the subject site, and west of the subject site, we have CG zoning where there is a gas station. Southwest of the subject site we do have an established residential neighborhood. That neighborhood is comprised of single-family detached, semi-detached, attached, as well as multiple family dwelling units. There is a real mix of housing southwest of the subject site. Through this PD rezoning request, the applicant is proposing the redevelopment of the subject property which is 16,938 square feet in area. The site plan proposes a two-story structure with two-way driveway on North Tampania Avenue. There are four parking spaces at the very beginning of the site as you enter it. The remainder of the parking spaces would be located under the two-story building. The proposed height for the building is 45 feet. The parking waiver reduction that the applicant is now proposing is based on 7700 square feet of uses, that's 7700 square feet is broken down by having 2700 square feet of Business Professional Office uses, and 5,000 square feet for Medical Office uses. The site also proposes sidewalks along the north side and the west side, which do connect to existing sidewalks, both along West Kennedy Boulevard and North Tampania Avenue. Primary business access is in the northwest corner of the building. The applicant is requesting a total of three waivers. The first is to section 27-283. This is the parking waiver that they amended from July to reduce the required number of parking from 39 spaces to 31 spaces. That represents a 20.5 percent reduction. The previous waiver was from 64 spaces to 31, 52% reduction in parking. Second waiver, section 27-243. This is to omit the Kennedy Boulevard corridor district streetscape standards as they relate to planting locations and species. And the third waiver is to section 27-243. This is to remove the requirement to place all utility lines underground on the subject parcel and within adjacent rights-of-way. We do have photos to show next. First is of the subject site. This is from the southwest corner looking out towards Kennedy. This is a view of the subject site from Kennedy looking south. View of the subject site, this is from North Tampania Avenue looking east. This is looking north directly across Kennedy. Immediately south of the subject site, this is the office use. This is looking southwest towards that residential neighborhood. Looking northeast and looking east and looking west. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the application. We do find the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations, inconsistent finding is from Development Coordination and transportation and should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve this application, further modifications to the site plan must be completed between first and second reading as stated on the revision sheet. And these revisions will not resolve the issue of transportation's inconsistent finding. Staff is available for questions.

9:46:36PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant. Clay matthews, 100 South Ashley Drive, suite 850. We represent the property owner here, who has joined us. Dariush ghaeenzadeh, he is the owner of the entity that owns the subject property. We are also here with our client's traffic engineer, randy Coen, and his civil engineer Azam Elsheikh. I'll be brief. Staff summarized it very well. Our client is seeking to construct an approximate 7700-square-foot building, comprised of 5,000 square feet of Medical Office and 2700 square feet of professional office. We did continue this matter from July 23rd to address a number of issues raised by staff and reduce the extent of our parking waiver, which we did. Planning Commission has found the proposed rezoning consistent with the comp plan. City staff has found the rezoning to be consistent with the land development regulations under almost all of the disciplines other than transportation, which I think is the main issue. I think Mr. Demanche also noted an inconsistency with Development Coordination, but that was only as to revising a waiver to reflect what's written on the page of the staff report. That's revising waiver language on the staff report, which I sort of consider non-substantive. Substantive, inconsistency out there is the transportation. Inconsistency due to the parking issue. Mr. Demanche noted reduced from 52% to 20.5%. Client in an effort to reduce that waiver after the continuance reduced Medical Office space from 7700 square feet to 5,000 square feet, which reduced the required parking and reduced the waiver from 52% to 20.5%. Which we think is reasonable and supportable. For justification our client engaged Mr. Coen to testify about that, provide support. I know it's late, but put on Mr. Coen briefly to provide justification for that parking waiver. Randy Coen, I have been sworn. Just briefly on parking justification. They asked me to look at parking and determine what was actually needed for this particular project. So I consulted the ite trip parking generation manual published about two years ago to see what the current standards are from them. They would come up with a total of 23 spaces being required for this project while City of Tampa code requires 39. I then looked at the Westshore overlay, which has new parking ratios in it that are most current that are provided and approved by the City of Tampa. And under that code, we would be required to have 28 spaces. Again, they are providing 31 spaces, so I think we have very good assurance that the parking is adequate. Three spaces more than what would be required in the Westshore overlay just down the street from this site. And we would be eight spaces greater than the ite parking generation manual would require. Happy to answer any questions.

9:49:53PM Council have any questions? Hearing none. Just to wrap up with respect to neighborhood compatibility, given Mr. Coen's analysis and testimony, we believe that the office use will certainly be able to operate in a compatible manner with the adjacent nonresidential and residential uses. As Mr. Demanche went through, there's plenty of very intense nonresidential uses around this use given that it fronts Kennedy. He showed you all this, so I won't go through those. Residential neighborhood to the south, we're unaware of any opposition to this project. In fact, we've actually received two letters of support for the project. And from owners in that neighborhood to whom we sent good neighbor notices, including one individual who lives two parcels to the south. So the individual who lives immediately south of the law office that is immediately south of us, he expressed some support for the project. As such, we believe the project will be compatible with all of the surrounding uses, both nonresidential and residential. So with that, we respectfully request your approval and happy to answer any questions you may have.

9:50:58PM Council have any questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Seeing none, motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Maniscalco, would you mind reading this one.

Guido Maniscalco

9:51:11PM Thank you very much. I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 104 South Tampania Avenue and 2522 West Kennedy Boulevard in the City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD, Planned Development, to PD Planned Development, Business Professional Office, Medical Office, providing an effective date, and with the revision sheet, the revised revision sheet.

Alan Clendenin

9:51:38PM Revision between one and two. Very good. Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. Clerk, would you please call the vote?

9:51:56PM Did we lose her?

Lynn Hurtak

9:51:58PM Can you not hear me? Yes.

Naya Young

9:52:03PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

9:52:08PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

9:52:09PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

9:52:10PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

9:52:11PM Yes.

The clerk

9:52:13PM Motion carried with Viera absent at vote. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1st, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

9:52:28PM Thank you. Have a good night. Have a good night.

9:52:32PM That concludes regular scheduled program. New business, Councilman Carlson. Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

9:52:37PM Yes. I have a motion. I move to make a motion to continue the noise motion that stated staff to return to council with acoustic design standards for new and existing operators, particularly those within feet of residential towers from the September 24, 2026 workshop to the October workshop in conjunction with other noise presentation suggestions that we received.

Alan Clendenin

9:53:10PM Can we do the other noise for the same one -- it's councilwoman Hurtak's and mine.

Naya Young

9:53:20PM Is that the one that you already --

Alan Clendenin

9:53:21PM Councilwoman Hurtak? The reason I say this, we have to clear the 24th because of the Charter Review Commission recommendations and any recommendations council makes. Could we move the one on the mufflers, that was mine.

Naya Young

9:53:37PM The reason I moved mine is we got a memo that one of the noise motions being moved. I'm moving mine so they can all be heard together.

Lynn Hurtak

9:53:47PM Yeah, I think I already moved mine.

Alan Clendenin

9:53:51PM Clerk, do you show that? Because it's still showing on the 24th.

Naya Young

9:53:59PM I think we got a memo.

Martin Shelby

9:54:02PM There was a memo. I recall seeing it.

Alan Clendenin

9:54:11PM Let's make a motion to move both. City staff to present suggestions for proposed enforceable rule changes to noise ordinance and current state of law as it relates to vehicle exhaust systems and mufflers including the analysis from collier. It shows Hurtak but it was mine.

Lynn Hurtak

9:54:28PM Yeah, I did not make that.

Alan Clendenin

9:54:30PM Yeah, that was mine. September 24, the second item. We're going to move the second and third item to 10/22.

Martin Shelby

9:54:43PM Change that from Hurtak to Clendenin?

The clerk

9:54:46PM Yeah. So this one -- [inaudible]

Martin Shelby

9:54:55PM The third bullet is --

Alan Clendenin

9:54:58PM We'll move those to 10/22/26 workshop. I have a motion from Councilwoman Young. A second from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Let me inject because we may want to move something else, maybe. We need to add the crc, Charter Review Commission's recommendations to this workshop for discussion. Included in that is if council wants to have something considered, this would be the workshop above and beyond, this would be the workshop to bring those forward. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

9:55:44PM I'm not sure I could do that if I don't know what their recommendations are.

Alan Clendenin

9:55:50PM We have an answer for that.

Martin Shelby

9:55:52PM City Council attorney. I've been informed that the written recommendations will be delivered to City Council via e-mail any day now. Certainly you will have it well in advance of the 17th, next week, so you will have had the opportunity to see them by that point and even if you wish to begin the discussion under new business to see how you're going to approach it at the workshop.

Lynn Hurtak

9:56:21PM Okay. Thank you. That was my only concern.

Alan Clendenin

9:56:23PM So that being said, and this is Councilman Miranda -- I don't know if you feel like how much time we'll need on the workshop. But we have the visit Tampa Bay and the Convention Center. Are they locked into this time?

Martin Shelby

9:56:40PM Says time certain 11:00.

Charlie Miranda

9:56:43PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

9:56:44PM Was this something that they had requested? The visit Tampa Bay and the Convention Center.

Charlie Miranda

9:56:54PM We never met but we talked about we have to do something with the Convention Center or lose a lot of business.

Martin Shelby

9:57:00PM Do you know how long the discussion would be scheduled to take?

Alan Clendenin

9:57:04PM It's about the future Planning, so I have to think it is a lengthier discussion.

Charlie Miranda

9:57:09PM I would imagine it would take 25, 30 minutes.

Alan Clendenin

9:57:13PM On that agenda, we have to talk about -- I don't think -- I think we need to address this at this council and not dump it on the next council, council salaries. We kicked that thing down the block so many times, I feel like that should be addressed.

Lynn Hurtak

9:57:30PM Yes.

Martin Shelby

9:57:30PM Also, I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that you're going to have a report from Abbye Feeley.

Alan Clendenin

9:57:40PM I think that's an important report, too.

Martin Shelby

9:57:42PM You're going to have a fee study at that point, too. So I suspect you're going to --

Alan Clendenin

9:57:47PM Councilman Miranda, would you mind coordinating with the two entities and coming up with a different date? It's not necessarily time critical.

Charlie Miranda

9:57:57PM I'll try to get it done tomorrow.

Alan Clendenin

9:58:00PM That won't be a motion -- visit Tampa Bay and the Convention Center.

Charlie Miranda

9:58:08PM They are all together.

Alan Clendenin

9:58:09PM If you could coordinate with them and see if we can come up with another date. That will clear up the space and give us plenty of time. That being said, vote on the two of those. The other motion, I need to add the Charter Review Commission to the City Council workshop session on October 24, 2026. Motion from Councilman Carlson. Second from Councilwoman Young.

Lynn Hurtak

9:58:33PM You said October. Did you mean September?

Alan Clendenin

9:58:36PM Sorry, September. I did say that. Motion to add it to September 24, 2026 workshop. Motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilwoman Hurtak.

Charlie Miranda

9:58:49PM Give me a date so I can tell them what date you have available.

Alan Clendenin

9:58:53PM November 19 would be perfect. November 19 of this year.

The clerk

9:59:02PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

9:59:05PM Yes. Carlson and Naya Young. All those in favor say aye.

Lynn Hurtak

9:59:10PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

9:59:11PM Opposed. Ayes have it.

Bill Carlson

9:59:15PM We also have the issue where council member Hurtak and I were on the Charter Review Commission. Several of you as council members approved recommendations and now Scott Steady is saying somehow the city attorney at the time didn't include some of that. Did I remember that memo correctly?

Lynn Hurtak

9:59:32PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

9:59:33PM Shouldn't we put that on the same agenda so we can see what was left out.

Alan Clendenin

9:59:36PM Leave it broad enough to include everything. When we talk to Scott to see where that landed.

Martin Shelby

9:59:44PM The other thing is when you have the report, you'll also have the opportunity to discuss next week under new business how you want to move forward to conduct that workshop. I will bring that up with Mr. Steady if you'd like.

Bill Carlson

10:00:01PM We were under the impression that there were catchall descriptions that captured everything, and that's what we represented to the public. If somebody did that by accident or deliberately, I think we need to have a discussion about that.

Martin Shelby

10:00:14PM Refresh my recollection, is that anything that needs to go back on the ballot?

Bill Carlson

10:00:20PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

10:00:21PM It would if -- yes.

Bill Carlson

10:00:23PM We were told there were summaries that were buckets of several things, and now Scott's interpretation is that several things weren't included. I don't know what is behind all this, but we need to make it a transparent discussion.

Martin Shelby

10:00:34PM If I can, Councilman Carlson, Mr. Chairman, I will talk with the city attorney, and I will have direction by next week under new business, and we will have that addressed if it has to be on the 24th.

Alan Clendenin

10:00:49PM I support that direction. I think that will be good. Then we can come back for discussion, at least we'll have the concrete information.

Martin Shelby

10:00:58PM Have the opportunity to vote next week after determining how the city attorney plans on going about this to be able to put it on that workshop on the 24th. You'll be able to add it next week. That subject. I don't know how he intended to proceed on this. I really would like to have him on board before council makes a motion.

Alan Clendenin

10:01:22PM Broad enough to capture the intent.

Bill Carlson

10:01:24PM Ask one question, because I'm not allowed to talk to Councilwoman Hurtak outside. She ended up being the spokesperson -- unofficial spokesperson for Charter Review Commission. Went to the league of women voters and all the different groups. Wasn't it your recollection that the four or five categories captured all the things that we were trying to put?

Lynn Hurtak

10:01:42PM They were supposed to but we were concerned at the time that they wouldn't. Lo and behold --

Alan Clendenin

10:01:53PM Go ahead, Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

10:01:56PM No. can you not hear me? I said lo and behold and kind of went on. It didn't. It didn't incorporate what we wanted it to incorporate, so I think we'll have to be very specific with the amendments that go forward to the ballot and not group them in buckets. I think that will be what will have to happen.

Bill Carlson

10:02:21PM There was a misrepresentation of it. Because council voted --

Lynn Hurtak

10:02:25PM Yeah.

Bill Carlson

10:02:26PM We approved it and council voted on it. Somehow in the city attorney's office or something, it didn't get in there. Same city attorney's office that said it was okay for the city attorney to not have council approve settlement agreements. I have concerns about that that I think go beyond just what needs to be on the ballot.

Martin Shelby

10:02:47PM I'll have a report for you next week.

Alan Clendenin

10:02:49PM I've got two little things --

Naya Young

10:02:53PM I wasn't finished. I have two announcements.

Alan Clendenin

10:03:00PM Good lord. Go ahead.

Naya Young

10:03:03PM You all will be surprised. There are people that actually watch the meetings all the way to the end. They say, oh, thank you so much --

Alan Clendenin

10:03:10PM Your grandmother.

Guido Maniscalco

10:03:11PM My mom.

Naya Young

10:03:13PM There are people out in the community that watch us all the way to the end. Two quick announcements. Already giving out the information earlier today during the CRA meeting, but for the council members and for anyone that is still with us, because I know there are, social action arts funding applications are open and they will be open until September 30 and also the mayor's youth corps which is for students in grades 9, 10, 11 who live in and/or attend a public or private high school within City of Tampa limits. Those applications are available as well and they will be accepted until October 22, 2026 at 5 p.m.

Alan Clendenin

10:03:53PM I need to correct the date on my previous motion. Cm 26-24829, date should have been February 18, 2026 -- I think it's 2027. Under staff reports. Motion from Councilman Miranda, ask he had from Councilman Maniscalco. I just have a date correction. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

10:04:22PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

10:04:23PM Miranda and Maniscalco.

Martin Shelby

10:04:26PM It's been a long evening. You did vote on adding the workshop on the 24th of September? For the charter review.

Alan Clendenin

10:04:37PM Yes.

The clerk

10:04:39PM [Inaudible]

Martin Shelby

10:04:45PM I want to make sure the clerk noted about -- adding the charter review --

The clerk

10:04:51PM [Inaudible]

Martin Shelby

10:04:52PM And a vote.

Alan Clendenin

10:04:55PM How dare you question us. Lastly, I had a previous motion to provide commendation to crc members on a date to be determined. Now determined that date shall be November 5, 2026. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Just me and Naya. That's all I have. Councilman Maniscalco.

Guido Maniscalco

10:05:24PM I'd like to wish mayor dick greco a happy birthday. It's coming up I believe on Monday. I don't know if he watches. But we always think of him. Of course, tomorrow is the 25th anniversary of September 11th. I know several of us will be at the firefighters museum tomorrow morning. It's amazing that a quarter of a century has already passed. But we'll never forget. Of course, there's going to be memorials and events throughout the country, throughout the day as we remember that day. That's it.

Alan Clendenin

10:05:57PM Seems like yesterday. Crazy.

Guido Maniscalco

10:05:59PM Unbelievable. 25 years.

Alan Clendenin

10:06:07PM Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

10:06:09PM None.

Alan Clendenin

10:06:09PM Motion to receive and file -- Councilman Viera.

Luis Viera

10:06:11PM If I may, just a really quick one, if I may. I want to get this on my docket because my last council meeting, I think, is October 22. Long story short, you guys know we have a bunch of historical markers in Hillsborough county, City of Tampa. But there's one that is inconsistent with the one that the county traditionally does, the equal justice initiative marker on the history of racial lynchings in the City of Tampa. It is on the riverwalk. There have been some discussions in other communities on those being moved, et cetera, because I'm a paranoid person, I want staff to report on October 15 on legal I guess it would be on an ordinance where Tampa City Council would get notice before that marker is ever moved from its present location on the riverwalk because that's a very important marker. I want to make sure that it stays there long after we're gone because things are crazy. That's all.

10:07:12PM Yes, ma'am.

Alan Clendenin

10:07:13PM Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor aye.

Lynn Hurtak

10:07:18PM Aye.

Alan Clendenin

10:07:20PM Motion to receive and file.

The clerk

10:07:24PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

10:07:27PM It was to move those two items.

The clerk

10:07:31PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

10:07:32PM They are moving together.

Martin Shelby

10:07:35PM Two separate items.

Alan Clendenin

10:07:36PM Two separate items.

The clerk

10:07:41PM [Inaudible]

Alan Clendenin

10:07:43PM Yep. Motion to receive and file. Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Viera. All in favor, aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. [ 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 community Redevelopment agency - 09/10/26published: September 11, 2026▶ watch on youtube 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