Evening Session — August 20, 2026 FINAL

Alan Clendenin

5:04:14PM Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Tampa City Council. I would like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll.

Charlie Miranda

5:04:20PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

5:04:20PM Here. Young?

Naya Young

5:04:24PM Here. Carlson?

Bill Carlson

5:04:26PM Here.

Alan Clendenin

5:04:27PM Here.

The clerk

5:04:28PM We have a physical quorum.

Alan Clendenin

5:04:30PM Thank you very much. Christopher, would you like to help clear the agenda? File VAC 26-15. There is a request from the applicant to move this item to be heard after item number 2 this evening.

5:04:52PM Can I get a motion? Motion from Councilman Miranda to move item number 1 before item number 3. Item 2 will be the first public hearing. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Christopher Demanche

5:05:06PM Our final item, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Final item to go over is item number 11. File rez 26-41. We're requesting that this item be removed from the agenda.

Alan Clendenin

5:05:20PM May I get a motion? Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. A second from Councilman Miranda to remove item 1 from the agenda. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? I'm sorry. What did I say? Well, two ones. I had it half right. Removing item 11. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you very much. He sat down. I'm assuming that would be all. Okay. Very good. Susan Johnson-Velez is with us. She is not feeling well so she is appearing virtually. She is in the building upstairs and saving us from her nasty viruses. Thank you, Susan for that.

Bill Carlson

5:06:02PM But denying us her great personality and brilliance.

Alan Clendenin

5:06:11PM Well, isn't that special? Very good. We've got that, that, that one. Hey, we have some special guests in the audience tonight. If you are in a blue shirt with the mayor's youth corps, stand up. Very good. [ applause ] where is the fearless leader, molly? Molly, do you want to come up to the dais and say hi? Would you like to tell people who these fine young people are? Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is molly biebel. I am the coordinator of the mayor's youth corps. I have about half of them with me tonight. Some of them missed the meeting earlier in the summer. And some of them just wanted to come back for more. Very happy to have them.

5:07:05PM I keep coming back for more, too. I don't know why. Engagement program run by the City of Tampa. A little plug, applications for next year's class will be online on the web page at tampa.gov just after Labor Day. I would love to see more faces. I'll have them come up and introduce themselves with name, school and grade. Thanks for always welcoming us so well.

5:07:28PM Come forward. Start with your name. My name is Brody Martinez Robinson. A senior at Jesuit High School. My name is Bryce. I'm a junior at Jesuit High School. My name is mayo. I am a junior at Jesuit High School. My name is sy. I go to king high school. I'm a senior right now. Jack o'connor. I'm a senior at plant high school.

5:08:13PM Go panthers. My name is shania Matthew. I'm a junior at Jefferson high school.

5:08:22PM We had to hear from the dragons. My name is siri. I'm a sophomore at middleton high school. My name is Sir Todd. Senior at middleton high school. Thomas. I'm a senior at Tampa catholic. My name is sidney Williams. I'm a senior at Tampa catholic high school.

5:08:54PM Jesuit still has you beat by one. My name is katie. I go to plant high school. My name is ceia shaw. I go to academy at the lakes. I'm a senior. My name is eva. I'm a senior at the Academy of the Holy Names. My name is arly. Senior at Tampa catholic. My name is misha. A senior at berkeley prep. My name is Andrea. I'm a senior at Tampa catholic high school. My name is juliet. I'm a junior at plant high school. My name is madden moore. I'm a senior at plant high school.

5:10:02PM Welcome to Tampa City Council. I hope you enjoy it. We look forward to having you back here in the future in whatever roles you pursue as you move through life. So thank you. We have something else? Do I know what's going on?

Naya Young

5:10:29PM We have one more intern that is visiting us from harvard university. Lily, would you introduce yourself. My name is lily. I'm a senior at harvard college. I'm interning here for the rest of the summer. Thank you. I'm with Ms. Naya Young.

Bill Carlson

5:10:49PM She was supposed to be an intern for me but Naya stole her.

Naya Young

5:10:53PM That is so not true. Trying to one up me.

Bill Carlson

5:11:00PM When we introduced her to Charlie, she can't say she's going to harvard. Has to say she's going to the Jefferson of universities.

Alan Clendenin

5:11:09PM Okay. Enough of the nonsense. Can I get a motion to open the public hearings? Motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. If you are here tonight and you are going to provide testimony in any of the public hearings, I need you to stand now, raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk. [Oath administered]

5:11:40PM Very good. We are hearing item number 2.

Martin Shelby

5:11:45PM Mr. Chairman, may I be heard? Martin Shelby, City Council attorney. Good evening. Item number 2 is a quasi-judicial proceeding. When we get to item number 1, just a reminder, I will remind you that it is non-quasi.

Alan Clendenin

5:12:04PM We're jumping. I was thoroughly briefed ahead of time.

Martin Shelby

5:12:12PM I won't admit I was, too.

Alan Clendenin

5:12:15PM Very good. Chris, you are up.

Christopher Demanche

5:12:16PM Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item 2 is rez 26-08. This is a request to rezone 17700 West Courtney Campbell Causeway from Planned Development allowing mixed use residential multiple family and hotel uses to Planned Development to allow for hotel residential multiple family and all commercial general uses. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff. Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Our first case tonight is in the Westshore Planning district. The subject site is within evacuation zone a. It is also within the coastal high hazard area. Here is our adopted future land use map. The subject site is designated as urban mixed use 60, which is a high density land use category, encourages mixed use and a broad range of uses. The surrounding area is predominantly UMU 60. There is some CMU 35 to the east of the subject site. Just for reference, this is the former godfrey hotel site and council approved a rezoning just to the south of the site on the old rusty pelican site I believe it was in 2025. The Planning Commission staff found the request to be comparable and compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area includes a mix of uses including multifamily condos and like commercial development. More intensive development is generally located south of the Courtney Campbell Causeway where we have less intensive development to the north of the causeway. The proposed 220-foot building height would be compatible with the surrounding development pattern in the area. As mentioned in 2025, the rusty pelican site, which is located here, rusty pelican site located to the south of the site was approved for the same 220-foot building height as proposed through this application. Applicant also ventured into a bonus provision agreement with the city. Staff found that the request addresses the mixed use centers and corridor design policies in the comprehensive plan. The proposed design places the building close to the right-of-way and connects the building entrances to internal sidewalks and crosswalks. Connections are also provided -- provide access to Courtney Campbell trail along the right-of-way. The site also provides bicycle parking and landscape plan proposes shade trees along the right-of-way and throughout the site. These design features are supported by the comprehensive plan. Finally, the request advances several housing policies as well as infill policies in the plan. The plan encourages residential development on vacant and underutilized parcels to support Tampa's housing needs. Staff has noted a minor correction to the site area that needs to be made between first and second reading. That correction is included on the city's revision sheet. Based on these considerations and with that revision, the Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and that concludes my presentation.

Alan Clendenin

5:15:27PM Any questions of the Planning Commission? Hearing none, next.

Christopher Demanche

5:15:46PM Again, for the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. We will start over with an aerial view of the subject site. Subject property is outlined in red. It's located on the south side of West Courtney Campbell Causeway. It's also located west of North Rocky Point Drive. Looking at the surrounding area, it is surrounded to the north by Planned Development zoning approved for office uses. South of the subject site we have RM 24 zoning. This site is developed with residential multiple family. East of the subject site we have the shriners. Zoned PD. Shriners national headquarters site. And then west of the subject site we have Tampa Bay. We have West Courtney Campbell Causeway and then further west we have a Planned Development site approved for restaurant uses. As Planning Commission staff noted, this site was previously home to the godfrey hotel. It is currently vacant. Next, we have site plan. The subject site total 6.61 acres. The applicant is proposing a total of 936,750 square feet of hotel and residential multiple family uses, specifically they are providing 503 residential multifamily dwelling units and 275 hotel units. The subject property would be accessed by a two-way driveway on the south side of Courtney Campbell Causeway. This two-way driveway would provide vehicular access throughout the site. There's also pedestrian connection points throughout the site by way of sidewalks as well as crosswalks to many of the structures proposed. The site proposes tower one on the north side of the property. This is proposed at 18 stories or 220 feet in height. It's proposed for hotel as well as residential multiple family uses. East of tower one, we have a stand-alone parking garage. That's proposed at four stories or 46 feet in height. The tower itself has many outside amenities, including pool and greenspace areas. As you work further south on the subject property, we have tower two as well as tower three. Both of these are proposed at 16 stories or 174 feet in height. They would be specifically for residential multiple family units. There's also a parking structure located between towers two and three. That's proposed at six stories or 78 feet in height. In addition to what I've shown on the site plan, the applicant is also requesting a bonus provision agreement to develop the property at a floor area ratio of 3.25, provided LEED silver certification is secured and utility relocation of undergrounding utilities with all amenities is conducted. The associated builder provision agreement is presented concurrently with the application. Next, we do have some elevations to show. First set of elevations is specifically for tower one. The applicant is listed as bay side, north elevation east and south. Provide examples of what tower one would look like. Next, we have the stand-alone parking garage. This is also on the north side of the property. Gives you an idea of what that also looks like. Next, we also have towers two and three. In looking at these elevations here, you can see the incorporation of the parking garage between towers two and three. This application also includes two waivers. The first is to section 27-283. This is to reduce the required number of parking from 1,152 spaces to 1,028 spaces. This represents an 11% reduction in parking. The second waiver is to section 27-283. This is to reduce the required number of loading berths from 5 to 2. Next we have some photos. These photos when taken were showing the godfrey hotel being torn down. One last shot of the site. This is from the south looking north. And then looking across Courtney Campbell Causeway, we have the parking garage there and office buildings. This is an example of the multifamily to the south. To the east we have the shriners national headquarters and west we have looking at the bay and then we have that restaurant Planned Development zone site further west. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed this petition and finds the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. The inconsistent finding is -- results from the proposed waivers from the transportation technical standards. Should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve this application, further modifications to the site must be completed by the applicant between first and second readings of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet within the staff report. And these revisions will not resolve the issues related to transportation's inconsistent findings. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:22:12PM Any questions? Hearing none. Applicant. I do have a presentation.

5:22:34PM State your name. I have been sworn. Council, This project I think is a great one because it shows us where the city is headed and where rocky point is headed. Me personally, rocky point has been a little bit of a head scratcher. You think from an urban design perspective it could be a really, really cool place but it's not quite there yet. Our hope is that projects like this and a couple of others coming is that we're going to see rocky point over the next decade be redeveloped and be a much more thriving and walkable place. Our team is here if you have questions. Engineering team, design team. Staff did a great job. I'll give you the short version here. Again, we're on rocky point, south side of Courtney Campbell. This is the former godfrey hotel which we all know, frankly, it's been an eyesore. It's also been, this is kind of an unusual project for me because when we had our community meeting, we actually had people come and say, thank you. We want to see something that really activates this area. So we get a lot of really positive feedback. The godfrey has been closed since September 2024. UMU 60, which is pretty dense and intense category. Our request is for 3.25 f.a.r. We do have a bonus agreement for roughly 500 multifamily units and 275 hotel keys. The site plan is a little bit hard to follow. Give you an idea of where our three towers are, the north tower, that's where our hotel, the residential, the restaurants, the amenities, the rooftop amenities, that's where that will be. And then the multifamily apartments are going to be on the south side. So we have been working with hilton to be a curio collection hotel. Again, you can see this is a rendering of what the tower one on the north side is going to look like. These are our multifamily towers. Again, our design team is here if you'd like to hear more about how we came up with this concept. We really wanted to introduce something new to Tampa Bay. And higher end product for rocky point. We are asking for a couple of waivers. Again, this is our only inconsistency. These are pretty normal waivers that you all see in the normal course. Parking reduction we're requesting is 11%. Still over what ite would recommend. Our landscape and buffering, we worked really hard on this to exceed code. And one of the really exciting opportunities here, this is conceptual because we have to work with -- this is an unusual area because the bay bottom in this area is privately owned. We have to work with that private landowner that we have a lease with as well as dep, eps and S.W.F.W.M.D. We're going to work with all those agencies. And the hope is that we can work out a beach renourishment plan to get rid of some seawalls. I can't promise you the seawall will be completely gone, but this is what we're striving for. Now, the bonus provision agreement, I'm pretty excited about this one, too, because you all don't see this a lot. We're committing to LEED certification, LEED silver certification on at least one building. We want to do that for all the buildings, but we'll do it for at least one. And the bonus calculation is over $5 million. So that's the investment that's going to go back in the property to make sure it is more secure, more resilient, and more energy efficient. We thought that was really appropriate for an area like rocky point. We also maintained the trail connections, so we're going to enhance those. Again, there is limited -- there are limited opportunities on rocky point to do that today, but our hope is, again, that we're nudging things in the right direction and doing certainly what we can to maintain the connections for mobility. Again, we had a really good community open house. We got good feedback. We got good turnout and we were able to incorporate some of those concepts into the ultimate design plan. So with that, again, our team is here. If you have questions, please let us know. I did want to mention that we submitted into the quasi-box, we had four letters of support over the last couple of days for this project. We also got a general letter of support from the Westshore alliance because they would really like to see redevelopment of rocky point because the money from the redevelopment can go back into the infrastructure for this area. So our hope is to more closely align rocky point with the goals of the Westshore alliance. With that, I'm here for any questions.

5:27:41PM Jake, my only question is about the LEED certification, restricting to only one building getting the bonus provision. Can you explain why just the one and not committing to all three? Our goal is to get to all three, going to three as you'll see in the bonus agreement, the cost of that is over $10 million. The way the bonus calculation works out, we know we'll be investing at least half of that. So over 5 million just for the one building. What I can tell you is I had hoped to stand here before you today with a new comp plan because the new comp plan has the green building bonus. So that was the balance that we had to strike with the way the current bonus works versus the new comp plan. Our hope is to be back before you in about six months once we get the new comp plan in place and be able to provide that commitment for all the buildings.

5:28:36PM Okay. I'm up on LEED. If we can get there with the new comp plan, then this would be and our hope will be one of the largest LEED projects in Tampa Bay.

5:28:52PM Exactly.

5:28:58PM I think you have a lot of support on council to get that comp plan through. The LEED certification -- I think anybody listening in the developer community, looking at LEED and undergrounding utilities, at least for myself, those are two really big issues when we look at the bonus agreements. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Going once, going twice, gone. I have a motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilwoman Young. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Carlson, would you like to read this one?

Bill Carlson

5:29:43PM Move file rez 26-08, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 7700 West Courtney Campbell Causeway in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD Planned Development to PD Planned Development, hotel, residential multiple family and all CG uses, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

5:30:10PM [Inaudible] second from Maniscalco. All those in favor aye. Ayes have it.

The clerk

5:30:18PM Motion carried Viera absent. Second reading and adoption September 17, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall, 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:30:34PM One down. Nine to go. We are going back to the future. Item number 1. A reminder this is a non-quasi-procedure.

5:30:56PM Start with your name and it will come up. VAC 26-15. The applicant is Fox International LLC. representative's name is Gardner brewer Hudson. Property address is 2602 east 4th avenue and 2701 east 2nd avenue. This is a proposed vacating request to vacate two sections of right-of-way. One being an alleyway located north of 4th avenue, south of 5th avenue, east of 26th street and west of 27th street. And a portion of 1st avenue right-of-way located of North Adamo Drive, of South Second Avenue, east of 27th street and west of lee Roy selmon expressway connector. This application was filed May 14, 2026. Right-of-way is currently unimproved. This right-of-way was created by subdivision plat. The existing right-of-way for both sections together is approximately 59,644 square feet. The reason for the request is the alley and 1st avenue vacation is necessary to allow unified and efficient redevelopment of surrounding blocks. Historical aerial records reveal the alley also likely never used for a public thoroughfare. Here is an aerial of both sections of right-of-way requested to be vacated in yellow. The alley here and portion of 1st avenue here. This is the plat in which the alley was dedicated. And a separate -- another plat in which 1st avenue was dedicated here. Here is an image of the approximate location of the alleyway looking east from 26th street. Again, the other side looking west from 27th street. Approximate location of the alleyway.

5:33:11PM It looks very usable.

Ross Samons

5:33:15PM Yeah. Here is looking on East Adamo Drive at the approximate location of 1st avenue. And more northeast again on Adamo Drive because you can't get to the other side to take the image. Staff have no objections to the vacating request. Easement reservations are required by wastewater, TECO and TECO peoples gas. Special conditions, natural resources must comply with chapter 27 as regards tree preservation and site design for any improvements placed adjacent to trees in vacated area. I would like to point out, you do have a staff report that did say there was an objection by wastewater. That has since been changed and now they are reserving that easement. That concludes my presentation.

Alan Clendenin

5:34:06PM Staff have any questions? Hearing none, yes, Sir. Tyler Hudson. Address is 400 North Ashley Drive. Me plugging this in will take longer than this presentation. I want to thank ross for all their help with this right-of-way area because it is a little bit of an interesting part of the city. Good?

5:34:36PM Yep. The first thing we're doing is vacating an alley that's on the north side of this property. Block 8 of the old Harris terminal. This does end up in a dead end. The alley doesn't continue to go. You can see here, there's been an enormous amount of right-of-way vacating over the years here. Really no discernible grid whatsoever. Which I think you will be pleasantly surprised for the next slide but what will be more in the pd-a that's before your consideration tonight that this vacating has been filed for. The second area in the bottom we sometimes affectionately call this the no-man's-land. If you think about a multiple layer cake, most of the land down there is owned or controlled by F.D.O.T. With considerable expense and considerable time. Darryl shaw and casa ybor have acquired rights from CSX they no longer need. As many know, that's not an easy process. Grateful to CSX for their cooperation there. We think there is potentially a little piece of completely unusable really paper right-of-way down there for the city. That's why we are asking to vacate that just to eliminate any doubt about who owns and who can use it. Again, this is legislative. Anything goes. I'll go ahead and give a sneak peek of what is going to be discussed in the next item, which is the grid we're seeking to reimpose in this area that's been lost in the decades prior due to -- due to the nature of the use, prior scrap yard use, big open spaces, not convenient to have roads going through it. The areas we are vacating, there's common ownership on all sides. There's really no major issues that have been presented from the departments that review this. Obviously, we're going to be retaining easements for anyone that needs them. We'll release those in connection with permits. On g-8, obviously people are fond of alleys. A lot of good alleys in ybor west of here. The project we affectionately call place 1 a couple of months ago. One of the reasons vacating alley on the g 8 block on the northwest is so important is to make sure we have enough room underground for the stormwater vaults to make sure everything is underground, out of sight and not in a large surface pond which really would not be appropriate. We're very happy there are no objections from anyone. There was one from people's gas, which once we confirmed with them that as usual, if we do need to change a gas line, we'll cut it, cap it, they had no objection. Kind of a clean sheet there. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

5:37:19PM Does council have any questions? Hey, CSX, here's my number. Call me. [ laughter ] we have issues. Very good.

5:37:31PM Anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none. Motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Young, would you read this, please?

Naya Young

5:37:43PM File VAC 26-15, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida, vacating, closing, discontinuing and abandoning that alleyway located north of 4th avenue, south of 5th avenue, east of 26th street, and west of 27th street as dedicated by the plat of Harris terminals and that portion of 1st avenue right-of-way located of North Adamo Drive, south of 2nd avenue, east of 27th street and west of lee Roy selmon expressway connector as dedicated partially by the plats of Harris terminals and archer subdivision all in Tampa, Hillsborough county, Florida, and as more fully described in section 2 hereof subject to certain covenants, conditions, restrictions as more particularly set forth herein. Providing for enforcement and penalties for violations, providing for definitions, interpretations and repealing conflicts, providing for severability, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

5:38:35PM Motion from Councilwoman Young, second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

5:38:41PM Motion carried with Viera absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026, At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

5:38:58PM Item number 3.

LaChone Dock

5:39:02PM Good afternoon, chairman and council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item 3 is rez 26-42. This request I felt it would be better just to show you. You've had a peek at it with the last item. Just to show you the parcels instead of naming out all the parcels included, this is the boundary of the project area. So the areas that are identified in red are contained within this pd-a boundary. So you have 26th street to the west, adamo to the south. You have the connector to the east, and then the CSX is located to the north. That is the boundary for this area. So the request is to rezone the property from ih industrial heavy to pd-a Planned Development alternative. And this would allow for all residential types, all CI uses. In addition to recycling materials and goods. I'll turn it to Planning Commission to give their report.

Danny Collins

5:40:03PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Our next case in the central Tampa Planning district, specifically the Historic East Ybor and Gary neighborhood, the subject site is within the coastal high hazard area and within evacuation zone a. The site was recently amended earlier this year under ta/cpa 25-10. The entire site is recognized under the urban mixed use 60 designation. Which is higher density mixed use land use category in the City of Tampa. Just generally, the surrounding area is industrial. We have heavy industrial to the east of the subject site as well as some to the north and to the west of the site. The proposed PD includes just under 3 million square feet of residential commercial intensive and recycling uses with a maximum f.a.r. Of 2.75. This level of intensity can be considered within the UMU 60 designation. The applicant has agreed to add a note to the site plan between first and second readings describing how the site will achieve 2.75 f.a.r. Through the vertical mixed use provision in the plan. The surrounding area has undergone is significant transition from historically industrial development to higher density mixed use development. While the existing development pattern east of north 26th street remains predominantly industrial, several comprehensive plan map amendments have redesignated the surrounding area to UMU 60 as well as other mixed use plan categories. In the design book, the applicant has addressed the mixed use corridor design policies relating to building placement, streetscape design, pedestrian activity, building orientation, and architectural character. Collectively, these commitments establish the pedestrian oriented development pattern that supports walkability and advances the intent of the mixed use centers and corridors. The pd-a also advances the city's housing goals by providing additional housing opportunities to help meet the city's housing needs. Staff did note in our report, policy 1.1.7 that prohibits new special needs facilities, including hospitals in the coastal high hazard area. When we reviewed this request, we reviewed it for the totality of uses that can be considered under CI, and that was one of the uses. I did want to note that. Overall, staff found the request supportive of many policies in the comprehensive plan, including those related to mixed use, housing, and design. Overall found it consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and that concludes my presentation.

Alan Clendenin

5:42:51PM Councilman Miranda, do you have questions?

Charlie Miranda

5:42:53PM No, I'm sorry.

Lynn Hurtak

5:42:54PM Yes. Can looks like the coastal high hazard area line goes all the way up to 10th avenue, is that correct?

Danny Collins

5:43:02PM I believe the entire site is within the coastal high hazard area.

Lynn Hurtak

5:43:07PM Yes, because it goes all the way up to 10th. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

5:43:10PM Okay. Very good. Thank you, Sir. LaChone.

LaChone Dock

5:43:18PM Thank you, again, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Again, I'll put up the zoning map for you. This request, again, would allow all residential types in addition to all CI commercial intensive uses as well as the recycling materials and goods used on this property. Anywhere within this boundary. This is a pd-a, a Planned Development, that is before you. This is the area contained within this pd-a boundary. I'll show you the site plan momentarily. You can see the zoning of ih. The uses are surrounding the property are consistent with the zoning that exists, that industrial zoning. To the west on the west side of 26th street, you have the Ybor City district, the special district. North of the subject property, you have more industrial with that industrial general zoning to the north. So what I like to do is just review with you momentarily about a pd-a and the standards and the criteria with the pd-a. This is the site plan submitted by the applicant. This is what you saw earlier. You can see that the development is proposed in 11 blocks. The blocks have been identified as shown. With the pd-a, it's a little bit different than the PD, which normally comes before this council in that you are provided an overall boundary in the pd-a. And then there is a set of entitlements that go along with that boundary. The applicant with the pd-a approval is allowed for phased development. At each phase of development, the applicant or the developer must submit for incremental site plan review. That is an administrative review. At the time of that review, that plan, which is more like a PD site plan, it has that detailed information, the building placement, the parking placement, the curb cuts, all of that is within that incremental plan. That plan as compared to the overall pd-a. And those entitlements that were approved. So at each phase of development, the developer must submit not only the overall entitlements but the drawdown to show what they are proposing and what remains. This is the development entitlement chart. We've had a couple of pd-as recently, so council may be familiar with it. But I just wanted to show you, this is a part of the site plan and the design book. And this shows the actual blocks identified consistent with the site plan, and then it gives you the proposed development entitlements. For residential, there is a maximum of 522 dwelling units, retail, 49,000 square feet. The commercial is 1,332,128 square feet. Hotel is 200 rooms. And then hospital, there is over 800 square feet allowed. And at each phase, a table such as this would be provided, showing what is proposed at each stage of incremental and what remains as far as the entitlements. And that is included in the design book also. The design guideline books also has further detail regarding building placement, build-to zones, setbacks, all of those are incorporated in the design book. And then I have a few pictures of the site and surrounding. Some of the parcels are either vacant or they have industrial or commercial use on it. So this is block -- this at the northeast corner at 4th and 27th. This is a picture showing you block g 8 which is over here. I tried to get a couple of blocks in one view so we don't have too many pictures. This is west of the subject property. This is on 26th street between 3rd and 4th avenue. This is the west side of block g 9. This is the west boundary. This is on 27th street. This is south of 3rd avenue. You can see at the end where this dead ends. And then here is another view. This is block h 10. This is near the south, that boundary. This is if you're looking east towards the crosstown in the distance, and that also is a dead end there. This is southwest -- this is the southwest boundary of the subject property. This is at 27th street and 2nd avenue. So with that, there is one waiver requested, and that is to reduce the tree retention on the property. And DRC staff has reviewed the petition and finds the request consistent. There are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any questions.

Alan Clendenin

5:48:38PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:48:39PM You said the waiver is for a tree retention. What is the request?

LaChone Dock

5:48:44PM The request is from the required 50% to zero percent. I believe the applicant may expand on it. It may be requested just in case it is needed. This is a phased development. So as future phases come online, it may be required. You must receive the waiver now at this stage. If not, you cannot go back and get the waiver administratively.

Alan Clendenin

5:49:16PM Thank you. Applicant? Avi friedman-shaw with casa ybor, 1313 east 8th avenue, suite 200. As I mentioned, I represent casa ybor. I'm here for the rezoning of the east ybor medical district. This is approximately 25 acres just east of Ybor City historic district requesting to rezone from ih, industrial heavy, to pd-a, Planned Development alternative. For this site, we envision this to be primarily a medical district. This rendering that you see in front of you, this is from Adamo Drive looking north, up 28th street which does not exist today. The image on the building on the right side of the image is envisioned to be a conceptual hospital use. We expect this to be a hospital built and maintained by Tampa general. Tampa general is Planning a hospital on the east side of this district. They already operate 32,000-square-foot innovation hub in Ybor City and this will act as extension of the Tampa medical research district from South Tampa to the east side of Ybor City. As LaChone mentioned, these are quick images of the site today. These were taken last Tuesday. This is very recent. Just a few things I'll note for you today. One, the site is primarily characterized by two large industrial users. So it's not a smattering of small industrial tenants. It's two very large users who primarily engage in heavy metals recycling. As the City of Tampa staff mentioned that recycling is one of the uses maintained on the site. That's because there is a gap in time between when we rezone the site and when those users vacate. There's no intention to maintain recycling on the site for the foreseeable future. The other thing I'll note is that the site currently lacks any level of significant pedestrian infrastructure. So you'll see in the photos there is no streetlights. There are no sidewalks. There is no significant storm drainage. It's fairly industrial. And we would love to change that moving forward. The site, as LaChone mentioned, runs from the crosstown connector on the to East Adamo Drive to the south, 5th avenue and the CSX tracks to the north. And then 27th and 26th streets on the west. There is no existing dwelling units on the site. It exists entirely outside of the Ybor City local historic district. On the land use, you'll see that it's just under 3 million square feet. The vast majority of the uses are intended to be hospital and medical and Medical Office uses. Unlike some of the other larger zonings we've brought over the past few years which are primarily residential, this one is the opposite. This is primarily medical and Medical Office. The other uses on the site here, residential, hotel, retail, these are intended to be ancillary to and in service of that primary medical use, for example, hotel can be built in order to serve relatives of folks who are visiting the hospital there. We're coming to the council for pd-a for a couple of reasons. One, creates a cohesive design framework. Instead of 10 or 11 individual projects, you have a cohesive block design that ties these projects together. Two, it creates a requirement for a meaningful public right-of-way and open space. Those are commitments that are made as part of the pd-a. So we're able to commit to those today. Three, it allows us to create shared parking structures that can be shared between blocks instead of each block parking themselves. This is an image. It's a conceptual rendering of 28th street which will be created looking north with the hospital on the right-hand side. This here, this street grid, this is one of the core reasons we're asking for a pd-a today. As LaChone and Tyler mentioned, there's not much in the way of street grid on the site today. A lot of the streets do not exist today. North 28th street, intended to be a front door of the hospital but also a large primary spine of the district, that will be all new and built by the applicant and not by the City of Tampa, as well as all the upgraded public utility structure, that is on the applicant and not on the City of Tampa. There is a hierarchy of streets here with pedestrian forward main streets and number of streets reserved for trash, loading, curb cuts, things of that nature. There is required covered bike storage on any building over 20,000 square feet and that is the majority of buildings in this district. I'm going to pause here very briefly. If you'll see this cut-out on the left-hand side, this image, this is a side view of the 28th street. Two things I'll draw your attention to. One is the wide sidewalk. Typical city sidewalks are about five feet in diameter. These will be between six and eight feet, so a little bit larger. Each side, also a requirement for either landscaping or -- which provides opportunity for larger shade trees and benches in the public right-of-way. There is a requirement for two and a half acres of open space. That's about 100,000 square feet of parks and open space, which is a mix of block scale and smaller pocket parks scattered throughout the district. One thing I'll note, this is adjacent to the crosstown connector. That's not part of this pd-a zoning. But THEA has been really open and receptive to coordination and finding better uses for the underside of that highway there rather than, for example, just keeping it as underside of the highway. It would be nice to connect those to greenspaces in some way. Finally, I'll just mention that for us and for the City of Tampa, we think this is a great opportunity to bring a lot of employment and health care jobs to the city. Tampa general can speak to that in more depth, but we're excited to bring that health care and housing within -- within reach of folks who live in the Ybor City and surrounding downtown areas but because this site is located at the confluence of Tampa's major highways, the crosstown connector, selmon, i-4, 275, it allows folks from much farther afield to travel here very easily to receive the health care, otherwise live or work in the district. That's all I have. Happy to answer any specific questions for council.

5:55:42PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

5:55:43PM Thank you. I think the Planning Commission brought up a really good point. One of the big problems with Tampa General Hospital right now is that in a major storm, it can become impassable. It's hard to get there, if not impossible due to the bridges and the water. Why would you put a hospital solely within a coastal high hazard area? What I will say, Councilwoman Hurtak, is that the location of this hospital is served by a major evacuation route on Adamo Drive. More importantly, it does provide that access for all times when it's not a huge hurricane going on to provide easy access for folks much farther afield as opposed to locating it in the middle of an area not near a highway system. I would say those are the biggest reasons. Because it is near the evacuation route and the transit areas.

5:56:35PM I think the bigger question for me is, like -- I mean, that's been a huge issue for tgh. As they are building, they are not starting a lot of their actual o.r. Rooms, all that stuff on the island. I believe it's 30 feet up. What are the protections that tgh is going to put in? It's not just tgh. If you are putting an entire medical center here, it's like overall, I mean, are we leaving the first floor with nothing there? Like, what are the actual securities people are going to have, especially doctors' offices. We see it on Swann Avenue right now. Those folks have been flooded out twice and those are doctor offices. I heard from several of those doctors multiple times. I really want to know that if I vote for this, that there is a plan so that there isn't anything medical that could possibly in the next 50 years, you know, climate change is a serious issue. I want people to be able to reach this hospital when they need it. And that will be during a, you know, another hurricane, which we will have here. Executive vice president at Tampa general. We take that really seriously. At Tampa general, we've invested several million dollars, hundreds of millions, actually, within the infrastructure of the hospital. So you mentioned a couple of them. But I'll bring up a few and stop me if it's too much detail. We learned from the hurricanes in the community down in fort myers, they actually lost water. So that was one of the things they did not plan on that caused them -- so we invested over $15 million. We have two deep Wells. Everything we do, we have redundancy for. We have two deep Wells right now at Tampa general. If we lost water as an example, we could run the hospital, the entire hospital with our own water supply. We did the same with power. We raised the entire energy plant up over 30 feet so we can power some hospitals, you'll hear them say we do the emergency outlets. We can power the entire hospital with our own energy plant. I also personally about a year and a half ago went to Norway to meet with the CEO of aqua fence. You've probably seen the video that went viral that tgh has but we work really closely with them on the entire development and how to protect the hospital and the island because we feel like the health care needs to be where the patients are, and we're going to do what we need to protect that. We had aqua fence move their corporate headquarters to Tampa based on the visit. They are here local working with us as we do certain projects, and we were recognized by FEMA and others and have the governor's office reach out to us, like, how are we protecting so they could replicate some of the things that we're doing. I know that was long-winded, and I apologize, but very invested in the infrastructure around the hospital to be a resilient health care organization.

5:59:59PM That's fine for current tgh. I'm talking about where the new hospital is going. It's great that you're using those fences, but aqua fences are also -- I mean, it's preventing the water to get in. But you're putting that water on to someone else's house most likely. Aqua fence has a place, but it would be better not to need it. So what is the plan to make this tgh facility and the medical center surrounding it to not have these issues for the next 50 years? We're working on our tower right now, the tower that's being built for advanced transplantation and neurology services. The entire first floor was purposeful in design. There's no patient care on the first floor. That would be the same. The patient care is not delivered until it's that higher level above where there would be any flooding impact or any of that. Again, part of that resilient. We can't go back to the existing hospital and do that, but as we've designed the future additions to the campus, that's part of the design we would incorporate into a new structure.

6:01:09PM That's all mechanicals, all major issues. Everything will be 30 feet and above? Even with the tower today, there's nothing on that first floor. There's no mechanics, no mechanical rooms. There's nothing that would cause to us have to vacate that facility.

6:01:29PM Thank you. I really appreciate that, because I think the community is very concerned about that overall because we want people to be able to access care, even with flooded streets. I had another question, what about the medical facilities that will surround it? There are doctors' offices. If this is the kind of medical center we want to create, are we building from 30 feet up? How do we see this really fitting in for -- I mean, I know some of the things that you use are incredibly heavy, mri equipment, like, all of that is incredibly heavy. So putting that 30 feet up is quite something. I would love to hear more about not just the hospital but the surrounding medical district. What is the plan to make sure it is also protected from coastal high hazard flooding. I want to bring in our civil engineer who has been looking -- 201 north franklin. As mentioned before, this entire site is coastal high hazard. Elevation is at elevation 12. Obviously, this is a pd-a, we have not gotten to that. We have severely and heavily thought about it. At that point in time, almost everything in the block has to be one foot above the base flood. Everything new is going to be built at least one foot above the base elevation 13. Your point, whether the hospital which will have to be two feet above and Medical Office minimum of one foot above depending on what it will be, all that will have to be thought about. Not to mention the area sits in the stormwater advisory list for the city. There are already modeling efforts being done currently to look at that. There will have to be a box culvert, exists today, have to be relocated. Look for additional capacity to open up, to allow the whole area to freely drain to allow accessibility during storms. Hasn't been done yet, but that will be the next step.

6:03:39PM I wanted to make sure that was of particular -- just a place of particular interest of mine. Thank you.

6:03:57PM Sorry. I had one more thing. That was one that was important to me, but also, you mentioned this is going to be more of a work facility or this is a work district. I really love that you mentioned the protected bike parking. Obviously, it's something near and dear to my heart. But if we're talking about work environments, then comes the secondary layer which is shower facilities for people that do tend to bike and protected bike parking for employees. Is that being thought of at all? That's definitely something I would say is being thought of. I know a lot of folks currently in the Ybor City area or in nearby Hyde Park who bike to work. Their biggest complaint is I don't have somewhere to shower once I get there. With respect to larger facilities such as tgh, that's something that I'm sure they and their employees are looking at and would like to include. When we think of other -- covered bike parking is first step. We would like to include shower facilities for the individuals. It's not part of the rezoning but something we are absolutely keeping top of mind as we move forward.

6:05:06PM Thank you. I know it's not part of the rezoning but it's my chance to mention it. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:05:11PM Any further questions? Hearing none, is there anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Yes, sir. I'll keep my comments brief because I've mentioned quite a few. I would just say we've been working with the team on this project and trying to understand, we really feel, we're in support of this, in full support of the rezoning as our academic medical center is approximately two miles away. We're building a tower today. But as a safety net hospital, it's basically a mathematical equation for us. We have more patients coming to us for the complex care than we can actually take care of in the facility. Although we are proud of the tower in the next three to five years, we know we're going to need some other type of facility. This project is really important to us, not only for the health care piece and the mixed use, but also we feel as an economic driver to the community. I just wanted to thank you for your time and just wanted to show the support from Tampa general and Florida health science center. Thank you.

6:06:21PM Thank you. Are you wishing to speak? I am the president of the Tampa medical and research district and also senior vice president Tampa general. Thank you for having me. From the Tampa medical and research district perspective, we are here to help support the rezoning of this initiative. Focused on positioning Tampa as a national leader in health care research, innovation, and life sciences. And using the strengths as strategic economic engine for the region. That means attracting companies, investment and talent, creating jobs and growing Tampa's economy. East ybor rezoning is an important part of that vision. Tampa general, one of the main founding anchors of the tmrd is Planning to develop the hospital on the property in the future as we talked about, further connecting ybor, downtown and the broader districts. But successful innovation districts are more than about one single institution like tgh, they need a vibrant, connected place where people want to live, work, build companies and invest. This initiative is about building a hospital. But as the group has mentioned already, it's also about building that mixed use facility usage around it. Darryl shaw's vision for ybor helps create that environment and strengthens our ability to compete nationally for talent and investment. On behalf of the tmrd, we respectfully support this rezoning and appreciate the consideration. Thank you.

6:07:39PM Thank you. Anybody else? I'll say that one, Tampa General Hospital not only provides world-class health care for the entire Tampa Bay region, it's also an economic driver providing jobs, medical research, medical care. As you can look around, none of us are getting any younger, and having these resources are really critical to an area. That being said, I think the redevelopment of this area is something that's going to be, again, one of these things that those of us that are part of the process will be proud of in the future that we hand off to the next generation of tampanians, that they'll look and see this area has been so re-created, pedestrian friendly. I appreciate the streetscapes incorporating in the pd-a and master plan with wider sidewalks and being pedestrian friendly I think is really critically important. I'd love to see the shade trees in an area now that is pretty much blighted and really almost absent of any type of really any kind of landscape or pedestrian access. It's very exciting. Added note, obviously, we all know we're trying to expand the streetcar with the support of the administration, we're looking to extend the east part of the ybor to 26th street. That's not a guarantee, but we're exploring that opportunity, whether federalize or local but be able to tie into this type of development. Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

6:09:10PM What comes around goes around. It's been Ybor City been neglected by nature, by everyone else for years. When I was a little boy there, you had two clinics. Gonzalez and -- and a streetcar that went 54 miles in the City of Tampa. Now we're talking about the same thing 80 years later.

Alan Clendenin

6:09:28PM Used to have a hospital in Ybor City.

Charlie Miranda

6:09:32PM Went to the hospital, took my hair off and put brains in.

Alan Clendenin

6:09:41PM We'll go with that. On that note, entertain a motion to close. Motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Hurtak, would you like to read this one?

Lynn Hurtak

6:09:57PM An ordinance rezoning a total of 16 parcels consisting of plus or minus 24.83 acres located generally in an area bounded to the north by CSX railroad, to the east by the selmon connector, to the south by state road 60, East Adamo Drive, and to the west by north 26th street, property, in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classifications ih, industrial heavy, to pd-a, Planned Development alternative, all residential types, all CI uses, and recycling materials and goods, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

6:10:39PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak, a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye --

Lynn Hurtak

6:10:44PM With the revision sheet.

Alan Clendenin

6:10:46PM All those in favor say aye. Opposed?

The clerk

6:10:50PM Motion carried with Viera absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

6:11:07PM Thank you. Give it one moment. Thank you, both Mr. Shaws. Good job on the presentation, by the way.

Naya Young

6:11:19PM Councilwoman Hurtak, I appreciate your questions. I had a lot of the same questions, so I appreciate you asking those. They were very good questions. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

6:11:27PM Thank you. The health stuff is so important. I know they'll do the right thing but I think the public just wants to know.

Naya Young

6:11:35PM It was good. Very, very eloquently done. Thank you.

Lynn Hurtak

6:11:45PM Okay. We'll give everybody a second to settle. Item number 4.

Bria Dixon

6:11:51PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Next item is agenda item 4, rez 26-48, request to rezone 11607 and 11613 North Florida Avenue from CI commercial intensive to PD Planned Development, vehicle sales and leasing and minor and major vehicle repair. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Danny Collins

6:12:16PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Our next case is within the university Planning district, specifically the East Forest Hills neighborhood. The subject site is within evacuation zone e. Here is the adopted future land use map. Subject site is currently designated community commercial 35. That is the predominant land use category along this portion of North Florida Avenue. Just to the north of the site we have unincorporated Hillsborough county just a block of east North Fowler Avenue. The Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The request would allow additional building for an existing auto dealership in an area that is commercial in character. Staff did note some challenges in meeting all the mixed use centers and corridor design policies, primarily due to the auto oriented nature of the use and the existing development on this site. The applicant has committed to providing a bus stop at the southwest corner of the property along North Florida Avenue. North Florida Avenue is a designated transit emphasis corridor, currently served by HART route one. If council approves the request, staff recommends that the applicant address the revisions identified on the revision sheet, particularly those related to pedestrian connectivity. These improvements would help bring the site into better alignment with the mixed use centers and corridor policies. Overall, the proposed use and f.a.r. Are appropriate within the cc-35 designation and the request is comparable and compatible with the commercial character of the surrounding area along Florida Avenue. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

6:14:07PM Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? Okay.

Bria Dixon

6:14:12PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with an aerial view. You can see the subject parcel outlined here in red. The applicant proposes -- sorry, subject property is located at the southwest intersection of East Fowler Avenue and North Florida Avenue. Sorry. East Fletcher Avenue and North Florida Avenue. Subject site is currently developed with two structures and surface parking. One structure is for vehicle sales and leasing. The other is for a service area. Surrounding uses are all CI and they are also vehicle sales and leasing and minor and major motor vehicle repair services. I also have a site plan provided by the applicant. Once again, you can see the subject parcel is outlined here in red. The applicant proposes construction of a structure vehicle storage with 803 parking spaces at a height of approximately 98 feet or six stories. This is the blue area here. The structure storage height will exceed CI zoning district minimum height allowed by approximately 53 feet, 4 inches. 318,561 square feet, the storage proposed is 12 jewel box displays. You can see them pointed out here. It would increase the on-site vehicle parking from 242 parking spaces to a total of 1,045 parking spaces or by approximately 431%. Here are elevations and renderings. You can see these jewel boxes here. Here is another rendering showing the proposed location. This is north elevation. South elevation. West elevation, east elevation. I also have photos of the subject areas. This is the actual location of where the parking structure will go. This is east where you can see adjacent structure to the northeast. Here is also east where that location of the parking area would be. Sorry, the structured parking would be. Here are developments to the north that are also similar uses of vehicle sales and leasing and major and minor vehicle repair. This is looking down North Florida Avenue. This is looking down South Florida Avenue. This is development to the west, and this is development to the south. There are two requested waivers. First is section 27-284.2.5 to permit the removal of one non-hazardous 37-inch live oak grand tree. The second waiver is from section 27-289.3 to increase the allowable number of wall signs on building number 3 which is the structured parking. On the west from one sign to two signs with the combined area not to exceed the allowable wall sign area for the western building facade. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and finds the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Please refer to natural resources and Development Coordination comments for overall inconsistency finding. If City Council so wishes to approve the application and waivers requested, modifications to the site plan as shown on the submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading of the ordinance as stating on the revision sheet. I'm available for any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

6:18:01PM I do have a question. Can you show on the site plan where the tree is that they want to take out?

Bria Dixon

6:18:33PM This is the tree removal plan. And there is a tree that will be located here. This is what is proposed to be remaining. But that tree was here. I'll see if I can find another image.

Lynn Hurtak

6:19:02PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:19:04PM Any other questions? Hearing none, okay. Applicant? Rich bekesh, architect with spring engineering. We are the architects and engineers for this project. In regards to Planning and the site plan revisions, we've agreed to do all those. The one item that I do want to cover deals with the 37-inch oak and the waiver requested for that and the inconsistency in the site plan. We have exhausted a number of different design options and worked with the staff to try to work around this tree. What we ultimately found was that we couldn't yield the same results. And anything we put there within the root zone of the tree would be detrimental to the tree. We have agreed to provide the additional four inch oaks that staff requested. We've also agreed to provide the silva cells to increase the canopy of those oaks to restore the 37-inch oak canopy. Other than that, if you have any questions, I'm happy to address them.

6:20:26PM Does council have any questions of the applicant? Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:20:30PM Those four inch oaks will be on the property?

6:20:35PM Can you show me where the new oaks will be going? We're actually providing 20 new oaks. But four of them are going to be with the silva cells. If you are familiar with the silva cells, you know.

6:20:49PM Okay. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:20:51PM Hearing none, anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? I have a motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Revision sheet.

Guido Maniscalco

6:21:06PM I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 11607 and 11613 North Florida Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification CI, commercial intensive, to PD, Planned Development, vehicle sales and leasing and minor and major vehicle repair, providing an effective date. With the revision sheet.

Alan Clendenin

6:21:31PM Thank you. I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

6:21:38PM Motion carried with Viera absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

6:21:53PM Thank you very much. We'll give a minute for the mayor's youth corps and everybody else to exit. It's my understanding there are quite a few people down on the second floor. If you are down on the second floor, we have a lot of seats up here. You're welcome to come and go through screening and join us in Tampa City Council Chambers. If you are on the second floor, come on up. We have room for you. Okay. Let's go on to number 5.

Bria Dixon

6:22:31PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item 5 is rez 26-55 request to rezone from 107 North Armenia Avenue to CG commercial general, from CG commercial general to PD Planned Development, office, business professional and all CG uses. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Alan Clendenin

6:22:52PM Thank you. Mr. Collins.

Danny Collins

6:22:53PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Next case is within the central Tampa Planning district, specifically the North Hyde Park neighborhood. The site is within evacuation zone c. Here is the adopted future land use maps of the subject site currently designated CMU 35. Just one block, about half a block of west North Kennedy Boulevard, which is UMU 60. Armenia Avenue fronts the property to the west. We have CMU 35 to the north, and then just to the northwest we have residential 20. Staff reviewed the request and found it consistent with a number of policies in the comprehensive plan. The proposed floor area ratio of .47 is well below the maximum f.a.r. Of 2.0 allowed under the CMU 35 designation. Site is located along North Armenia Avenue, which is a designated transit emphasis corridor, which is identified in the plan as a corridor suitable for redevelopment. The site is also located within a mixed use corridor. Staff recognizes that the request involves maintaining an existing building, which limits the ability to fully meet certain design policies, including those related to building and parking placement under lu policy 6.1.2 and 6.1.9. At the same time, the proposed PD supports several mixed use policies and other comp plan policies by orienting the primary building entrance toward the street and utilizing the existing alley to the south for vehicular access. Staff did note that this request is just of North Kennedy Boulevard and is along Armenia Avenue, again, both transit emphasis corridors. Staff strongly encourages the applicant to connect the sidewalk or provide some type of pedestrian connection to the building entrances from North Armenia Avenue. We included some revisions on the city's revision sheet. If those revisions are made, staff recommends that the request be found consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:25:05PM Any questions? Hearing none --

Bria Dixon

6:25:12PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination staff. We'll start with an aerial view. You can see the subject parcel again outlined here in red. The subject site is located at the -- south of the intersection of north Armenia. And west north a street. Encompasses one parcel currently developed with Business Professional Office and associated parking. Here is a site plan as provided by the applicant. Here is North Armenia Avenue as well as west north a street. The applicant proposes construction of a second story addition, the addition being here. And the expanded offices both front north Armenia Avenue 4,480 square feet of commercial development. The proposed design requires off-street -- off-site tree removal, which is here and here. The rezoning request can only entitle the property as contained within the application and establish conditions associated with said property as described in a legal description. Any and all off-site improvements must be removed from the site plan. More specifically the trees indicated for removal on the property to the east are not within the purview of the applicant, to this end, the proposed location of the building must be adjusted to satisfy code and eliminate adverse impacts to off-site trees on the adjacent property. Staff has discussed alternate reconfigurations with the applicant that comply with tree and landscape technical code standards as well as zoning standards and regulations. Adjust building location and removal of the improvements as shown on the subject plan will result in staff's -- to certify plans. Here is elevation as provided by the applicant. These are elevations of the existing structure that is there. And these are the elevations of that addition that is proposed to the north. I also have photos. Here is the subject property. North of the subject property. East of the subject property. This is the parking looking northeast. This is the northern parking looking southeast. This is south, and this is west. The applicant is requesting one waiver from section 27-283.3.c to reduce the required three foot buffer on the north to north vehicle turnarounds from three feet to one foot. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and find the request inconsistent with applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Please refer to natural resources and Development Coordination comments for overall inconsistent finding. If City Council so wishes to approve the application and waiver requested, the modifications to the site plan as shown on submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet. I will now turn it over to joe cermak in natural resources. Joseph cermak, forester examiner. The site plan here indicates the two trees that were proposed for removal, looking at the survey also, would determine the trees here and here were located off-site and located the building plans from the adjacent parking area that showed that those trees were, in fact, planted on the adjacent property 20 years ago to meet the code requirements. Staff have requested that reasonable reconfiguration be looked at for this project to shift the structure, impacts to the trees. Here I have a -- an example that shows the original proposed vua right-of-way buffering area was 12 and a half feet. Code requirement is for an 8-foot buffer area. The four and a half feet could have been shifted without any need for a waiver or variance. At shifting four foot, it at least is shown on the survey. They would be clear of the tree protection zones. Also looked at it to determine we do not see any loss in parking spaces or any change to the flow and function of getting into and out of the site. If there's any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

Alan Clendenin

6:30:36PM Any questions? Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:30:37PM The staff report mentioned that the trees on the other property are also mitigation trees. Is that correct?

6:30:48PM Code-required. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

6:30:52PM Can you come back up? I have a question for you. Again, I want to understand what they are doing here. They are trying to retain the existing building and then build an additional two story adjacent to it.

6:31:09PM Is there any -- the applicant can listen to me and probably answer this. Are there any City Council -- are there any city code -- this is such an important transit corridor between Kennedy and Armenia and have this big surface parking lot on the front, lack of pedestrian access, it really doesn't seem to be jiving with the drinks we're trying to drive this corridor. Is there anything overlying rules, regulations or codes that would -- if this was a clean slate and this lot was empty, would they be able to develop the property this way?

Bria Dixon

6:31:48PM I think that would go back to what was said in the Planning Commission's review of the area and the overall mixed use provisions that were provided. The site itself is among other business professional offices that are similar of use to the east as well as to the south. So despite I guess the busyness of the corridor, it is compatible with the other surrounding uses that are there in the area. Does that answer the question?

Alan Clendenin

6:32:17PM Yes. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:32:21PM Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your question is, if this was an empty site, wouldn't the parking have to be in the back?

Alan Clendenin

6:32:38PM Pedestrian access.

LaChone Dock

6:32:40PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Some of the design elements that would be required may be provided in the overlay district. If you are coming in with completely new development, you'd have to meet the overlay district standards. That's when you see things like where the parking should be located, whether it's in the front or the rear of the property.

Alan Clendenin

6:33:03PM Is this in the West Tampa overlay district?

LaChone Dock

6:33:06PM This is. You have the overlay. It's in the Kennedy, the Kennedy overlay district which does not specify.

Alan Clendenin

6:33:14PM So it's not --

LaChone Dock

6:33:16PM I think with the design the developer was trying to, because the building exists and I think coming in with the new building was trying to keep the building, the new building -- thank you. To keep this new building in line with the existing building. Come in with the parking located on the west side of the property. So what joe has explained is that right now on this side, there's 12.8 feet. This building is here four feet away from the property line. So if they took four feet, there is room to shift and not lose a parking space or require any additional waivers and still provide the required vua of 8 feet. But I think this design and the applicant can explain maybe due to the existing building being placed there. Otherwise they would have to demo that building and then do all new construction.

Alan Clendenin

6:34:16PM We'll punt it to the applicant to figure out how to get a PD here. Thank you.

LaChone Dock

6:34:21PM You're welcome.

Alan Clendenin

6:34:23PM Anything else from staff. Applicant. Mr. Michelini.

Steve Michelini

6:34:38PM Good evening, council. What can I tell ya? Steve Michelini. Yes, I have been sworn. I am representing the owners on this project. We talked to staff back and forth. We got to this point because in an early pre-application discussion, the staff had asked us to go and get a -- an approval from the adjacent property owner to remove the two trees, which are not grand. They are protected. They are not in great shape, and the owner also wished for them to be removed. Let me show you this on -- is that up high enough so you can see it? Okay. These are the two trees. They are vua trees that were required for the parking lot over here. And we talked about this back and forth. Once you have a building here, the vua protective requirement goes away. It's no longer applicable because there's nothing to protect it from. There's a building there. I'll show you the two trees that are in question. The one on the left over here is in worse condition than the one on the right. And we're trying to match the existing building, and I'll show you the other photographs here.

Alan Clendenin

6:36:23PM Because it's so architecturally significant.

6:36:27PM Because it's so architecturally significant.

Steve Michelini

6:36:32PM Well, you know, it may have been older planting, but they are not that significant. If you look at this picture here, the second ROW of parking has all palm trees. This side has oak trees. What we were proposing to do was to remove those two oak trees and plant them in more appropriate places further to the north where they could survive. This is on the east side. You've got these palm trees and a few of the oak trees over there. We're sort of -- we're stuck. I mean, we simply are stuck. We have an alternative. The staff wants us to move the building. We were trying to keep the buildings aligned for efficiency in construction. This is an existing building, and this is the proposed new building. They were asking us to reduce the greenspace up here on the front. We are going to enhance that with additional oak trees and beautify that area. I guess we just have to throw ourselves on the mercy of the council. What would you like us to do? If you want us to move, we'll have to move the building forward four feet. And that will have to be accomplished between first and second reading. I've had fairly extensive discussions with the homeowner association. They didn't understand why the two trees were being removed. I think I've tried to explain that adequately to you. We have met all the other criteria. It's on the transit corridor. If you wish to us plant more trees in the front on the Armenia side and create the shade trees, which is what the HOA had asked us to do, we can do that. The one waiver that we are requesting involves the turnaround here, not the parking spaces. So the turn around, we were asking for a waiver reduction from three feet to one foot. Again, the pleasure of council, we'll do whatever you ask us to do. If you want us to move the building, we'll move the building. We prefer not having to do that. We entered into the application the signed and notarized agreement from the adjacent property owner saying that they are okay. They want us to remove the trees and replant them in more appropriate locations. You've heard previously from the arborist that the right tree in the right place is the thing to do. These trees, even if we move the building, are not going to be the right trees in the right place. I'll be happy to answer any questions. That's basically the synopsis of where we stand with it. I'm looking for some direction from council on what you would like to see us do. The other notes that the staff has provided show consistency. As I said, we're in a transit corridor where one block off of Kennedy Boulevard -- we're one block off of Kennedy Boulevard.

Alan Clendenin

6:39:57PM Are you a mind reader?

Steve Michelini

6:40:00PM Well, you know, I'm looking for some feedback. What would you like me to do?

Alan Clendenin

6:40:05PM Ms. Dock, would you like to add something to the record?

LaChone Dock

6:40:09PM Yes, thank you, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I would like to mention that it has been mentioned by the applicant that affidavits are in the record. There's something to keep in mind that this rezoning is for the subject property. The applicant cannot enter an affidavit for trees that are not on their property. So they were directed, you cannot have this affidavit. It would not apply. These are off-site trees. In a case where there are shared trees, where the trees are on the property line, that would be different. Initially, at the initial submittal, it was hard to tell where these trees were exactly located because sometimes the site plan, the survey, just may not be accurate and until you verify it in the field. So it was not until the second submittal, it was determined that these trees are, in fact, off-site. So you cannot submit an affidavit for trees that are not your trees and are not even shared. So I just want to place that on the record.

Alan Clendenin

6:41:13PM Thank you.

Steve Michelini

6:41:14PM We understand fully. It would require a second process with the other property owner. We know that. And we weren't trying to subvert the process. I just need some guidance on how you'd like us to proceed.

Alan Clendenin

6:41:30PM I'm only one of seven. I don't know what anybody else thinks. I hinted to this earlier in the presentation. This particular corridor, Armenia and Kennedy is an important area for the City of Tampa. You're not coming for euclidean zoning. You're coming for a PD which automatically, the litmus test will be different than euclidean, not an entitlement right. Coming for the graces of council for a PD, you really need to bring something that really is worthy of us giving it that consideration. You're right there on Armenia. Lack of pedestrian access to the buildings. The forward facing parking. The tree is one issue. The trees are kind of on the property line which is where you put trees. If you had a tree in the middle of the lot, you would be coming saying I have to build something different or I have to take the tree out. I think there are a multitude of problems with this request. You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole. That's my opinion on it. Anybody else? Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:42:47PM I think I'd like to hear from the public. I don't have any particular questions. I think for me it can go either way.

Steve Michelini

6:42:56PM I'll reserve my time. I'm not aware of anybody objecting, but there could be.

Alan Clendenin

6:43:04PM Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none, you reserved your time. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

6:43:12PM Okay. I'll say something then. I respect that you're trying to save the building that's there. I get it. Like in a better place we would have the building in the front and we would have all this. I'm kind of agnostic on the trees. I like the trees, but they don't look like they are in great shape. If what you're saying is that with the additional right-of-way, they'll be able to plant like actual oak trees, I mean, I can see the balance in that.

Alan Clendenin

6:43:45PM Aren't we doubling down on a dud?

Lynn Hurtak

6:43:49PM We can't make them re --

Alan Clendenin

6:43:51PM By granting them an entitlement, further entitlement.

Lynn Hurtak

6:43:54PM Yeah, I mean, keeping one building, adding another, it could be nicer. I don't disagree.

Alan Clendenin

6:44:02PM Did you see the pictures? Councilman Miranda, did you want to add something?

Charlie Miranda

6:44:08PM I'm just listening. Look one way, look the other way, you think you're going the wrong way. It's difficult. You want to save the house, save the building, but talking about the corridor, across from td bank I believe. It's just what came first, the chicken or the egg, that kind of stuff.

Alan Clendenin

6:44:37PM Maybe you can address this after we're done talking, Mr. Michelini, trying to justify again this really critical corridor, not an historical building, nothing there, nothing to see there, why would I double down on that and grant the PD which is further entitlement for something that's probably not worthy for that particular location?

Steve Michelini

6:45:01PM You would have to demo the existing building and rebuild the entire site, which would be an extreme hardship. Now, if you decided that you wanted to try to do a diagonal building, you would destroy the parking, which is a critical area that this neighborhood association has come to you several times and said, please, don't destroy the parking. We meet the parking code. We meet all the other codes. So really the question is, as staff pointed out, we meet the Kennedy overlay. The answer is, do you want us to move the building the four feet to save two trees, or do you want us or not?

Alan Clendenin

6:45:46PM Again, it's about a PD, not just about the four feet.

Steve Michelini

6:45:50PM But we meet the other criteria. I can go through that if you wish. We were found consistent.

Alan Clendenin

6:45:57PM You meet the setbacks of a CG?

Steve Michelini

6:46:00PM Except for the turn around us.

Alan Clendenin

6:46:03PM So you don't meet all the criteria.

Steve Michelini

6:46:06PM We're not asking for waivers -- the other building is at that setback line. It's not an increase in any intensity or setback encroachment. I can go through the criteria if you wish me to that shows we were found consistent on all the other criteria.

Alan Clendenin

6:46:26PM If this was euclidean zoning for CG, staff, can you answer that question?

Bria Dixon

6:46:38PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. The requirements for CG are ten feet in the front, ten feet on the east, ten feet on the west, ten feet on the south. This property as it stands does not meet those requirements even with the existing structure.

Alan Clendenin

6:46:59PM Thank you.

Bria Dixon

6:47:20PM Sorry, ten, ten, and zero on the rear.

Alan Clendenin

6:47:23PM Ten, ten and zero --

Bria Dixon

6:47:26PM On the rear.

Alan Clendenin

6:47:29PM For CG, zero setback requirement?

Bria Dixon

6:47:32PM On the rear.

Alan Clendenin

6:47:33PM For all CGs?

Bria Dixon

6:47:36PM Correct.

Alan Clendenin

6:47:39PM Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

6:47:43PM As I was looking at the pictures, I'm listening to the conversation. Councilman Clendenin, I see, you know, kind of where you're coming from as far as what we're trying to do, you know, with the corridors and, you know, having this, like, you know, as you're going down the corridor, the first thing you see is this parking lot and then, you know, the building in the back. I understand that part also but trying to, you know, as Mr. Michelini was saying, reconfiguring it or having to tear it down. I don't know. I'm kind of like in between. I see, you know, I'm like if this could be moved up here, you know, it could be better, you know, appeal, you know, pedestrian access, all those things. I'm, you know, -- I don't know. I guess I'm kind of working it out as I'm talking.

Alan Clendenin

6:48:30PM If it wasn't on Armenia, we would have another conversation.

Steve Michelini

6:48:36PM We are providing the pedestrian access you asked for. It's here and goes all the way out to Armenia. It has to cross somewhere. We're accessing off the alley and not off of Armenia, which is another one of the provisions that you all have asked for, to utilize the alley for access. At some point, we get conflicts between what you've asked for and what we can provide on the site.

Alan Clendenin

6:49:05PM Generally when you hear that from council, it's about residential construction. Obviously, the transit corridors are a passionate thing for me. Having the transit ready corridors in our concept and pedestrian friendly, if you are coming for euclidean, it would be a rubber stamp.

Steve Michelini

6:49:33PM If we didn't have the existing building, we could do that.

Alan Clendenin

6:49:36PM Anybody else have anything? We have a motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. A second from Councilwoman Hurtak. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Miranda, did you want to read this?

Charlie Miranda

6:49:49PM I'll read it.

Alan Clendenin

6:49:53PM Are you going to vote for it? Are you Planning on voting for it? I'll move on if you are not Planning on voting for it. I'll pick somebody else.

Charlie Miranda

6:50:05PM From what I'm hearing it's possible, but it's not hundred percent correct. But it's probable, it could. I'm also realizing that there are some other changes from other zonings that I can't bring up, because --

Alan Clendenin

6:50:21PM Who for sure loves this project?

Lynn Hurtak

6:50:25PM I'll move it if he doesn't want to. Just because, yes, is it what we want? No. is it reusing a building that's already existing and therefore can save someone money who wants to start a small business or something like that? I can't say no to that. Ordinance being presented, file rez 26-55, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 107 North Armenia Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification CG, commercial general, to PD, Planned Development, office, business professional, all CG uses, providing an effective date.

Guido Maniscalco

6:51:07PM Second.

Charlie Miranda

6:51:08PM Does that mean not moving the building four feet up?

Lynn Hurtak

6:51:13PM Just as it is.

Alan Clendenin

6:51:16PM I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. I have a second from Councilman Maniscalco. Roll call, please. Hold on a second.

Steve Michelini

6:51:26PM There is a waiver.

Martin Shelby

6:51:28PM There is a revision sheet?

Lynn Hurtak

6:51:30PM With the revision sheet.

Alan Clendenin

6:51:32PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak with the revision sheet. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. Roll call, please.

Lynn Hurtak

6:51:38PM Yes.

Naya Young

6:51:41PM Yes.

Bill Carlson

6:51:47PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

6:51:49PM No.

Guido Maniscalco

6:51:50PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

6:51:52PM No.

The clerk

6:51:53PM The motion carried with Miranda and Clendenin voting no and Viera absent at vote -- sorry, Viera absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026, At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

6:52:12PM You can't say this council isn't kind to you.

Steve Michelini

6:52:17PM Thank you, council.

Bill Carlson

6:52:19PM It wasn't kind to him. It was the owner.

Lynn Hurtak

6:52:25PM I don't love it either but that's one of those things that we know the Armenia corridor -- or the Fowler Avenue corridor doesn't incentivize parking --

Alan Clendenin

6:52:36PM We have fixing to do.

Lynn Hurtak

6:52:37PM Yeah.

Alan Clendenin

6:52:38PM Item number 6.

Christopher Demanche

6:52:40PM Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination.

Alan Clendenin

6:52:43PM Hold on one second, please. Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

6:52:46PM Martin Shelby, City Council attorney. There are more people in the room now, Mr. Chairman. I don't know who has not been sworn, if you would, please.

Alan Clendenin

6:52:55PM If you are Planning on speaking to any of the additional items this evening, if you are Planning to provide testimony or public comment, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk. [Oath administered]

Christopher Demanche

6:53:38PM Again, for the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item 6 is rez 26-57. This is a request to rezone 6111 North Rome Avenue from RS 50 to Planned Development to allow for residential single-family attached and detached uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission.

Danny Collins

6:54:01PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Our next case is within the university Planning district, specifically the river bend neighborhood. The subject site is within evacuation zone a and portions of the site are within the coastal high hazard area. Here is the coastal high hazard area. Everything east of the line is within the coastal. The subject site is currently designated residential 10, which allows the consideration up to 10 dwelling units per acre. That designation is found along the river. That is the tan orangish color here. To the north and to the west of the site, we have residential 20. That allows 20 dwelling units per acre. It allows the consideration of single-family detached, attached, and multifamily uses. To the south of the subject site we have residential 50, which allows 50 dwelling units per acre. It allows consideration of attached and multifamily, or multifamily and other housing types. The subject site just out of frame to the south is just to the of North Hillsborough Avenue. Again, this is the river here. This is Seminole Heights just on the east side of the river. In early 2025, the site was the subject of a rezoning request, rezoning 2499 which proposed 45 dwelling units. City Council had denied that request. The current proposal reduces the total number of units from 40 units -- I'm sorry, the total to 40 units, which are 37 attached and three detached single-family homes through this rezoning petition. The comprehensive plan supports single-family attached development at the periphery of established single-family neighborhoods. Staff found this site was appropriately located for single-family attached because it is adjacent to multifamily development. It fronts a collector roadway and is surrounded by higher intensity future land use designations, particularly to the north, to the west, and to the south. The proposed density along -- I'm sorry. The proposed density of this request is 8.58 units per acre, which is comparable to the development in the surrounding area. Staff noted the density along North Rome Avenue and the density to the parcel to the south of the subject site which is r-50 in our report. While some portions of North Rome Avenue have lower existing densities, the site is underutilized relative to development potential envisioned by the comprehensive plan. For example, the parcel to the south is designated r 50 but developed at 7.46 dwelling units per acre. The property is also zoned RM 35 which allows for medium density, multifamily development per the land development code. As a result, the property could be redeveloped at a significantly higher density under existing zoning than what is there today. The request for single-family attached housing would also provide a transition between the higher density residential designations that surround the subject site which is supported by the plan. The request would provide transition, provide a transition and support policies encouraging attached housing at slightly higher densities and single-family areas. The project also addresses the plan's design policies and those related to neighborhood connectivity with unit entrances that front Rome and hanna, oriented toward those roadways and internal connections provided from the internal units to those roadways, addressing land use policy 9.2.6. The request was also found consistent with applicable environmental policies in the plan. The EPC has approved the proposed wetland mitigation and impact plan. Proposed PD has been designed consistently with the approved wetland authorization and meets the intent of environmental policies 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.7, and 2.4.8 which require coordination with EPC regarding wetland impacts, mitigation and site plan design. If approved, future development of a site will also be required to comply with applicable City of Tampa building requirements and technical standards as noted on the plan. Overall, staff found the request supports the comprehensive plan by providing an appropriate transition development intensity, accommodating future growth and adding housing on underutilized site which is all supported by the comprehensive plan. Based on these considerations, the Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

6:58:54PM Council have any questions? Hearing none. Coordination. As Planning Commission staff mentioned in their presentation, council reviewed an application last year, rez 24-99 for this site, proposed with 45 units. Of course, it was subsequently denied by council and we are here as staff to present the latest application from the applicant. We'll start with an aerial of the subject site outlined in red. The subject property is located to the of north East Rome Avenue. It's also located of west South Hanna Avenue, and the Hillsborough River borders the subject property along the eastern part. Surrounding the site is largely RS 50 zoning. We have a mobile home park to the north as well as single-family detached uses. To the east, of course, we have the river. South of the subject site we have RS 50 with single-family detached uses as well as RM 35 where there is an existing residential multiple family development west of the subject site we have additional RS 50. We also have a small PD rezone site here approved for an office use. Next we'll show site plan here. The subject property is approximately 4.66 acres in size. The applicant is proposing 10 buildings containing single-family attached dwelling units and three single-family detached dwelling units. This brings the total number of dwelling units proposed to 40. The site does provide a singular vehicular entrance. It's a two-way entrance off of North Rome Avenue. The design of the neighborhood includes a circular internal driveway. Additionally here, we have, and it's important to note that each of the proposed units provides a walkway, which would connect to sidewalks, whether it's sidewalks along the right-of-way areas of hanna and Rome or internally to the site. It's also important to note with regards to the plan, the applicant proposes a dog park as well as a park with amenities along the eastern portion of the property. Looking at the overall design with regard to the ten buildings for single-family attached uses, buildings one and two along North Rome Avenue are two story in height. Buildings three and four along West Hanna Avenue are proposed at two stories in height. On the very south portion of the property, we have buildings nine and ten. They are proposed at three stories in height. And then we have buildings five, six, seven, and eight. Those are all proposed at three stories in height. We also have three single-family detached units on the eastern side of the property. Those proposed at three stories in height as well. Each of these units is proposed with a two-car garage. Those vehicles would be located side by side from each other. The plan that was before you last year included that sort of building -- should say garage design that we typically see, but there was also a stack design for some of the units. That's a difference between what you had previously seen and what is here now. Next we'll jump into examples of the elevations. This is an example of what you would see for buildings one, two, three, and four along hanna and Rome. Next we have examples, these are single-family attached as well. This is the three-story example proposed. Next we have examples of the single-family detached dwellings. There's approximately three of those dwellings proposed along the east side of the property. Next we have photos. Starting off, we have some photos of the subject property. We have a view from Rome Avenue. This is along the north boundary of the subject property on West Hanna Avenue. Next we have examples of what's just north of the subject property. Additional example. This is the view looking down west hanna. The subject property is on the right-hand side in the photo. South of the subject property. Southeast of the subject property, at the end of West Burke Street and west of the subject property across North Rome Avenue. There are no waivers requested with this application. Development review and compliance staff reviewed the petition. Find the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations 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. I'm available for any questions.

7:05:08PM Any questions? Applicant. Before we start, Elise Batsel. I did send a letter, Mr. Chair, just because of what we contemplate is significant opposition, we are asking for a little extra time for rebuttal. We hope to keep it within ten minutes, but depending on how long they go, we appreciate a little leniency there.

7:05:34PM Yes. With the advice of counsel, without objection, grant the extra five minutes for rebuttal. The clerk did ask us, we have quite a few documents we uploaded to sire. She asked for a jump drive as well.

7:05:57PM Yes, if you can hand that to Mr. Shelby. Motion to receive and file the documents and drives? Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

7:06:10PM Did you state your name? Good evening. Elise Batsel, Stearns Weaver Miller on behalf of the applicant. Chris has already introduced where the property is, so I will skip over that. As he stated, the project is 37 single-family attached and 3 single-family detached at a density of 8.58 units per acre. It meets all code criteria, and we're going to talk about this a little bit more. In redesigning this plan as we have over the last year, you will see that the greenspace far exceeds the code. There is the existing multifamily to the south. This is just the proposed site plan. I'm going to go into detail here, but I did want to note for you that the access is off of Rome. There is two lanes kind of coming in, a visitor and a resident and there will be one lane going out. All of the units along Rome and along hanna front out to make them more connected to the street. You can see the layout of the buildings. Little easier in color. We created the two story periphery along the roads. With three story further inside. Three single-family dwelling units along the river are going to be stilted homes. This just shows the location of the stormwater facilities. As you can see, there are three stormwater ponds. There will also be chambers underground. Of course, this site is not fully engineered at all, but this is conceptually where these would be located. We'll talk a little bit more about this, but when we came before you before, we were asking for grand tree waivers to remove grand trees. We have redesigned this plan and we will be retaining and preserving each and every grand tree on the site. I want to take just a moment and talk about the greenspace. As I mentioned, we are far exceeding the greenspace. But what's really interesting and significant here is that we redesigned the plan to cluster the greenspace. Your staff report talks about the fact that if you cluster greenspace, it's more likely to stay and be viable for a long period of time. The other thing just to note is there is a wetland. We'll go into this a little more, along the Hillsborough River that is being 100% preserved. We're not impacting that wetland at all. The other thing that's very important about the site before we move on is that we have really focused on pedestrian connectivity. The sidewalks here you can see along Rome and hanna, in addition, every yellow area is how each and every unit connects to the sidewalk. There's lots and lots of pedestrian connectivity. Right now, I just want to turn it over to our expert planner, Ryan manasse, who most of you know well. He's going to talk about consistency with the comp plan. Good evening, council. Ryan manasse. 401 East Jackson Street, Stearns Weaver Miller, I'm director of entitlements. I'll get my picture off the screen. Please be aware that my Planning report was submitted in advance of the hearing tonight. That was to give you additional time if you were able to read it and view it. My testimony tonight is intended to summarize the key Planning conclusions and explain why from a professional Planning standpoint the application should be approved. In 2005, just a little bit of history, the city intentionally changed the property's flu designation from res 20 to res 10. Specifically recognized townhome development remained appropriate for this property and stated that proper implementation tool would be a Planned Development rezoning. That's exactly what is before you tonight. The proposal requests 40 residential units at only 8.58 dwelling units per acre, well below 10 dwelling units permitted under the res 10 category as it exists and below the density planned immediately south of the property. It is consistent with the res 10 flu designation, advances the comprehensive plan's infill housing objectives, supports housing choice and implements land use policy 9.3.5 by locating attached housing at the edge of the established neighborhood while providing meaningful transition and mitigation. Now, my Planning report and Planning Commission staff report contain additional goals, objectives, policy we're consistent with as well and we agree with those from their report as well. Now, regarding compatibility. It's not measured by whether surrounding property looks identical. The comprehensive plan evaluates compatibility through use, density, height, scale, setbacks, landscaping, access, circulation, overall development pattern. The project was designed around those exact principles, including some of the comments from the previous rezoning. Attached housing is placed adjacent to the existing and planned higher density residential development. And three detached homes preserve the established riverfront pattern. Two-story buildings line Rome Avenue and Hanna Avenue, while the three-story buildings are located further within the site. The project requests no waivers. It preserves all non-hazardous grand trees. It exceeds the city's greenspace requirement. It provides all required parking, incorporates three stormwater ponds as well as those underground proposed retention systems, and binds every one of those design components to the Planned Development site plan. That provides neighborhood -- neighboring property owners with greater certainty and greater compatibility than conventional euclidean rezoning. Finally, you'll hear concerns this evening regarding fill, stormwater, floodplain and engineering most likely. Those are important subjects, but they are addressed through separate regulatory agencies and technical permitting processes, including S.W.F.W.M.D., EPC review and city's floodplain and building review, the permitting process, right. Those permitting requirements remain fully applicable. Nothing from those are being waived tonight. So in closing, this application asks council to approve the very type of development the city envisioned for the property in 2005. Since the prior hearing, the applicant has reduced the density, eliminated every waiver, preserved all non-hazardous grand trees, substantially increased the greenspace, enhanced compatibility, and created a project that is less intense, more predictable and more responsive to both the comprehensive plan and the surrounding neighborhood. For those reasons summarized this evening and for the more detailed findings that I have in my Planning report submitted to the record, it is my professional opinion that this application is consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, satisfies the purpose of the Planned Development district and land development code, including sections 27136, 139, 282.9, 226, 227. And is compatible with the surrounding development and should be approved. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions and I'll turn it back over to Elise. A half years many, many times. But most recently for this application, we held a virtual meeting, not just with the river bend civic association but to everybody in the mailed notice area for the application. That was held on July 22. And we had an in-person meeting with a few members of the river bend civic association on August 12. In addition to that, we had multiple e-mails to us, and we answered each and every question that we could answer at this stage in the process. And even those that dealt with permitting and engineering, we had our consultants give the best-guest estimates that they could, even though those issues aren't before you tonight. So when this came before you before, we went down and distilled what were the issues. There were several issues that were expressed by this council, by the community and by City staff. We would like to go through each and every one and show you specifically what we have done and how we have addressed those on the plan. This one is easy. Mr. Chair, I heard you when you yelled at me and said how could you come to me with garage sizes that are not oversized. All single-family attached units have a two-car garage and the width of the two-car garages is 20 feet in width and 22 feet in depth. Stormwater discharge location. So stormwater is not part of what you review here, but we did want to show you that we heard the concerns of the neighbors, and we addressed the concerns in the plans to the extent that we can. These concerns related to where the discharge point was located. You're looking at the river on your right. The old discharge point was very close to the city lift station. So we were asked by the community and the city to move that location. We did that. We moved it to the location in red. Now, in addition, the stormwater that is on-site has to comply with the new state stormwater regulations. There's no fill east of the wall. We'll talk about that a little bit more. And city Stormwater Department has found the rezoning plan consistent with the code. Just very quickly, all of this is subject to future S.W.F.W.M.D. And city permitting approval and our engineer is here to answer any questions. But there's been a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication about stormwater. We do want to emphasize what happens during the stormwater permitting process is we have to hold all of the stormwater on-site. We have to treat that stormwater, and then if there is stormwater to discharge, we have to discharge it in accordance with the state regulations. Commissioner Hurtak, you specifically had questions about density along this site. The site has changed a little bit. Directly to the south, I know that Danny said it was seven point something units to the acre. There are permits in for a plan that is going through permitting right now At 10.56 dwelling units per acre. Those are not apartments. Those are townhomes. Very similar to what we're doing here. The existing mobile home park, if you look at the dwelling units per acre to the north, that's at 18.18 dwelling units per acre. That's actually 100% more density than we're asking for on our site. And to the south, what's in permit today, that density is actually 25% higher than what we're asking for today on a dwelling units per acre basis. The project to the south Danny mentioned this is actually permitted at 35 units per acre which would be 400% the density. We just want to put that in perspective because a lot of times we look at a surrounding area and say, yes, there are a lot of single-family homes, but this is a unique development pocket within this community. Finally, tree waivers. It is very, very difficult with the 50% tree retention waiver -- tree retention requirement to meet that if this is a wooded site. We redesigned this plan multiple dozens of times now to make sure we were retaining the 50% trees and preserving the grand trees. This was assessed by multiple arborists since last year. We relocated retaining walls, and this plan comes before you today is no tree waiver retention requirement -- no waiver. Again, as you know before, we were asking for the removal of grand trees. We heard what the community said. We -- all non-hazardous grand trees are being preserved on-site. I believe there are four. Finally, with respect to natural resources, the greenspace exceeds the vehicular, the single-family attached, the single-family detached. We actually exceed that greenspace requirement on-site by 184%. Over 40% of the site is greenspace. We also have met all code tree planting requirements. With respect to transportation, our transportation engineer is here. Happy to answer any questions. To recap, there is a transportation analysis in your submitted materials. It's dated February of '26. It shows that there are nine a.m. peak hour trips and 16 p.m. peak hour trips coming from this project. The project traffic consumes less than 2.5% of the roadway. If you look at the blue and the green, this project is that teeny tiny little sliver of red that you see in the middle. There are no level of service or capacity deficiencies for Rome and the analysis also says that the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. The developer will have to pay a proportionate share for a right turn at Rome Avenue and sligh. But if you do have specific questions for the transportation engineer, he's here to answer any questions. When we talk about traffic, I never like to use regular language. Engineers tend to overcomplicate things. What this means at the highest p.m. peak hour is that one car will leave that site every eight minutes and one car will arrive every six minutes. And that's at the highest peak hour. The expert studies and staff review all find this project consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with the surrounding uses. We did do some early permitting review, and we did that because the community had concerns about permitting issues. We're not all the way there. This isn't a fully engineered plans, there are things that will have to work through the process. We did enough to answer questions for the community and we hope that you appreciate that effort. We respectfully request approval. We're all here to answer questions that you have. The whole development time. Thank you for your time.

Bill Carlson

7:21:12PM Ms. Batsel, I read your memo earlier. Talking about the prior event and lack of competent substantial evidence. I know you all have been trying in earnest to solve many of the concerns of the community. You're going to have plenty of time, extra time to do rebuttal. If you don't mind and don't answer this if you don't want to, if you don't mind, could you just tell us, we're going to hear from the public in a minute. What is your perspective on what the gap is still with the public? There is a big gap, from my perception, this is a lay person's perception. I talked to the development team about it. There is a conception that by adding fill to this project that somehow we are going to increase pollution runoff into the river or that if there is a flood, all of that fill is going to go into the river. And there are also issues with wetlands. I can talk more about the wetlands.

7:22:10PM Do you have an expert here later on that could respond to that if the public brings it up about the plugs -- we were waiting to hear all the comments, but definitely, our engineer is here to answer all of the questions and clarify the issues.

7:22:25PM You had meetings with the public. You answered a bunch of the concerns, but did you feel like some people came along and said, you know, we got what we wanted or most people still -- you to do with the plan. Normally we meet and they say we don't like the three stories or like you to change this. We didn't get any feedback for two and a half years that was related to our actual plan. The neighbors, you'll hear them. They do not want this development here. I think three of the letters that you have in your file want this preserved as a public park. I understand. I don't want my community to change either. We really tried to answer the questions the best we could. But so many of these questions aren't for this body. Stormwater issues and permitting those issues, how much fill and where we have fill. We actually commissioned a study which is in your record and I can talk more about it after the community, it's a study that says where is it safe to place fill. Our retaining wall, we have voluntarily agreed to keep the fill away from the river a certain amount. Even more than they suggested. We did all that to try to give comfort to the community even though a lot of those were stormwater issues and engineering and permitting issues that don't relate to the rezoning.

7:23:49PM Would you like to bring your expert up to talk about the runoff and the fill? Would you like to bring that up now or in rebuttal? That way we can do it all at once. If you want it now, happy to do that.

7:24:06PM I think it's good to hear from the public. Of your time.

Alan Clendenin

7:24:16PM [Inaudible]

Bill Carlson

7:24:18PM Okay. Do you want to do it now? You can always talk about it in rebuttal, too.

Alan Clendenin

7:24:25PM That gives the public an opportunity to hear before they talk about it. The question was, Councilman Carlson?

Bill Carlson

7:24:33PM I was asking Elise about the remaining concerns of the community and she was saying, sorry to paraphrase, the potential runoff and contaminants in the water, things like that. Maybe you could address that. Braulio grajales, high point engineering in Tampa. 5005 West Laurel Street. I have been sworn. Do you have a specific question for me?

7:25:07PM If you could elaborate -- community is very concerned about bringing fill into this site. Can you tell us, we cannot develop this site with -- the by right development is about 15 to 20 units single-family. Have to plat it, get 15 or 20 homes on the site. Is it true you would have to bring fill in to develop this site by right, whether this rezoning goes forward or not? Rezoning is somehow going to approve or deny fill on the property. It's not. This property is going to be developed whether it's with or without the by right development or this rezoning. The other issue that I think is concerning to the community and again, speaking for them, I'm sure they will speak for themselves, the concern that there is runoff or how the runoff, I heard someone in the community meeting saying our shingles were going to cause all this pollution and that runoff was going to go into the river. Can you explain how you hold, treat, and how that water, if there is water, is discharged just generally? I think of it like a big bowl. It's not a bowl, where you capture it and it gets treated. Much into the weeds, the goal, and that will be when we go into permitting, will be to grade and collect all the stormwater runoff from the roofs, from the sidewalks, from the roads internally through gutters, down-spouts, pipes directed -- there are proposed three ponds around the site. There will also be chambers which Ms. Elise already pointed out in the presentation. All that water will be directed into those systems. No water is going to go outside the property. All that water will be collected, captured, collected, sent into the system and then treated, attenuated and any excess stormwater runoff will be discharged to the river. I don't think people understand what it is to treat stormwater.

7:27:40PM How you treat it and in your presentation, you talked about what you would do with the excess. If it's so big that it fills the reservoir, someplace that it goes, where is that? Here.

Alan Clendenin

7:27:56PM Right set this, this is council's opportunity for questions. If you answer just directly exactly what he asked, this is the opportunity to answer council's questions and has to be further explored, they'll have an opportunity for that in rebuttal. Discharge and where does that go? Stormwater regulation, right. And that is all based on pollution performance, best management practices. But the goal will be to abate as much as required, phosphorous and nitrogen before it gets discharged into the river. Any pollution that will be generated by the project is going to be retained in the detention ponds and in the chambers. That water is going to percolate and is going to -- there will be baffles and weirs provided that will retain the water and any pollutants into the property. We will keep those pollutants into the property. I believe you asked me about the volume attenuation. Those weirs will hold the water within the property and any discharge to the river will be the acceptable amount of water, will not exceed what the property is currently discharging in current condition, which is green minus previous building that has been recently demolished.

Bill Carlson

7:29:31PM Water discharged would have been cleaned of the phosphates and nitrates. Is allowed by the state which is reducing I believe 90% -- 90% phosphorous and 55 or 80% nitrogen.

7:29:55PM If you just built, however many 16 single-family homes, would you have to have this kind of retention system? Would it be the same thing or different? Same amount of fill, very similar. Again, we're trying to maintain 50% of the trees. So the retaining call will have to stay where it is to be able to maintain the green spots. We're going to have to be -- raise the side to be above the coastal floodplain and we're going to have to be able to locate those chambers underground which we'll need to raise the site to accommodate those systems under the driver areas.

7:30:35PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:30:36PM I have a question. I'm good with you. In the first iteration of this, did you have the open green park on the river? So when we moved everything around to get rid of all of the waivers, when I say dozens of iterations of this plan, dozens and dozens of iterations, it was very hard to maintain all the trees. We ended up taking units away and clustering the greenspace. So those additions of the dog park which was units and separating those two, it allowed us to have the parks.

7:31:15PM That seemed to be one of my problems that I had at first, you were cutting off access to the river there, so with that park there, does the land that runs adjacent to the river is that open to the public or is that fencible or private property? Single-family homes on the river, there is a park in between two of those three. That will be for everybody for the community, like a community park. But those homes are actually single-family homes. Mr. Cremer Lives just to the south. It's his private property.

7:31:50PM They'll still have access to the river in the park.

7:31:56PM I thought that was -- back of my head, I kept thinking you're just cutting off access to everybody. It's a shame not to have that public space.

7:32:07PM Anybody have questions? Hearing no other questions, it is time for public comment. Did anybody come into the room that has not been sworn in? Everybody has been sworn in. If you are here to speak to this item, if you would stand to your right, my left, against the wall, behind carroll ann Bennett there in the green shirt, we will call you up one at a time. Some of you have probably never come to public comment, how we do this the microphone is embedded in the podium. You don't see it but it's there. You have to face council because that's how your voice is picked up. You'll start off with your name. After you say your name, you'll have three minutes. There is a timer on there. You have three minutes. At 30 seconds you'll get a yellow warning and you'll have a 30 second countdown. Still have 30 seconds. When it turns red, your time is up. First speaker, come to the podium, start with your name. You'll have three minutes. If you have documents to share -- speaker waiver, okay.

Martin Shelby

7:33:12PM Martin Shelby, City Council attorney. I have Mr. Frank Greco has provided a speaker waiver form with seven names. Would you please acknowledge your name when you hear it. Raise your hand or say something, please say something verbally. Ann pickens. Thank you. Donald lester. Thank you. Richard lowenthal. Thank you. Pamela french. Thank you. Antoinette vila. Thank you. Raymond olar. Thank you. Mary mccann. Thank you. Seven minutes. Now, when everybody signs a speaker waiver form, they waive their right to speak so you don't have the opportunity to speak, but you donate an additional minute to the speaker who already has three. Seven plus three equals ten minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Alan Clendenin

7:34:07PM Mr. Greco, start with your name and you'll have ten minutes. I am a former employee of the City of Tampa. I was a plans examiner there and river bend civic association has also consulted Ron giovannelli, a local hydrologist. I would like, if you would, please, consider this is a substantial and competent evidence. First of all, I'll start out with the flood insurance study, which determines what the zones are for flood zones. The first is this flood zone of ae. The particular property that is in question, ae 11, which means it is 11 feet above the base flood elevation. In order to build livable space, it has to be 12 feet. You have to add additional feet. This is a photograph or aerial view of the property in question. As you can see this is flood zone ae in the blue or green. That's about 60% of that property. If you wanted to bring infill to bring all that property up to 12 feet above the base flood elevation, this is --

7:35:17PM It might be helpful if you would do a 90-degree.

7:35:26PM Yes. If you would like to bring that property up to 12 feet, what you would need to do is bring in one foot of fill here, two feet here, three, four, five, six, seven and so on to bring the property up to 12 feet elevation. This is a map of the 1939 weiland creek area. As you can see, this is the creek that runs through the property. It comes from an area close to Habana Avenue. That was from 1939. This is a regional surface drainage pattern which shows from Habana Avenue, Habana Avenue at this area, all the regional drainage runs through this creek or this drainage area down to the river that runs through the subject property. This is an exploded view of that particular drainage pattern. As you can see, there is a lot of drainage that comes off of the adjacent properties, especially from the north. This is an e-mail -- it's actually a document from the City of Tampa. It's ben allushuski who works for the Stormwater Department. He has identified the drainage pattern that goes down to the river. This is a stormwater drainage. This is a stormwater drainage. As you can see, it goes through there. He stated no permanent improvements can be placed into the public stormwater easements. I'll go on to an e-mail from dave Jennings, manager of the construction services office a few years ago. He has recently retired. This is an e-mail from a resident in an ae-12 flood zone and asking if they can put in fill. Basically what he says, any fill placed on the lot will require to be placed without affecting surrounding properties. If the surrounding properties shed water to your lot, then you must continue to allow the water to flow to you. This is a site plan of the proposed development. Hope you can see that. Site plan of the proposed development. As you can see, there is -- there are properties to the north, which is in this direction and an explode of that is this. As you can see, these are the drainage pipes from the projects which go out to the river. There is a drainage pipe that has no connection to the conveyance system on the property. Also, the regional water flow from the properties to the north have no accommodation to flow across the property, as is required to continue to happen. There is a wall there or it is an increase in fill dirt which would prevent that from flowing through. Also there is a stormwater easement that runs along this side of the river. It's documented and in use as we speak today. And there will need to be an easement encroachment waiver applied for that. Also need to have a hold harmless. FEMA rating is a system which allows a discount to policyholders of the flood insurance program, and the community rating is based on a classification. The City of Tampa has a 5 classification which gives a 25% discount to the policyholders. That 25% discount is based on the compliance to the regulations of FEMA. One of the regulations that I want to address today is category 430. It is the higher regulatory standards which include the development limitations. And what those are is certified by the City of Tampa, and these are all the certifications that the City of Tampa has certified that they are complying with. Basically the last one is category 430 that we comply with higher regulatory standards. And this form was signed by the mayor of the city, Jane Castor, and following through, the factors that caused the damage to the area is filling and other developments in the floodplain can reduce storage and conveyance capacity, increasing flood hazards and also filling and construction practices can damage or destroy valuable natural floodplain functions. Higher regulatory approaches that are credited under the CRS rating is prohibited fill, required compensatory storage, and also requiring a lower floor elevations to be higher than the base flood elevation protecting buildings and living spaces. One of the elements, the development limitations is prohibition of fill, maximum credit of 280 points. The use of fill to elevate buildings has advantages that make it desirable for developers and homeowners. However, there are problems with using fill. It reduces floodplain storage capacity, can deflect waves into the neighboring properties and has an adverse impact on native vegetation, wetlands, drainage, and water quality. The benefits of using fill accrue to the developer and to the property owner, conversely, the problems accrue to neighbors, taxpayers, community, the nfip, which is the insurance program, or the environment. Because filling is not desired floodplain management activity, this element credits communities that do prohibit fill. One method of offset impacts is to use required compensatory storage. But the compensation storage does not compensate for the adverse impact on other natural floodplain functions. On chapter 5 of the building code in the City of Tampa, the flood-prone areas of the city are subject to periodic inundation which could result in loss of life, property damage, health, safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services. These flood losses are caused in part by the cumulative effect of obstructions and fill in floodplains causing increases in flood heights and velocities. This is an e-mail from JC hudgens, which is the Building Official for the City of Tampa. And in this e-mail to another group along the river that's trying to protect the floodplain, the City of Tampa is committed to upholding the requirements of the floodplain ordinance including section 5-121.222, which addresses the placement of fill and the need for compensation evacuation. The 5-121.222 basically it's development that's permitted outside of the floodways, and compensatory evacuation -- or excavation, sorry, shall be taken between the seasonal high water and the base flood elevation and shall not result in adverse impact to the floodplain. Section f, this is the stormwater -- the southwest Florida management district. Basically what they have to say about filling the floodplain, says no net encroachment into the floodplain up to the encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect conveyance storage water capacity or adjacent lands will be allowed. The land that -- the fill that they are requiring for this property would be approximately 20,000 --

7:44:13PM Thank you. Mr. Greco, for the record, could you please cite what you're reading from, maybe three citations ago when you were talking about fill, what document that was. I think I missed that.

7:44:28PM Not this one. Earlier, talking about the fill and policy on fill. That was with the certificate that was signed by the City of Tampa.

7:44:43PM Next question, would you like these documents submitted for the record? We're going to use them but they will be submitted after the next presentation.

7:44:51PM Okay. Very good.

Bill Carlson

7:44:56PM I want to ask --

Alan Clendenin

7:44:58PM Go ahead.

Bill Carlson

7:44:59PM I know you talked about your credentials in the beginning. Could you just, for the record, in case this doesn't -- this ends up in litigation, could you describe a little bit more about your education and your experience. You talked a little bit at the beginning. Could you describe more. I worked as a plans examiner which examined sites. I was also a floodplain manager at the time, certified through FEMA. My time and service to the City of Tampa was as an examiner for sites construction and also as an inspector. I was licensed as an inspector.

7:45:43PM Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:45:45PM Okay. Thank you.

7:45:47PM Next speaker, I don't have to tell you how this is done.

Martin Shelby

7:46:36PM Ms. Bennett Has four names. Please acknowledge. Tom hooten. Tom hooten. Is there a tom? Okay. Thank you. Erin colson. Thank you. Kevin herron. Thank you. Michael jeske. Four additional names for a total of seven minutes.

Alan Clendenin

7:47:02PM The last few of you in line, if you want to relax and sit down. You can come back up. Feel free to sit down and come back up. If you feel like you want to sit down and relax a bit -- okay, carroll ann Bennett, please start with your name. You'll have seven minutes. I want to clarify something. We're not worried that the dirt, the fill dirt or the runoff will wash into the river. We're not concerned that the water that falls on the property will be polluted and wash into the river. We know that that will be contained and treated no matter what is built there. We are concerned because fill dirt causes flooding on adjacent properties. Frank showed you an e-mail from the city confirming that fill dirt can affect surrounding properties and that, quote, if the surrounding properties shed water to your lot, then you must continue to allow the water to flow to you. Frank showed you how watersheds to this lot and drains to the river. The proposed retaining walls and fill dirt will contain the water that falls directly on it, much like an aquarium. We are not concerned about the pollution from the project. They must contain and treat it no matter what they build. But those walls and dirt will block and redirect the water that currently sheds through the property from adjacent properties and drains to the river. The only proof you need of the dangers of excessive fill dirt is FEMA. FEMA is the authority on flooding, and FEMA gives discounts if a house is built on piers instead of fill dirt because they know that fill dirt is like a dam. Water backs up against it and is rerouted on to someone else's property. I heard him say that even if they built homes on here, they would have to use fill dirt. That isn't true. They are building three homes on the river which will have to have the highest raise of elevation. They are building them on stilts. They are not allowed to put fill dirt under the three homes so they are building the three homes with no fill dirt. The only reason they are using fill dirt on the property is because they want to build townhomes. Townhomes cannot be built on piers like a house can. The only reason they want to build townhomes is to increase profit. As you heard, the city is trying to upgrade their FEMA rating from a five to a four. If they succeed, everyone in Tampa will benefit with a new discount on flood insurance. One way the city is seeking to do this is by eliminating the use of fill dirt. It was signed by the mayor. The only reason this project needs fill is because they want to build townhomes and the only reason they want to build townhomes is to increase profit. The property has a flu of r-10. R-10 is for single-family detached. Sometimes and only sometimes townhomes are allowed in r-10, but only if all the stars align and it is a perfect place for them. This is the opposite of the perfect place for townhomes. If they build houses, which is what r-10 is for, they don't need 200 swimming pools worth of fill dirt. If they build houses, everything above this line can be built on grade. Everything below this line can be built on piers, just like they are going to do along the river. And if they use piers with minimal fill dirt, they won't need special walls and drainage for the trees. Another advantage. This property was zoned RS 50 for single-family homes when they bought it. The only guarantee they had was houses. Here is their site plan with their retention ponds and greenspaces. I moved the road and sidewalk slightly and reduced the paved road surface by half, another advantage. They admitted they could build 15 to 20 homes on this site. I, not an expert, not a professional, I found 19. 19 homes they could build on this site. I had space left over. They paid $3.3 million, which at 19 homes is 174,000 per lot. Even if they could only build 15 homes that's 220,000 per lot. Where can you get a lot that cheaply in the City of Tampa? No place I know. The three large homesites on the river are worth 3.3 million all by themselves. The rest of the land was essentially free. Yes, they have extra expenses for road and ponds, but that's real estate for dummies 101. You negotiate for what you know you can build. That's due diligence. They didn't know they could build townhomes during negotiation because it wasn't zoned for townhomes. R-10 rarely allows townhomes. That's why they got a bargain basement price on 4.5 acres of riverfront property. Many deals like this are on a contingency. A higher price is paid only if a rezoning is approved. They didn't do that. They negotiated the single-family fire sale price and now they are gambling that they can hit the jackpot with a rezoning. But none of that matters. None of it. You are not allowed to consider a developer's profit. I'm only telling you that to put it in perspective. A developer's profit is not competent and substantial evidence. A developer's due diligence or lack of due diligence is not competent and substantial evidence. What you are required to consider is harm to the surrounding area, harm to the flood insurance premiums every Tampa resident will pay, and if we can up our rating, everybody in the city will get 5% increase discount on their flood insurance, and eliminating fill dirt is one of the keys to getting that upgrade in our rating. You must also consider harm to the environment. The comp plan demands it. Please read the letter from the sierra club and deny this rezoning because it will harm many, and it will benefit only a few. Thank you. I'm going to submit frank's documents for the record.

7:53:54PM Next speaker, please.

Martin Shelby

7:54:35PM Mr. Cramer Has five names. Mary newmyer. Thank you. Gail Harris.

7:54:45PM Thank you. Paul boa.

7:54:49PM Thank you. Larry shaw.

7:54:51PM Thank you. Mike addison.

7:54:54PM Five names plus three equals eight minutes. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

7:54:59PM Thank you, sir. Start with your name, please. You have eight minutes. My name is henry cramer. I go by henry or hank. I live at 5933 North Rome Avenue which is a property that borders 6111 north Rome in the southeast corner. Our property also borders 5927 north Rome to the south and to the west. The 5927 property is also owned by 6111 north Rome LLC. I've pointed out here the locations, if you can see. 6111, 5927, chocolate brown, and the diagonal lines and 5933 placed right there. You may be able to see it better here. 6111, 5927 and down in here, 5933. I'm the president of the river bend neighborhood civic association. And I make my living as a property and casualty insurance agent specializing in commercial properties. The largest part of my business is condo and homeowner associations all in the bay area. My efforts include or are based largely on providing a safe environment in all instances. As the president and as account manager for insurance programs. I've worked with many developers, including lennar, westfield, standard pacific, atlantic gulf. That work has included providing cover from land acquisition through construction of the association turnover. I have not yet experienced a development where risk and loss potential are so magnified and seemingly omnipresent. The impression of this rezone request to me is it tries to do too much with too little space. Little substantial difference between this and the original. The reduction in the density comes from having to build bigger garages primarily. We're exhausted by this project, to be quite honest. And I think your staff is exhausted, too. This application has taken longer to get to you than any other application in the City of Tampa that I've ever been involved with. We thought we had a thoughtfully designed project that would be a treasure, a future gem. This is a quote attributed to Ms. Batsel, the lawyer representing the developers, that she pleaded with City Council in the closing arguments of January 16, 2025. This is from the Tampa Bay times. Also from the Tampa Bay times, Kevin reali, another lawyer from the same firm representing the developers, highlighted the lengthy process of litigating the project. We hired more experts than we ever had to use at a zoning, he said. The property which had previously been the german american club of Tampa appeared overgrown and neglected when developers mize and Sefair brought in 2023. The article goes on to say that the developer has close ties to the corporate -- the largest corporate investors in the state and specializes in build to rent homes. The lawyers also emphasize that the development met every city code. So, let's just say that the project was thoughtfully considered and many experts were used by the developer and every code appeared to have been met and we could have said also that their team worked diligently to work on a plan to improve it, as Mr. Mize Says in March 2026 press release. It might appear the City departments once again that all is compliant and consistent. However, frank greco's team and his committee, along with carroll ann's work that we've done with others, brings forth new information that cannot be disregarded. We previously presented photos of localized flooding conditions and I'll now provide them again rather quickly so that you can just see what's happening in the neighborhood. This is a site diagonally across the street from 6111. This is 6402 Rome. This was built in 2023 on fill. And it is suffering from that. You can see any of these photos I'm going to show you are all from an x zone and all from August 26, 2024 storm, not helene and not milton. That is the front and there's water in this house now, they are not happy with what's going on there. Site here is the block behind, still the 6400 block. This is localized flooding that happens in any storm. West side of pack wood. Here is fern street that runs east and west, just north of -- just between the projects. This is North Street looking west. Which is the block below. And if you want to know what a dam looks like, carroll ann just talked about how a wall can be a dam, anything can be a dam, this is a dam right here. This is the p.a.l. Site that was authorized to be built in the 2020s or early 2020s and it served as a dam that directed all that floodwater, all the stormwater from off-site onto North Avenue where previously five houses stood. These were all knocked down and condemned by the City of Tampa as a result of that flooding. Here is a photo of the retention pond, the Tampa armature works pond is what we call it in our neighborhood. This is Rome Avenue running outside here. This is 5917, two blocks south of the 6111 site. You can see what's happened here. This is during the construction. They hit the water table right up at the roadside. And that has remained that way. Here is a shot of the very same day down at the east end that shows no water in the facility at all. Currently, this is what the pond looks like now. The bull rushes and cattails show you -- I beg your pardon. Do I need to back up? Thank you. These are the cattails that grow in there even now. As you can see, the back part of the lake is dry. I wanted to pass this along to you also. This is a photograph taken from my yard on 5933, there I go again. 5933 into 6111 property. That's shot from over my fence. You know what that is, that's outflow coming out of the force main that comes from the lift station across the way. The pipe that was reference previously, runs all the way across and down the river further. But there is a manhole cover. This thing spews and blows its top time and time again. What you're seeing here is the flow coming out. I hate to tell you, but this is the toilet paper and such that comes out. It comes out at such a rapid force that that's a hole and goes straight to the river. That's not 50, 70, 85 feet to the river. We'll show you a video of this so you understand what's going on. The noted inconsistencies with the plan are placed ahead of you, but we've got to talk about traffic a little bit. This is the first day of school this year. This is Rome Avenue from mohawk. There is the school bus. This is from mohawk looking north. That's at 8:00 in the morning. That's only going to get worse. This traffic is out of control. The intersection analysis, we disagree with in that it hasn't addressed --

8:03:07PM Thank you, sir. Your time has expired. So sorry.

8:03:13PM That's all right. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Start with your name and you'll have three minutes. I submitted them yesterday.

8:03:41PM Say your name.

8:03:57PM Say your name one more time and we'll start your clock. I'm starting with -- is my video up.

8:04:12PM It will come up when you click it. Into the river. I should have hank speaking on here. I should have volume somewhere.

8:04:42PM Can you pause her time? Cttv, can you come out and help, make sure we have the volume and everything right? Do you know how to expand the window? 2:30 in the afternoon, this drain, the sewer has been overflowing all day just of South Hanna Street at the river. That's the manhole cover blew off.

This is Monday, 11th of September, 2

8:05:33PM 30 in the afternoon. This drain, the sewer has been overflowing all day, just of South Hanna Street at the river, flowing directly into the river. I believe from adjacent property. Can I move to this one?

Today is April 7, 2026, just after 9

8:06:15PM 00 in the morning. I'm standing in the easement that services 5927, 5931 and 5933 as a drive. Ten unit building on either side of 5927 driveway here that bisects the property. There is a ten unit building with associated hard structure. I'm following the rain, the light rain that's coming today down the north side of the property that flows down towards the 5931 building that you're now seeing and a puddle, large puddle that accumulates in front of that house. There's runoff that goes to the south, from the south buildings and goes to the wetland and out to the river. The problem is, the north side where the water comes fully to the 5931 property and then turns to the north and on to 5933, my property. This water now flows all the way to the north up against the fence that abuts the 6111 north property and the flow of this light rain is going through the property, all the way to the fence where it's been necessary to cut a hole in the fence to allow the water to drain back onto 6111 north Rome. And out to the river. Obviously, this puddle, this runway, this spillway is a danger to the property here and has flowed into the garage and onto the premises at 5933 several times in hard storms. This is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

Today is April 7, 2026 just after 9

8:08:19PM 00 in the morning.

Alan Clendenin

8:08:24PM Your time has expired. Thank you very much.

8:08:27PM Next speaker, please. I've been in the neighborhood for 31 years, and I've been a mailman in that neighborhood for over 20 years. I'm not an expert on all this stuff, but I will talk about the traffic real quick. If you've ever been on 275, you know that in the morning going down 275 going south it is bumper-to-bumper traffic. It is horrible. In the afternoon, it's going north is horrible. Well, Rome is the same way. When they did the study, they specified that they were concerned about how the traffic will flow into Hillsborough Avenue. Hillsborough Avenue is a six-lane highway, basically. There's really no problem with adding this new traffic with these new -- with this new property. However, what we have -- and I've seen this since I've been here. Again, 31 years. It's gotten so that at sligh, that's our concern, going north on sligh in the afternoon is bumper-to-bumper traffic, and people are weaving in and out and going into the neighborhoods trying to take shortcuts. That is our concern. Our concern is not with Hillsborough. I think that, like hank was saying, that study was not really good because it doesn't address our needs. Our needs are having to do with going north. You can't fix that with some mitigation money because you do you mitigate it? Rome will stay the same size. Sligh, if you have ever driven down sligh, it's bad because people are weaving in and out. I deliver the mail there. Most of the people in this video I met them because I deliver the mail to them. It is a concern. We don't need to be adding more people. We should stay a little static because of that. If you add a few houses, I don't know, that wouldn't matter. But when you're talking about the number of families, two-car garages, you're also, the people that live there in those houses, they are going to regret living there because they are not going to be able to in and out of Rome like you would think you should be able to. You can't because it's bumper-to-bumper traffic. I ask that you consider this and maybe do a new traffic study. Whatever that traffic study is, worthless. Thank you.

8:11:07PM Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. My name is karl bailey. I live at 3609 East Tampa Circle. I have been sworn in. I want to say thank you for everybody, even council opposition. 50 years in the marine corps between my wife and me, it's good to see democracy in action. I appreciate people doing that. This property hasn't been developed because it sits on a ditch. It sits on a creek. All of the water drains to the creek and into the Hillsborough River and always has. What the applicant is proposing is go and fill up the ditch. They'll have to fill it up to 12 feet plus 1 and that's going to flood their neighbors because the water won't go down the ditch. There's no accommodation for it. It's going to flood them. That's why, again, coming from the sierra club, that's going to create perils for the environment around it. Also create costs for you because you will now be dealing with stormwater drain issues that if you vote for this you created. You're going to have more neighbors in here who will have water, more water in their front yards who can't afford to keep their homes because this project pushed the water around. We all know, and Mr. Macy was completely correct, for every foot of fill dirt they put in, they have got to dig out a cup to build a pond. That is true and accurate. But you do have as part of your requirements under goal one Coastal Management Section, which this is, preserve, protect, appropriately manage the natural resources, for the Planning area, maintain and enhance environmental quality, to this end restrict development. Damage or destroy cultural resources, strive to limit, protect human life and limit public expenditures in these areas. Approving this you're going to have the community come to you and ask for you to spend more money to deal with the water that isn't actually already draining out. Additional, before I step off, everyone behind me who is opposed to this development, could you stand up for a second?

8:13:38PM We don't do that. Okay. I stand corrected. I think we know where the community stands on this. Again, it's been since 2005, you have 20 years of consistent messaging from the community across the board they are opposed to this. If this was by right, no one would be opposing it. If this is what the owner had by right, no one would be in this room except the applicant. Thank you.

8:14:11PM Just for clarification for those of you, this is a quasi-judicial hearing. It requires competent substantial evidence. Folks standing in the audience is not competent, substantial evidence. And that's why that is --

Bill Carlson

8:14:27PM Just since we have a lot of people that may not have been here before, when you see us in long meetings like this you'll see us getting up walking in and out. We have tvs and audio all through the back room there. We're paying attention, not actually in the bathroom but in the hallways and everything we are paying attention.

Alan Clendenin

8:14:54PM We're in a hearing. Calm down. Mr. Shelby, did you have something to add?

Martin Shelby

8:14:59PM I'll make some comments for the record after the public comment. Phil compton, 1430 East Park Circle, representing friends of the Hillsborough River and our 2,000 members here, many of whom live on the river or care about the river. It's great to see that art back there. Our home matters. 20 years ago when the city started improving to work to restore the river, you would not have seen that. The attitude was very different about the river. The attitude of some City staff, well, the river is dead. Nothing you can do about it. Forget about it. Now, thanks to the things you have done, fertilizer ordinance and minimum flow that the Water department was able to maintain throughout the drought, thank you very much. The river is a place people want to be on. They want to come to. But also some things changed for the worst. Risk of flooding is greater than it used to be thanks to the risk of storms rising. You all know why. Climate change and the fact that we can get 15, 20 inches of rain in one night that will really wash us all away. We've been working with the city for these 20 years to encourage and support the progress that you've made, but this project would be a step backwards for this city. This is not the kind of thing we need to do at this time. Things that we need to do in these kinds of projects is not riprap. You need a living shoreline. That's not included in this project. Increasing the risk of flooding which naturally nothing you can do about it, is increasing with climate change. We all need to do our part to maintain the restoration of the river as a place that people want to come to, but we have to be more careful. There's been reference made to the 2005 comp plan and the stipulations and being in compliance with the 2005 comp plan. Like I said, last 20 years, things have changed. Our perception of the river, our value of the river, and the rules we have to follow, we have to be much more careful. We cannot do things now knowing what's happening, what will happen that we did back then. And that's why we have to make sure that nothing can jeopardize this progress for all of us who live in a city with a river running through it. That's why we support the position of sierra club and the neighborhood, that you deny this permit as it is. Thank you.

Alan Clendenin

8:17:29PM Thank you, Phil. Next speaker.

Martin Shelby

8:17:43PM Mr. Shea Has four names. Michael gazukis. Wendy gazukis. Thank you. Tana. Thank you. And prome. If I mispronounce, I'm sorry. Four names plus three, that is seven minutes. Thank you for helping me. It's getting late.

Alan Clendenin

8:18:11PM Thank you, Mr. Shea. Start with your name. You have seven minutes. It is getting late. You're right. Seven minutes. I live at 6301 Bayshore Boulevard. I'm a lawyer, but I also studied City Planning, and my first job was working for an outfit called the Hillsborough county Planning Commission. I think that was about 60 years ago. So been around doing this a long time. I wanted to point out a couple of things about this. We talked about the FEMA and the 12 feet. Well, 12 feet is what they have to put the first floor. I live on Bayshore. There's been about six or seven new houses built around me in the last year. Nobody put in fill. We made it at 12 feet. I got flooded. My first floor is at 12 feet. My garage and all that got flooded, but my house was built after the code was enacted. So the problem here is that the developer hasn't addressed the stormwater runoff to the west and from adjacent properties. And I had the pleasure of representing an old man named guteras in Hillsborough county, where he had a house that got flooded because Hillsborough county allowed a subdivision to be built around him. Horseshoe around him, and it flooded because the stormwater flooded his house. He had cows and chickens and all kinds of things. We won that lawsuit. It was appealed. It was approved. Guess what, it was about $400,000. Now, I'm here to tell you that this developer could build some nice houses there. The same group is building to the south of this, the single-family houses. There is a decent property in doing that. So we think that you should help the mayor, not allow fill, so we can all get better insurance rates. Won't tell you how high mine is, and the developer needs to consider redoing this project. They have been here twice. They are good people, but they have not addressed the stormwater runoff from adjacent property and from property to the west. This was an old creek. I would say that even if you want to do this and pass it, I don't think you should, you have the power to put in footnotes to the pud. I learned that in Planning school. You can say no fill. No fill. That will force them to do things. Or you can say you've got to have a very limited amount. They are putting in 20,000 square yards of fill. That calculates to 1250 16 square yard dump trucks. That's a lot of dirt. It would take us 20 days and 62 trucks a day to get that much fill into this project. So I would say that you probably need to deny this because it doesn't meet the present law in the State of Florida for accommodating runoff. There is a lot of case law in that. There is a lot of money being awarded because properties were flooded and it was allowed by the county, city governments. Be prepared for someone to come along and sue you. I did want to make one thing. I wanted to close with a point of order. I'm 84 years old. My point of order is that somebody on the City Council is older than me. Charlie. [ laughter ] yes. My point of order is this, I at 84 and Charlie at I think 86 -- oh, 87. Charlie and I are still vertical. We have not gotten horizontal yet. And both of us are still doing pro bono work for the community. Miami here because I'm the executive director of st. Michael's legal center, a pro bono agency that gives free legal service to the poor and working poor. Charlie is here because he's a good guy. Thank you.

8:23:38PM Did you want to speak? Anybody else in the audience wish to address this public comment? Hearing none, applicant. Rebuttal time.

Martin Shelby

8:23:58PM I'll wait until the completion of testimony and the evidence and rebuttal.

Alan Clendenin

8:24:10PM Clerk, you have the time? Because we gave her extra time.

Martin Shelby

8:24:24PM Before you begin, I have a question of Ms. Batsel. You had stated in your letter you had made reference to cross-examination but you did not renew that. Is it your decision to proceed without cross-examination? I would like a couple of questions only, very quick questions.

8:24:41PM As part of your rebuttal?

8:24:44PM I'm asking.

Alan Clendenin

8:24:50PM It will come out of your ten minutes.

Martin Shelby

8:24:55PM It doesn't have to.

Alan Clendenin

8:24:56PM You are entitled to cross-examination. I'll be very quick. I think the only question that I have for anyone who spoke was for Mr. Greco.

8:25:07PM Mr. Greco, would you please come forward.

Martin Shelby

8:25:23PM If I can, Mr. Chairman, rebuttal is certainly permitted in a proceeding such as this. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The law allows for this. It should not be prejudicial to the attorney, applicant or either party. This is just part of the process. And in order to make this as unconfrontational and as impartial as possible, Ms. Batsel will refer the question to the board and then Mr. Greco will have an opportunity to step to the podium to respond.

Alan Clendenin

8:25:58PM Again, we're doing cross-examination followed by your ten minutes of rebuttal. Ms. Batsel, will you please address the question to myself and I'll try to relay -- one question for Mr. Greco. Is he a professional engineer?

8:26:16PM Mr. Greco, start with your name. I am not a professional engineer.

8:26:26PM Is that the only cross-examination? Something he mentioned.

8:26:33PM Okay. Mr. Collins. I'll be quick. This is a long one. Do you want to read this?

8:26:44PM Read it to me and I think Danny Collins can hear it. Dwelling unit average that you have in your staff report in isolation without considering the unique nature of the pocket along Rome Avenue and the future land use designation and development intensity contemplated along North Rome Avenue?

8:27:07PM Mr. Collins, did you understand the question?

Danny Collins

8:27:10PM Yes. Danny Collins with Planning Commission staff. No, it would not be appropriate. Designations along North Rome Avenue contemplate not only greater density but also a range of housing types, including single-family attached which we are requesting but also multifamily on this corridor.

8:27:34PM Danny Collins, Planning Commission staff, yes, and that is also outlined in our report. Show this later, there is a provision that says that you are supposed to review comprehensive plans in totality and not take any one individual policy in isolation, is that accurate?

8:27:57PM Yes, that's an accurate statement. Planning Commission --

Alan Clendenin

8:28:02PM Pause one moment, please. I can't hear because I have a sidebar conversation going on. Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

8:28:12PM I asked marty a question. I said in my 32 years of public service I have never seen a cross-examination between a and b. That's in court, not here. I've never seen that. Not for or against you or for or against them. But I have never seen this.

Alan Clendenin

8:28:31PM Mr. Shelby, would you please respond?

Martin Shelby

8:28:36PM Yes. The courts do allow it. I don't have the citation in front of me, but a failure to permit that when it's been requested has been a cause of action in litigation. Mr. Miranda, I didn't mention this because it's not really relevant to this procedure. But we went through another process with these neighbors and our EPC wetland impact approval was challenged in court. We did prevail. We had many, many of these neighbors sue us. Would I normally never want to do this, however I am trying to do the best to represent my client and make sure that I am getting the best information on the record for them.

Alan Clendenin

8:29:21PM Mr. Miranda, as chair, we had received a memo from Ms. Batsel Having this request. I consulted with Mr. Shelby prior to this.

Charlie Miranda

8:29:32PM When I saw, whoa, I never got elected to be a judge.

Alan Clendenin

8:29:40PM Let's bring this back in.

Martin Shelby

8:29:43PM Also, while on the subject, I want to bring to the council's attention that a very short time ago Councilman Viera, Luis Viera did arrive at city hall but, quite frankly, he did not hear any really evidence of this hearing, so he is not present, and he cannot or should not, in my opinion participate in this. So his absence on the dais should not be construed as anything but him conforming to what his obligation is to listen to the facts and decide this on the basis of competent, substantial evidence.

Alan Clendenin

8:30:27PM Understood. Ms. Batsel, I'm sorry for the interruption. Could you please restate your question? So Mr. Collins, in evaluating consistency and compatibility, do you consider the broader future land use pattern and development intensity contemplated by the comprehensive plan not necessarily what happens to be there today?

Danny Collins

8:30:51PM Yes. That is correct and that's outlined in our report. That's all I have.

Alan Clendenin

8:30:57PM Thank you. You are ready for your rebuttal now. Elise Batsel for the record. I do want to bring braulio back up to answer some of the questions that we heard. Braulio, first of all, carroll ann Bennett stated on the record that our project would cause flooding on adjacent properties. Will our project cause flooding on adjacent properties in your professional opinion when it rains? [ laughter ]

8:31:31PM No. [ sounding gavel ] no noise, no clicking, no clapping, no nothing from the audience. We've had opportunity to speak to the issue. Now it is the applicant entitlement to be able to do the rebuttal without interruption. Mentioned that we could go in and build our by right development on stilts. If we were to go in and submit a permit for that by right development on stilts, could we meet the stormwater requirements as they exist today? The property than what is discharging today? Hardening the shoreline. Is that accurate? By EPC permit, we're not allowed to touch the remaining wetland along the shoreline. Permitting have to meet state law S.W.F.W.M.D. Requirements? Someone was mentioning that, in order to proceed with development? That's all I have. Just quickly, there has been a lot of discussion about issues that aren't really relevant to the rezoning tonight. We are happy to answer any questions that you have and continue that. I want to reframe what it is that you are considering tonight. You are considering as City Council for this rezoning whether this project is consistent with the comprehensive plan, whether it's compliant with the land development code, and that has to be based on substantial, competent evidence in the record tonight. What's for later, what other agencies or the City staff are going to look at, at a later date and there will be opportunity for people to engage in that as well, are stormwater and flood management issues through permitting. Wetland impacts. That happens through the EPC although our one wetland has already been approved to be impacted. The use, the amount of fill, that happens through permitting. If dave Jennings or his predecessor says we're not allowed to fill on this property, we're not allowed to fill on this property. That happens at a later date. We didn't talk about wildlife impacts except for a little bit. That's also not for this council. Michael yates, can I have you for just a moment? Michael yates is with palm traffic. There was factual testimony on the record that stated that there was a backup at the corner, I think it was, going down Rome Avenue. Can you explain that and explain the level of service and capacity please? The questions or the comments that we received were related to Rome and Sligh Avenue intersection. We did traffic counts at that intersection both during the a.m. peak hour, 7 to 9 a.m. and the p.m. peak hour from 4 to 6 p.m. and then we analyzed that with peak season traffic, added project traffic on there. Intersection operates at a level of service c, the level of service standard is d, so it is operating better than the level of service standard requirement of the City of Tampa. So every movement in there operates with a v over c volume to capacity less than one, and the only reason we had a mitigation at that intersection is because there is a level of service e related to delivery at a signalized intersection. I forgot my train of thought. Sorry. I'm moving on. I do quickly want to talk about wetland preservation. We are preserving the wetland that you see in green. If you could put that back up. Thank you so much. Preserving that wetland, that includes a 25-foot wetland setback on the property. I want to talk about what competent substantial evidence we actually heard tonight regarding stormwater and fill. Just from a factual basis, I want you to know that when I say redesign so many times to accommodate all of these concerns, this has been a very expensive process to come to you with no waivers and with a site that is going to work and function and save all the trees. We still to the single-family homes, we worked with dave Jennings at the time and commissioned a voluntary study which is in your record that says where is it appropriate and safe to place fill and where is it not. And we are following those. We have agreed to follow those. Again, stormwater and fill are not before you today. They are permitting issues, but we want to make sure that you hear that we're listening to the neighbors. In that regard, we want to propose three conditions that relate to stormwater. The purpose of this is really to take the permitting regulations that we have to follow and create zoning conditions so that the community knows that they can now enforce this. If we don't do this through a permit, they can come back and come to the city and say they are not following their zoning because now this becomes a protection in the zoning. The first one is that the project shall utilize pervious pavement for all internal streets and visitor parking areas. The second is that the project shall not cause water quality impacts to Hillsborough River, water quality impacts to adjacent lands, flooding to off-site properties, and impacts to existing surface water runoff and conveyance. This is what S.W.F.W.M.D. Requires but we're putting it into a condition to give comfort to the neighborhood that we'll do what we say here today. Finally in accordance with the certain flood resistant site assessment, that's in the record that dave Jennings asked us to do, we will not place fill below the elevation that's prohibited or not recommended in that particular study. You want to submit these into the record. Also that fill line, so you understand what that means, that five elevation is east. It's riverside of the single-family homes. One of the other things we did with the redesign is move the fill to the west side of the single-family homes. Those homes could comply with that study and still be created with fill and to help with these concerns, the retaining wall and fill was moved west away from the river on the other side of the homes.

8:38:40PM When she's finished. You want to stop the clock?

Charlie Miranda

8:38:43PM I just want to ask a question about fill. I'm not a genius. I'm not an engineer, nothing like that. When I'm hearing what you're saying and hearing what's going on, next week hearing that you are not involved in, we are, about those vaults going underground, why don't you vault the place then? Here because of where the water table is. Braulio, you can come up and confirm this. The fill is required to control the stormwater on-site. Fill also directs the water to those vaults. Right now, the low point -- the whole neighborhood, everything flows towards the river and it's still going to do that.

8:39:27PM If you were to fill, everything would go into the vault if it was there.

8:39:33PM Why not do that along with the filling. He's asking why we're not vaulting the retention. The fill will include the vaults.

Alan Clendenin

8:39:44PM Do you have the site plan that shows the vaults?

8:40:13PM Since there is a question, why don't we get that on the screen. Convey stormwater. And then these sort of t-looking e things, that represents where the vault will be located. That's the boundary of a vault. So that was one of the interesting things from Mr. Greco's presentation, oh, a pipe that goes nowhere. No, that pipe goes between vaults. A vault between my fingers here and a vault between my fingers here.

8:40:50PM Now -- [ sounding gavel ] that is the last warning. If there is an interruption from the audience, I'll ask you to leave. It would be out of order. The red, not the ponds but the other pieces, red shows approximately where the vault is. That wasn't the intent of this exhibit. You can see how the pipes connect the vaults, all of those are connected.

Charlie Miranda

8:41:16PM I see the red lines but I don't see where it says vault. Those things that are circled in red that are long and skinny and aren't colored blue, it's really hard to see because the color doesn't come out, but those are the locations of the stormwater vault. Just to be clear, this is the general plan of how -- the conceptual plan of how the stormwater system will work. We still have to put together full sets of construction drawings at the permitting stage that are going to detail all of this and all of the engineers at the city and all of the engineers at S.W.F.W.M.D. Are going to go through these with a fine tooth comb to make sure we're meeting each and every regulation. In fact, Mr. Greco when he came up and citing a bunch of regulations, some of those are not applicable to us, but some of them are and we'll have to comply with all of those regulations when we go in to permit this site. Again, this is not an engineer drawing. This is a rezoning plan, but we're trying to provide information the best we can.

Alan Clendenin

8:42:22PM Councilman Carlson has a question and then we'll get back to your rebuttal.

Bill Carlson

8:42:27PM Maybe braulio will answer this. I know it's not completely designed yet but the vaults, what will you design the capacity to be and how does that compare to what you think the water will be in a heavy rainstorm? We have consulted formally with the water management district or S.W.F.W.M.D. Twice, in formal pre-application meetings. So the system that we currently show in vaults and -- will be designed to attenuate for the 25-year, 24 hour storm event. Does that answer your question?

8:43:13PM Yes, thank you.

Alan Clendenin

8:43:14PM Start with your name and resume your rebuttal time. Make a couple of other comments based on things that the community said. Hank mentioned build to rent communities. This is not a build to rent community. This will be a platted townhome and single-family detached units along the river, single-family fee ownership development. Also, Mr. Cramer Showed you where there is an easement that comes across the property and what's happening on his property. That is an easement that goes across our property and we are not touching that easement. We will not affect anything that's happening right now. Obviously, that's an existing condition, not something that relates to the development at all, but just to put on the record we aren't touching that easement area. We're not building in that easement area and that will continue to flow exactly like it does today. We have to do that because there is an easement. The very last thing I want to say about stormwater is your city stormwater, Charlie Rodriguez, he reviewed these plans to make sure that the rezoning level these plans are in compliance with the city regulations, and he did find that those are consistent. Finally, I would just like to say now that I've heard all this testimony and seen these pictures and thought about it from their perspective, I understand, right? There is a lot of flooding in their neighborhood right now, and I would be upset and I would be concerned and I would want all the details at this stage. I'm sorry we can't provide fully engineered plans yet, but we did do a lot of preengineering work in order to work with the neighborhood and try to give them information that gave them comfort and hopefully these conditions that we have offered will give an extra step. And there's many, many more processes to go through before this is ever built. I do want to say that. I think that dan and jay who are the developers that are here would say the same thing. We really did work in good faith to try to make this the best development possible to address the concerns and then address as many concerns that weren't even relevant to the rezoning as we could. Thank you very much for your time.

8:45:25PM That concludes your presentation and rebuttal. We're available for questions.

8:45:30PM Does council have any questions? I'm sorry --

8:45:44PM That part of the presentation -- we have a motion to close from Councilwoman Hurtak. A second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

8:45:54PM Martin Shelby, City Council attorney. Council, you have in front of you as I customarily do provide you with the plan development, the PD code criteria, one page, one side of it is related to 27-139 sub-4. That's the waivers. That is not applicable, as you heard from the testimony or from the staff report. There are no waivers involved in that. So that is really not relevant to this hearing. On the other side is 27-136, the purpose and you have items 1 through 9, and my suggestion to you is that you review those and make certain findings based on the competent, substantial evidence that you've heard in the record. Again, you have heard people who have identified themselves as experts and whether you recognize them. Please be advised that the opinion of experts is competent, substantial testimony, but the opinion of lay people who are not experts is not competent, substantial testimony. However, the facts that they raise, if you make certain findings of fact based on their testimony, then that can be used as competent substantial evidence in your decision. That being said, if council wishes to review those, you also have been provided in the course of this by staff reports, by the Planning Commission, the comprehensive plan, and also the city's code, and I would suggest that you do certainly when you make your motion, you base it on the competent, substantial evidence and you make that clear for the record and as well if there are other council members, other than the maker of the motion who have facts that they want to include in the record, that you don't miss an opportunity to support the motion by adding factual basis. And if there is a discussion otherwise, then you can do so as well.

Alan Clendenin

8:48:08PM Thank you. Let me clarify something for the public. There are some people that wanted to interject. I want to make sure -- the public hearing is closed. We're not taking any further testimony. No other evidence will be submitted for this hearing. The reason why I made the motions and had the discussion with you all -- this is a quasi-judicial hearing. It is governed by law and procedure. It is an orchestrated production, beginning, middle, end, we follow these rules and procedures and very important in a quasi-judicial procedure that council follows those so whatever decisions we make they are upheld further down the line. So if we were to waiver from those procedures, it would jeopardize our position and our findings. Okay. Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

8:49:01PM Thank you. I'll just make a motion and I'll tell you why. I move to deny rez 26-57 for the property located at 6111 North Rome Avenue due to the failure of the applicant to meet its burden of proof to provide competent and substantial evidence that the development as conditioned and shown on the site plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan and city code, mainly that -- it's not even comprehensive plan and city code, it's the plan development code criteria. This does not, section 27-136 subsection 6, it does not promote and encourage development where appropriate in location, character, and compatibility with the surrounding impacted neighborhood, built environment, and existing geography. It also does not maximize -- subsection 5, does not maximize the preservation of natural resources such as streams, lakes, floodplains, groundwater, wooded areas, uplands, and areas of unusual beauty or importance to the natural ecosystem, open space, greenspace and historical and archaeological sites. It also does not, subsection 1, promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure with careful consideration of potential adverse impacts to on-site natural elements surrounding impacted neighborhoods and cultural resources.

Guido Maniscalco

8:50:24PM Second.

Alan Clendenin

8:50:25PM I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. A second from Councilman Maniscalco.

Lynn Hurtak

8:50:31PM Let me explain why. I understand that there is a lot of conversation about water tonight, but that's not what this was about to me. This is a density issue. This neighborhood is not ready for this much density. All you have to do is look around it. Yes, the parcels south of that has already been rezoned for RS 35. They are building to that. The rest of the community is not ready for the density that is there. And for anyone to say that it is remotely close is wrong.

Alan Clendenin

8:51:15PM I'm not sure, because this is one of those ones when you think you're going one direction and then you hear the evidence. I wanted to be there, too, but I found that the competent, substantial evidence during the hearing about the density and they talked about the mobile home park to the south, the apartment complex, that this built environment is already there. The density is -- the surrounding density is already there. It's already in that direction.

Lynn Hurtak

8:51:46PM But it is not. It is in super small spaces. What this will do is intensify density throughout the rest of that part of the river and the neighborhood surrounding it. This part of the city, I mean, you all really support South Tampa and no more density there. But this could stand density but much lower density. Like we're going from one thing to 40 houses? That's not appropriate growth of density for that property. And that is the issue. The issue isn't no development. The issue is it can't handle that much development compared to what's around us it. If you want to look at two pieces, that's not. You have to look at what's surrounding it. The surrounding, prevailing growth in that area is single-family.

Alan Clendenin

8:52:46PM Councilman Miranda, did you wish to speak?

Charlie Miranda

8:52:49PM No. I understand what she's saying and understand what the neighbors are saying, understand what the petitioner is saying. Something in zoning that we don't even look at. That is the quality of life of the people. I'm not talking about this zoning, I'm talking about all zonings in the city. We're getting to the point we don't have the land. It's getting harder and harder to get these things across. The public is getting more and more frustrated with the system, not necessarily us, but with the system that we have. That's how it is. It is not based on anything else but a fact versus another fact. Not about the lifestyle of a neighborhood.

Alan Clendenin

8:53:31PM The quasi-judicial hearing that we're talking --

Charlie Miranda

8:53:34PM I'm saying what I see on the street.

Martin Shelby

8:53:38PM Just a reminder, council, once again to take a look at one through nine. If you have findings of fact that you want to make that support your position relative to whether it meets this criteria, that is something you can base your decision on. Just as you heard during the hearing, people standing up and voting with their feet to say whether they support or don't support is not competent, substantial evidence. So my recommendation --

Charlie Miranda

8:54:11PM I didn't say that.

Martin Shelby

8:54:12PM I'm not referring to you, Mr. Miranda, specifically. What I'm saying to you is you heard a lot of testimony. Within that testimony, there may be differences. But you as the finders of fact can make a determination as to whether the facts as you find them to be that are competent, which means they are relevant in material, and they are substantial, which is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not clear and convincing, it's not preponderance of the evidence, it's just substantial. That's what the courts say. If that finding meets the criteria or does not meet the criteria, that could be the basis upon which you make your decision.

Alan Clendenin

8:54:57PM That's kind of the crux of where I'm at. Going into this thinking one thing. After hearing the competent substantial evidence, feeling where the applicant made a compelling case on the competent substantial evidence, not whether I like it or dislike it. Would I rather it be a park? Yes. That's not what we're here to talk about tonight. Honestly, they also came before us with the last one. They clearly listened to us because they made a lot of modifications we asked for. Retained the trees. Did the garages the way we asked. They have access to the river that they didn't have before, which was one of my big concerns. They pushed the fill back beyond that wall, and then the concession, which I know Ms. Batsel reiterated they be required, S.W.F.W.M.D. And other regulations, to be able to stipulate that to the site plan really kind of is above and beyond as far as like some peace of mind on the water flow issues. A lot of our concerns was the water coming across Rome last time through the property, and if they made those concessions and stipulate that this is going to be attached to that and real recourse if something happened. Councilman Carlson.

Bill Carlson

8:56:29PM I think there's competent substantial evidence to say no. the proposal is many times better than it was last time. The developer has taken a lot of effort to listen to us and the community and take out many of the things that we would have objected to. I'll say this, until marty cuts me off, the choices after this is that the developer will either appeal and it will end up in litigation or they may use live local. I don't know if they can use it here. The state has preempted us that there are places in South Tampa where neighbors now wish they had gone back to the original proposal of the developer because what they are getting is a lot worse that the state is allowing huge monolithic buildings. And then the other thing is, they can come back and work with the community again. And if they work with the community again and they resolve some of these other issues, it's going to be tough. If they go back, I encourage the community work with them. Near my house, proposal years ago for condo building. Neighbors didn't want condo building. They rejected and now there is a car wash. If they could go back in time, they would get the condo instead of the car wash. The state is limiting us more and more in what we can do going forward. We can justify I think saying no this time, but going forward, it's going to be, especially if they take away some of the other objections, it's going to be hard to say no.

Martin Shelby

8:58:07PM Can I inquire of the clerk, did the applicant's representative submit for the record that voluntary conditions to be added to the site plan? Do you have that in the record? It's in testimony, and it was -- but it wasn't submitted into the record, but it was placed on the screen.

Lynn Hurtak

8:58:45PM Mr. Shelby, we have a motion on the floor to deny right now. I don't see how that's relevant. Can we please vote on this? If it doesn't pass, then we can consider next steps.

Martin Shelby

8:58:55PM No, no, I want to be clear for the record. Do you have something from the applicant in the record that says voluntary. If you don't, I could reopen and ask that. No, I don't want to reopen it. I just want to be clear. The testimony was clear, but the action was not reflected in the record. I want to be clear for the record. I don't see that as put into the record. I'll let this go. I just want the clarification.

Alan Clendenin

8:59:39PM From the position of the chair, if this motion was to pass, then it's moot anyway. If this motion were to not pass and we were to move forward, it could be a stipulation to the approval that that was added to the site plan.

8:59:56PM I have a motion to deny from Councilwoman Hurtak. I have a second from Councilman Maniscalco. Clerk, would you please call the vote?

Naya Young

9:00:16PM Yes. Particularly as we're going through the criteria, for me it's really, maximizing the preservation of natural resources. Can I appreciate both sides -- I can appreciate both sides. For me, that would be my reasoning just to explain why.

Bill Carlson

9:00:41PM Yes.

Charlie Miranda

9:00:43PM Yes.

Guido Maniscalco

9:00:45PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

9:00:46PM Yes.

Alan Clendenin

9:00:52PM Yes.

The clerk

9:00:54PM Motion carried with Viera absent.

Alan Clendenin

9:01:01PM It is 9:01. We're going to take a nine-minute break. Let's be back at 9:10.

Martin Shelby

9:01:07PM Council, before you do that, just a reminder, there is an appeal period, please do not discuss this with the press and with the public. [Recess] [ sounding gavel ]

Alan Clendenin

9:13:29PM Thank you for your patience. I would like to call this meeting of Tampa City Council back to order. Clerk, would you please call the roll?

Charlie Miranda

9:13:34PM Here.

Guido Maniscalco

9:13:35PM Here.

Lynn Hurtak

9:13:35PM Here.

Naya Young

9:13:37PM Here.

Luis Viera

9:13:37PM Here. Clendenin?

Alan Clendenin

9:13:38PM Here.

The clerk

9:13:42PM We have a physical quorum.

Bria Dixon

9:13:44PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item number 7 is rez 26-67, request to rezone 2016 and 2018 Grant Street from PD Planned Development Place of Religious Assembly to CG commercial general. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Luis Viera

9:14:05PM Just two seconds. It was my mom's 78 birthday. I was with my family. Just in case. I wasn't like out, whatever.

Alan Clendenin

9:14:17PM We're in the middle of a quasi-judicial public hearing. Mr. Collins.

Danny Collins

9:14:24PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. Our next case is within the central Tampa Planning district, specifically the Palmetto Beach neighborhood. Subject site is in the coastal high hazard area evacuation zone a. The subject site is currently recognized under the tu 24 designation and then CMU 35 which is predominantly found along south 22nd street, that transitions to transitional use 24 off of 22nd street as you move west. And then just one block to the west we have heavy industrial, which is included in the Port Tampa Bay. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposed CG zoning and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The surrounding area includes a mix of industrial, commercial, and residential uses as well as vacant parcels. Properties to the north and west zoned RM 16 while properties to the north, east and east of the site along 22nd are zoned CG. The proposed CG zoning district would be consistent with the existing commercial uses along south 22nd and support mix of uses within close proximity to one another, which is consistent with 1.2.8. The tu 24 allows a range of uses. Anything from commercial general to multifamily to single-family attached and detached. During the site plan review process, the applicant should ensure that the site is appropriately buffered from any residential uses. Additionally, the applicant should address the mixed use centers and corridor policy specifically on the CMU 35 designated portions of the site. Overall staff found the request supportive of many policies in the comprehensive plan and consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

9:16:24PM Thank you. Council have questions? Hearing none, next.

Bria Dixon

9:16:29PM Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with an aerial of the subject property. The subject parcel is outlined here in red. Subject site is located in the north side of the West Grant Street between south 22nd avenue as well as south 22nd street. Property to the immediate west zoned RM 16 residential multiple family and developed with single-family detached residences. Immediate north also zoned residential RM 16 as well as CG commercial general. One parcel is vacant. One contains single-family detached resident. Eastward adjacent property CG, commercial general. To the south, a PD for a warehouse. This is a survey of the subject property. Once again, it is outlined here in red. It is comprised of two parcels. One to the east and one to the west. The frontage is 150 feet here along East Grant Street. And together, they also border an alley to the north. I have photos. Subject property. Subject property, single-family detached to the north. Another single-family detached to the north. East. South. This is the alley looking towards south 22nd. Alley looking towards south 20th. And parcel to the west. Development Coordination and compliance staff reviewed the application and find the request to be consistent with the City of Tampa land development regulations. I'm available for any questions.

Alan Clendenin

9:18:28PM Any questions? Hearing none, applicant. Good evening, sir. Start with your name, please. Good evening, council. I brought some before-and-after pictures. That's what the site looked like when we purchased it. Our proposal is basically to turn this site into some type of commercial business. I'm advocating for CG use. There is a lack of commercial property in the Palmetto Beach community, and my goal is to try to reactivate the commercial corridor off 22nd street. I think that this offers a lot of value to the community. If you have any questions, please let me know.

9:19:35PM Thank you. Does council have any questions? Hearing none, anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item. Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda

9:19:51PM Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Item 5 -- rez 26-67, ordinance presented for first reading consideration, ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2016 and 2018 Grant Street in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD Planned Development to CG, commercial general, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

9:20:13PM Motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilwoman Young. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

9:20:22PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

9:20:36PM Did you hear about second hearing?

9:20:41PM Say it again for him.

The clerk

9:20:44PM Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026, At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

9:20:57PM Thank you very much. Have a good night. Before we start item number 8, this will be a first for me, I received some ex parte communication from a family member, kind of a distant third -- distant cousin. That being said and in an abundance of caution, I need to recuse myself from this particular public hearing. I've never done that before. I'm going to hand the gavel over. This is after consultation with Mr. Shelby. I would like to hand the gavel over to Lynn Hurtak.

Martin Shelby

9:21:33PM City Council attorney. May I before chair pro tem takes the gavel. Mr. Clendenin, thank you for disclosing ex parte communication. On that basis and in an abundance of caution, your reasoning as we discussed I believe is to ensure a proceeding free of potential bias or prejudice.

Alan Clendenin

9:21:55PM Correct.

Martin Shelby

9:21:56PM I understand. Thank you very much.

Alan Clendenin

9:21:57PM Thank you.

Martin Shelby

9:22:02PM With regard to your form 8b, that will be prepared for you and it will be submitted at the next regular meeting next week. It will still be timely.

Alan Clendenin

9:22:14PM Very good. Thank you so much. You all have fun.

LaChone Dock

9:22:17PM Good evening, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item number 8 is rez 26-75. This is for the property at 5250 East Broadway Avenue. The request is to rezone a property from PD Planned Development. This was approved in 2021 under rez 21-99. It allows for residential multiple family and strip shopping center and all CI uses. The request is to rezone to PD for the uses of warehouse, all commercial intensive CI uses, and accessory open storage. I would like to state for the record that I did provide an updated staff report. There were a couple of minor revisions that I made on this report. One is for the applicant and the owner names. Put in bold the changes that were made. Under the prior applications also correcting the year from '21 to '25. On page 6 of the staff report under the criteria for the open storage, which is found 27-282, previously I listed in the staff report that that standard had been exceeded but that standard is met. I corrected that also on the report. There's one additional revision added to the revision sheet, and that's regarding a typo in the data table. I also put that in bold. I felt easier to give a new -- for the record.

Lynn Hurtak

9:23:52PM I have a quick question. Didn't we just hear this?

LaChone Dock

9:23:56PM We did. When I present, I was going to go through the background or however you would like. Thank you.

Danny Collins

9:24:08PM Danny Collins with Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Next case is in central Tampa Planning district specifically the east side commercial neighborhood. Subject site is in evacuation zone d. Currently has two future land use designations. To the south along broadway, we have tu 24. That is a category that allows for a range of uses for anything from residential to industrial type uses. And then to the north we have the residential 25 designation, which is the medium density residential land use category. The applicant is utilizing lu policy 5.1.6 to essentially waive the uses that could be considered under the tu 24 portion of the site onto the r-20 portions of the site through a Planned Development zoning district. The surrounding area is interesting. To the south, we have tu 24 and then further south, we have light industrial and heavy industrial. To the north of the subject site we have residential 20 as well as residential 20 to the west and to the east of the subject site. The Planning Commission staff reviewed the PD and found it consistent with a number of policies in the comprehensive plan. It was found compatible with the surrounding area. The request incorporates adequate setbacks, buffering and landscape to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Eastern building is set back approximately 87 feet and western building approximately 145 feet from the single-family homes to the north. Eastern building is also set back approximately 94 feet from the single-family residents to the east, across north 54th street and the western building is approximately 92 feet from the single-family attached uses, I think that's to the west. The site plan includes a fence and buffer compliance table demonstrating that code compliant fencing and landscape buffers will be provided to ensure appropriate screening and compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. The project also includes tree-lined sidewalks along broadway, north 54th and east 14th avenue. In addition, sidewalk connection is provided from the building entrance to East Broadway Avenue, which will enhance pedestrian activity and access to surrounding area. Request is also consistent with the development pattern envisioned under the tu 24 and r-20 designations. When considering the application of lu policy 1.6 regarding the blending provision and aligns with the overall policy direction in the comprehensive plan. Based on those considerations, staff found the request consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

9:27:19PM Any questions? Thank you. Sorry. I'm reading your staff report again.

LaChone Dock

9:27:23PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. So I would like to start off and just provide a bit of background and just for the record state how we got here today. On January 15, 2026, Tampa City Council denied application rez 25-99 with the request to rezone the property located at 5242 and 5250 East Broadway Avenue from Planned Development PD for residential multiple family, strip shopping center and all CI uses to PD to allow for all CI uses. Council moved to deny said petition based on a motion which has been provided within the staff report. It's on page 3 of the staff report. Those items are listed as a part of the motion to deny. So on April 11, 2026, the Zoning Administrator issued approval pursuant to section 27-150, sub b, to waive the 12-month time frame which precludes consideration of other rezoning applications for the same zoning classification, sought by the denied application involving the same lands or any portion thereof, allowing the applicant to reapply, to rezone the subject property. And that is the application before us today to rezone.

Lynn Hurtak

9:28:51PM Generally aren't they supposed to be substantial in difference?

LaChone Dock

9:28:57PM It is actually where they would address the motion, the reason for the denial. What was included in the report, I didn't want to read it all into the record, but if you would like, I certainly can. If they address the reasons for the motion, then it could be reconsidered. So the request before you as mentioned would allow for the warehouse use, all commercial intensive uses as well as accessory open storage. The maximum building height proposed is 35 feet. The property itself contains 314,672 square feet. Parking required 12 spaces, and they are providing 23 spaces. There are two bicycle spaces required and four are provided. So I would like to show you the zoning map. This is the aerial of the subject property. The property is outlined in red. This is Broadway Avenue, just for orientation to the north, further is east North Columbus Drive. So you can see just north of the subject property, you have the residential multifamily zoning with the RM 16 and a pocket of RM 18. To the of South Broadway Avenue, you have your industrial zoning with the IG zoning and some of those industrial uses with commercial intensive and industrial uses with open storage and vehicle repair along Broadway Avenue. The request itself -- this is the site plan that's submitted into the record. Let me zoom out just a little bit. So there are two buildings proposed. Each containing 30,000 square feet. Those are the ones identified in red. So access to the site is on broadway, only on broadway. At this point of access, you have the entry and the exit, and then you're able to enter the site and exit at this point on the property and then a two-way entry here and exit, and then there is a point of entry here. You can see the surface parking spaces are located here and also those buildings are designed where a vehicle can pull in, a truck can pull in and pull into a bay and then pull out and circulate around the site. I'll show you in the picture some of the surrounding uses that are surrounding the property. If open storage is to occur on the property, it would be in this location identified in yellow. Open storage in the CI zoning district is only allowed as an accessory use. That is why the use is listed as accessory for open storage.

9:32:07PM Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I've been reminded that the open storage could be anywhere. Only accessory open storage. Not as a primary use. That will be clarified on the final version. This is the elevation. This is building one. The top is the east elevation and then the west elevation is near the bottom. And then this is the north elevation and then this is the south elevation. Both buildings are the same, but they have been provided for you, the elevations for both. And then I have pictures of the property. So this property is fairly large. It's over seven acres. On Broadway Avenue, there's 473 feet of frontage. I'll try to take you around quickly. That's the north boundary of the site. This is the south. This is on Broadway Avenue. I can go through. I don't have to show each one. That is also the subject property. The site currently is vacant. So that's the east boundary of the property. Here is another view of the east. It's just moving further along. That's the east. Surrounding the subject property, this is north. To the north there's single-family detached and then also single-family semi detached. This is a view of the semi, the two units to the north. This is a view east of the site and this is if you are on 56th street looking north. Directly east of the site on broadway, that's the commercial. East of the site on 54th street is residential. This is west of the site, the commercial, that's at broadway, and then I have pictures of the residential that is located west. These are the two unit locations, and these are west of the site and that's on north 52nd street. With this request, there are no waivers requested. The DRC staff reviewed the request and finds it consistent. There are changes to be made between first and second reading. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

9:34:53PM Anyone with questions? Okay. Applicant? Elise Batsel, Stearns Weaver Miller for the record. I do have resum s and information to submit to the record, if I may.

9:35:18PM Mr. Shelby, do you want a motion to accept those?

Martin Shelby

9:35:22PM Would you like to see them? Then a motion to receive and file.

Lynn Hurtak

9:35:26PM I have a motion to accept these into the record by Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor? Can I have CCTV pull up the presentation?

9:35:41PM We can see it. Hopefully it will be up for you. LaChone already mentioned that this property is 7.22 acres. It is located on East Broadway Avenue east of 50th street at u.s. 41 and of east South Columbus Drive. This is a future land use map just for reference, and also the zoning map. I'll talk a little bit more about the existing entitlements. So I wanted to shape this a little bit. When you look just at the site plan and what's right around it, it does look like we're putting industrial into a residential area. This area is very scattered and definitely a commercial intensive corridor. If you look very closely, even scattered within the residential that's behind this site there are businesses, even more businesses that are shown here. I think there is a lot of potential businesses operating there that maybe -- but definitely a commercial intensive corridor that goes through here all up and down broadway. The existing approval is 2199. It was approved for 10,400 square feet of strip commercial and all CI uses and 104 multifamily units. To give a little background and context, when it was rezoned before, the property owner tried to get interest in building residential here. He had the capital. He had the approvals, but there was no demand for residential here. So the existing PD was never constructed and our client, the applicant purchased the property and is proceeding with a different type of development. This is just an aerial of the property. You can see what remains today. It is definitely underdeveloped and underutilized along this commercial corridor. It's been several years since the closure of the mobile home park formerly located on the site. The request tonight is the approval of a PD allowing two 30,000 square footwear house buildings. As LaChone said, she mentioned open storage. The open storage would only be accessory to the uses within the warehouse building, not open storage as a primary use. You're going to hear shortly from David smith. As you can see from the layout of the plan, the project has added buffering, screening, and we're actually going to walk through what that looks like, how far away the buildings are. Sometimes on the site plans, they look very deceiving but when you see how far away you're actually talking, it puts things in perspective. But we do have significant setbacks and buffering to the north, to the east, and to the west of the site. Change is made from -- I know that you mentioned, Commissioner Hurtak that this looked recent. I wasn't involved when the first project came through, but there were five waivers. I know that was a significant portion of the motion to deny. We've eliminated all of the waivers. Development Coordination now finds this project consistent and so does natural resources and the Planning Commission. At this point in time, I want to turn it over to David smith who has over 51 years of Planning experience in both the private sector and the public sector. I won't ask you when you're retiring anymore. David smith, 401 East Jackson Street, director of development and zoning for Stearns Weaver Miller. Elise kind of set the stage, if I can get this to turn. I guess my picture is just so good to move. Comp plan consistency. I think what I'm really going to try to get to quickly is compatibility issue. If it's compatible, how it relates to the comprehensive plan and how the project is sensitively designed to relate to its boundaries. So in looking at this, policy 1.2.3 talks about a development in the context of neighborhood to propose further this policy by restricting the access to east broadway. The current approval has access off of 14th as well as east broadway. This -- the new design focuses all traffic off of broadway, which will prevent traffic going down the residential streets at least as a result of what the design plan is. Restrict building heights to heights no taller than allowed in the adjacent single-family. Providing significant setbacks north, east, and west where residential uses front or abut the property. Meet or exceed the minimum buffer and setback and screening requirements on all residential frontages. Preserve all non-hazardous grand trees and we have met the on-site tree preservation. We're also proposing a project well under maximum density. .29, about 29% of the allowed density that could be developed on this property with any mix of uses. There we go. Another policy is dealing with just the context of the area. This is very mixed use area. There's public service, fire stations. The school, but also a blend of multifamily units. Principally the residential that's out there today, a lot of them are actually rental units, and it's just showing an area that is in transition and has been transitioning over time. I've already spoken about the density aspect of it. Comp plan consistency, how do we qualify for 5.1.6? Well, you are supposed to mitigate all negative impacts or perceived impacts. The site design that I'll be going through in just a second has mitigated the adverse impacts by the setbacks proposed, the building orientation, the access, the screening and buffering. I'm going to have to get stronger thumbs. The setbacks provided are here in this chart, but I think the graphic that's coming up that I'll show you is really more representative of how the setbacks are. Looking at the whole context, again, we meet the blending criteria. We transitioned the intensity and density away from broadway. The prior had a very dense number of buildings on the back side for multifamily. We built based upon the design we addressed a much better interface with the community. So this graphic shows you essentially on the left -- well, this graphic, it shows you the setbacks that are currently provided from the building to the property line. Again, looking at the building, the property line on west 156th feet to the north, 208 feet from one building and about, I think 137 feet and 88 feet and then to the east we have one of about 95 feet. When you look at the actual units on-site, you see there's significant separation between the buildings on-site and the adjacent buildings. We have upwards of 250 feet on the west. We have 158 feet, 155 feet on the north side where there's actually a highway or actually a road. And then on the east, 150 feet. We use that graphic to show the building on 54th because that's actually the only single-family home that actually fronts that property on that side. Next slide. Again, looking at the key points, significant setbacks, building orientation, limiting the access to all traffic coming off of broadway and then the screening and buffering. So the screening and buffering, we asked for no waivers. We actually exceed the buffer requirement on the eastern boundary where the single-family residents exist. This just shows the code compliance and this is on the site plan. If we can go to the next slide. Here is the real representation of what's going on here. So when you look on the east side, the east side we have a road. We have the sidewalk that's going to be constructed, and we have a ten foot buffer or a five foot buffer be required. In the buffer we're preserving a significant number of trees that already exist on our site and off our site and we're supplementing those trees with additional power line compatible trees at 20-foot on center, and we have shrubbery that's going to be placed five feet on center, and all that landscaping is on the outside of the fence, so it benefits the community. It's not on the inside of the fence where it would only benefit the development. So on the north, this is where 14th street is. We have, again, a five foot buffer, fence, same set, plantings. Right-of-way is a little bit wider on the project frontage. So the sidewalk is close to the road. This section faces three sets of duplexes and three single-family homes. On the south, again, the south is a buffer that we are putting in, but no fencing is required around broadway. That's really not the focus of the buffering. We're trying to protect the adjacent residential uses. So on the list, a couple of things here I want to put a graphic on the elmo that kind of gives you a better feeling here. Boundary, there is an existing drainage ditch. Existing drainage ditch has significant vegetation existing natural along it. On the left side of the illustration or the photo, you can see the fence. That's an existing fence that's going to be replaced with the new fencing and screening on the site. So on the western side of the property, which is why -- actually abut residential properties, we have a very significant buffer. We can go back to the presentation, please. So here is the graphic without all the pretty color of showing you the existing foliage. Again, the fence set back on top of bank. We have the trees and shrubbery actually on the inside of the property this time because they are not going to survive planting new additional trees underneath the significant canopy that exists there today. So when you look at compatibility and all the potential negative impacts of the project, access, limited to broadway, building orientation central to the site with active areas on broadway. Maximum height 35 feet, no taller than existing single-family homes could be built. Buffering, meets or exceeds the code, and we have where we abut. We have very significant buffer that will also be evidenced by the site plan. Very low f.a.r., .18, 29% of what's allowed. And we have 109 trees that are being planted on the site. We're meeting the tree preservation requirements. And I think all these together render this project very compatible and actually is an infill transitional project. The density, intensity built otherwise for multifamily uses and retail on the front is actually a more intensive combination of uses, and it puts more traffic on the residential streets, whereas this proposed development provides a sensitive design, limited intensity, and much more compatible with an area. It's also a better use. All the other uses you see on broadway, basically are euclidean zoning. They didn't have a plan. They didn't have a placement. They weren't required to have buffers. This is everything that those are. Planning Commission found compatible. My professional opinion that based upon the site design that has been discussed, that the site is consistent with the comp plan, compatible and meets the burden for mitigation of any perceived impacts, and I'll turn it back to Elise, unless there are questions.

9:49:23PM Any questions, thank you very much. I think it was you, council member Maniscalco, who said I want to speak for the people because they can't speak for themselves. There's no organized association but she's been canvassing the neighborhood and speaking with neighbors. You can put the slide back up, please. We want to share a few of the comments from neighbors. I'm johnna sunnah mason. In owning this property and going back and forth to this property, I've been approached by neighbors all the time. They come up and accost me and say, are you going to do something here? I hope something is happening soon because they view this property as an issue for their neighborhood because it's been empty for decades. And it attracts people who like vacant properties and dump and do things they don't want to have done there. I knew they were supportive. I went back and tried to do it in a more organized way. I think there are some notes that maybe Elise that you have. Oh, they are here. I have addresses and phone numbers and names of people that are immediately surrounding, and in the adjacent streets. They all focused on job creation. People asked me, can I apply for a job? They are very focused on seeing kind of the mixed use way of the community. One person in particular actually volunteered and said we don't want to see any houses here. It will make my rent go up. I want to see something where I can make money at a job.

9:51:00PM Thank you. Any questions? Is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak to this tonight? I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco to close and a second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Anyone have anything to say about this one? I'll just say that I'm still -- I still would love to see housing here, but I respect what's been done. I respect what the community wants. I particularly like seeing that there will be sidewalks around all three sides of the property. Sidewalks are very lacking in that neighborhood, a neighborhood that people walk a lot in. This is still not my favorite use of this, but I can accept it. Council member Carlson, would you be willing to read this?

Bill Carlson

9:51:55PM Move file rez-26-75, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 5250 East Broadway Avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD, Planned Development to PD Planned Development, warehouse, all commercial intensive CI uses and accessory open storage, providing an effective date.

Lynn Hurtak

9:52:21PM I have a motion from council member Carlson. A second from council member Maniscalco. Council member Young.

Naya Young

9:52:28PM I kind of agree with you, Councilwoman Hurtak. With so much space, opportunity of what can be put there, but I can appreciate the revisions that were made. Thank you for taking the time to do that. With so much space, so much opportunity, but thank you for making the revisions.

Lynn Hurtak

9:52:55PM I have a motion and second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

The clerk

9:53:00PM Motion carried with Clendenin abstaining. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Lynn Hurtak

9:53:18PM Our fearless leader is coming back now.

Martin Shelby

9:53:22PM Councilman Clendenin, before you move on, you have a form 8b sitting in front of you waiting for your signature. You can have it received and filed at this time.

Bill Carlson

9:53:31PM Move to receive and file.

Alan Clendenin

9:53:33PM Motion from Councilman Carlson, second from Councilwoman Hurtak. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Councilwoman Hurtak. Ms. Dock, would you like to present item 9?

LaChone Dock

9:53:48PM Yes, thank you, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. Item 9 is rez 26-77. It is for the property at 4001 North Riverside Drive. The request is to rezone the property from sh-cg Seminole Heights commercial general to sh-pd Seminole Heights Planned Development for professional residential treatment facility.

Danny Collins

9:54:09PM Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Next case is within the central Tampa Planning district, specifically Seminole Heights urban village. The subject site is in evacuation zone a and a sliver of the subject site is within the coastal high hazard area. Here is the adopted future land use map. Subject site currently designated CMU 35 which surrounds the site on all sides. CMU is predominantly found along this corridor here. It transitions to residential 10 to the south. The Planning Commission reviewed the request and found it consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The comprehensive plan encourages the redevelopment of underutilized properties to help address the city's housing needs. In this case converting existing office building into a residential professional treatment facility, expand housing opportunities by providing supportive housing for residents with specialized needs, which is consistent with the plan and housing policies. Because the request involves the reuse of existing building, some design policies related to building orientation, street activation cannot be fully met. However, the applicant has agreed to provide a pedestrian connection from the primary building entrance to the sidewalk along North Riverside Drive. The applicant will also extend the pedestrian pathway eastward along the north side of the building to connect the entrance to the eastern parking area. These commitments are reflected on the city's revision sheet. With these revisions, the proposal will improve pedestrian connectivity throughout the site and better support the intent of the mixed use centers and corridor policies as well as addressing some of the mobility and urban village policies related to pedestrian connectivity. Overall, the staff -- Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the surrounding area, and based on those considerations, staff finds the request consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation.

Alan Clendenin

9:56:15PM Thank you. Council have any questions? Hearing none, next.

LaChone Dock

9:56:20PM Thank you again, council. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I would like to put up the zoning map for you for this property. This is the subject property that's outlined in red. This is MLK. This is Riverside Drive. You can see that the property is surrounded with the sh-cg, Seminole Heights commercial general zoning. I would like to point out within the staff report, I spoke about the surrounding uses. To the west is an existing residential treatment facility. So one of the waivers requested is to that distance separation required when another facility is within 2,000 feet. So that is one of the waivers requested, and that is the facility that is across the street. Further north of the subject property, you have the sh-rm, multifamily zoning with those uses. Along MLK, you have the commercial zoning with the CN and the mixture of the RO, residential office zoning and uses. Further south, you have your residential single-family zone and transitions to your RS 60 zone with the single-family detached uses. This is the site plan that's submitted in the record. This is MLK. This is Riverside Drive. This is the subject property. It's broken into parcel one and parcel two. This is the building that is on-site. That is the existing building to remain. So the request would allow for residential treatment facility with 65 beds. The maximum building height is 45 feet. 15 parking spaces required and 52 provided. Seven bicycle spaces required and 7 provided. On the property. The building setbacks are to the north 50 feet, to the south is 20 feet. To the west 52 feet and to the east 220 feet. So you'll see at the end of the report when I review the waivers requested, given the fact that this is a reuse of existing building you'll see the waivers to the Seminole Heights section of the code. Because that building exists, it is hard to meet those standards. Just taking that into consideration was a part of the finding from urban design. The finding of consistent just because we promote the reuse of a building. The other alternative is to demo the building and start new with all new construction. That is both of the Seminole Heights waivers you'll see on this site. I have a few pictures. Also the elevation varies on the site. The site plan, when you see it little different when out on site and walking the site. This is the northeast corner. Of the property at Riverside Drive. This is the internal view of the property. And that's the entrance that's located there this is the center view of the site. This is looking east. This is the subject property. That's the eastern portion of that building. This is west and that's the facility I mentioned that's located west. That was approved through a special use, by the way, in 2018. This is north of the property that's on Riverside Drive. This is also north. And then this is another view of the entry to the property. The DRC staff reviewed the request and finds the request consistent. There are waivers to the Seminole Heights district. There is a waiver to special use which is what I reviewed with you, and that was due to the existing residential treatment facility to the west. There is also a duplicate waiver listed on the staff report. Waiver number 2 and number 4 are duplicates. Waiver number 2 can go away. We don't need that waiver twice. It is captured in the Seminole Heights code. But for the Seminole Heights section of the code, there are waivers to the build-to line regarding the building placement, there is a waiver for transparency. There is a waiver for the parking placement to allow at 0 feet instead of 15 feet, which is the required in the Seminole Heights district from the front yard when parking is located on the property. And then also, the last waiver for Seminole Heights is to allow the reduction in the drive aisle. The drive aisles you see are at 22 feet in width. That concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any questions.

Lynn Hurtak

10:01:12PM Understanding that there are a lot of provisions in the Seminole Heights code being waived because of the use of an existing building which we had another one of those earlier tonight. My only question is, because it's a PD, if this building were to be demolished at a future date, they would have to build within the Seminole Heights code, correct?

LaChone Dock

10:01:38PM Yes, correct. LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. The applicant has agreed to place that note on the site plan. I'm just checking to make sure it is listed there, to meet the Seminole Heights code if the building is demolished and you have new construction. That is one thing that would be added between first and second reading if the applicant agrees and I believe they do.

Lynn Hurtak

10:02:03PM Okay. I wanted to make sure on that.

Alan Clendenin

10:02:06PM Applicant? Honored to be here on behalf of riverside recovery. Truly an amazing organization that does amazing things, including people that are very close to me. They have done such a good job, they need to expand. Originally they were going to expand the ground floor of the existing building but our hurricanes two years ago proved that was not the right place and this adaptive reuse opportunity came about across the street. So that's what they are pursuing. As far as the condition you mentioned, this is an adaptive reuse that necessitates the overwhelming majority of the waivers, and should this building be demolished we completely understand and agree it would have to be built to code. With that, I'll stand down for any questions. Megan smith of my office has a few slides. Samantha allberry, the president and CEO of riverside would like to address count as well. Thank you. Megan smith, 400 North Ashley Drive with Gardner brewer Hudson. Pop through this really quickly. So wanted to just touch base. LaChone did a great job orienting you guys to the site. Located on Martin Luther King and Riverside Drive. The office building that we see there was constructed in 1983, so our request is to adaptively reuse the facility for a professional residential treatment facility. This would have been a special use 2 application, but because we're using an existing building, we have waivers accompanying it with the application tonight. The building is a little over 20,000 square feet. 45 feet in height. Access will be on Riverside Drive and Martin Luther King. And then the eastern portion of the site is going to remain as is. There is some surface parking there but monitoring Wells in the back, so a little field area you'll see on aerial view. Quickly wanted to touch on the waivers. If you have questions, happy to answer further. Distance separation waiver. As Truett mentioned, the main facility is located along the river. That is the one we're requesting the waiver from. This is an expansion of those services taking them across the street out of coastal high hazard area and really being able to utilize the existing building to finish the needs that the facility has. Transportation is for that driveway width and then the urban design requirements that LaChone went through. Happy to put the note on the site plan saying that we will look at those and come back through if any redevelopment happens. Staff reviewed application, all parties found it to be consistent and are recommending approval. We appreciate their review and time as we work through the pieces of the application. With that, I'll hand it over to samantha, the CEO of riverside. Kind of good night at this point. My name is samantha allberry. I am president and CEO of riverside recovery. I've been with riverside for nine years since we opened the doors. I worked in multiple different capacities. Operations, compliance, HR, and ultimately in the role that I have today. I've had the privilege of watching riverside since before we even opened. I have really got to see it evolve and grow over time. Since opening our doors in 2017, we have served more than 6700 individuals and families. They have trusted us with their care. Today we employ 113 staff members. We provide a full continuum of care. Detox all the way through outpatient treatment. We are licensed by the Florida department of children and family services. We're accredited by the joint commission. The commission on accreditation of rehabilitation facilities, the american society of addiction medicine. We're also a teaching facility. So we partner with USF, with ut, st. Leo, many other local universities. We have psychiatry rotations previously with USF and morsani college of medicine. We also work with transplant teams at Tampa general, hca, Advent health. We treat very medically complex individuals that a lot of other centers cannot service. We also operate a specialized professionals program, so we serve physicians, nurses, attorneys, aviation professionals, executives. While our reach and reputation has grown significantly, over the last nine years, riverside remains overwhelmingly local. So 82% of the individuals that we serve come from within 50 miles of the facility. And 32% -- sorry, correction. 37% of the individuals we serve come from Hillsborough county specifically. This year, as we celebrated our ninth anniversary, riverside was awarded the number one residential addiction treatment center in the State of Florida by news week. It is our fifth consecutive year of being recognized. We had every intention, as Truett said before, that we were going to expand on our ground floor. When the hurricane came it flooded the ground floor of our flagship location, so we were unable to continue with our expansion. We kind of said as the floodwaters went away, so did our hopes and dreams of expanding down there. And then we were presented with the opportunity to purchase the building across the street. If riverside could go somewhere and provide these services, a really extremely important next level of care, I cannot imagine a better location, a more responsible location to do it. Relapse is highest with the services that we would be providing. So directly across the street we have our flagship location. We have medical nursing 24/7, staff and infrastructure that we've built over there. For nine years, our employees have come to work there. Thousands of patients and families have trusted us. Health care professionals have trained there. Hospitals have entrusted us with their complex clients, and we've weathered hurricanes. We have really built our roots right there in that area, and we continue investing here. We are proud to call Tampa our home, and we are asking for the opportunity to continue serving this community for many years to come. Thank you for your time and consideration.

10:09:27PM Thank you very much. Does that conclude your presentation?

10:09:30PM Anybody in the audience that wishes to speak to this item? Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco.

LaChone Dock

10:09:42PM LaChone Dock, Development Coordination. I have a revised revision sheet that's updated. I added this note to comply with the Seminole Heights code at the time of new construction, of new building construction. If this existing building is demo'd. Also a note regarding parcel 2 on the existing revision sheet, that is not necessary. I removed it. I would like to submit it.

Alan Clendenin

10:10:09PM Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

10:10:10PM I'm going to receive and file this with the clerk.

Alan Clendenin

10:10:14PM Motion to receive and file from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Martin Shelby

10:10:21PM Just affirm by the petitioner that those changes to the revision sheet are acceptable?

Alan Clendenin

10:10:28PM Noted. Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Viera, would you please read item 9 with the revised revision sheet.

Luis Viera

10:10:40PM Move an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4001 North Riverside Drive in the City of Tampa Florida and more described in section 1 from zoning district classification sh-cg, Seminole Heights commercial to sh-pd Seminole Heights Planned Development professional residential treatment facility, providing an effective date with the revisions.

Alan Clendenin

10:11:03PM With the revised revision sheet. Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye.

The clerk

10:11:09PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026 At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

10:11:24PM Thank you. It's a long time coming. We're at the last item of the night. This is going to be quick, easy, and brilliant.

Bria Dixon

10:11:40PM Development Coordination. Agenda 10 is rez 26-47, request to rezone 1701 North Florida Avenue and 207 east 7th avenue from PD, Planned Development, rm-24 to PD, Planned Development, storefront residential and commercial, all CG uses, residential multiple family and parking off-street commercial. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Danny Collins

10:12:05PM Danny Collins, Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Last case is in central Tampa Planning district within the Tampa Heights urban village neighborhood. Subject site is in evacuation zone e. Here is the adopted future land use map. Just for reference, this is armature works, rmu 100. Here is the subject site here. Portion of the subject site along Florida Avenue is within cc-35. The eastern and southern portion of the site is within the residential 83 designation. The phase one portion of the project contains both cc-35 and r 83 while the proposed phase two building is located entirely within r 83. Site is also within the cdb periphery, projects may utilize the bonus provision agreement to increase the density and intensity up to 100% above the category maximums. Applicant has entered into a bonus agreement with the city for the cdb periphery bonus. The proposal is consistent with the density anticipated under the r 83 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Building is oriented toward east 7th avenue and includes walk-up units, sidewalks, street trees and pedestrian connections that support the urban village. Mixed use centers and corridor policies. Overall, the request provides additional housing within the Tampa Heights urban village near transit employment and commercial services and is consistent with the city's Planning strategy. Based on these considerations, the Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan.

Alan Clendenin

10:13:48PM Any questions, hearing none.

Bria Dixon

10:13:49PM Development Coordination. Start with the aerial view of the subject area. The property is here outlined in red. It is comprised of two phases. Currently located in the Tampa Heights historic district. Subject site is of north East Florida Avenue as well as west of morgan and south of east oak. Phase one to the north, this part here, approved in 2021 and recently completed construction as a storefront residential structural with nonresidential uses on ground floor and 320 residential units above. Requested development of adjacent vacant parcel here to the south. To be developed as phase two. Surrounding uses include multiple family residential Planned Development to the east, Planned Development current operating as salvation army to the south as well as a mix of commercial uses along the west and congregate living facility to the east. Here is the site plan. Which shows here phase one and advertise two to the south, which is the main purpose of the proposal. Here is an enlargement. And then the details of phase two, which are before us today. The applicant proposes phase two to contain 101 multiple family residential units within an 8 story, 110-foot structure. Most required parking and bicycle parking for phase two proposed within the existing parking garage of phase one and made accessible via right-of-way and suspended open air pedestrian bridge or sky bridge which connect phases one and two at third floor. Five on street parking spaces are adjacent to property and have been proposed. In total phase one and two provide 431 multifamily residential units. 11,000 square feet of commercial area, 540 parking spaces and 51 bicycle spaces. July 9, 2026, Architectural Review Commission reviewed the request as ARC 26300 and recommended denial for reasons that the existing scale, height, width, massing, residential setbacks, orientation, and site coverage, which is connected by the sky bridge is already beyond what may have historically been found in the Tampa Heights historic district. Nevertheless, existing conditions were not found to constitute a harmful impact on surrounding historical district. Tie vote of 2-2, a recommendation of denial was issued in accordance with ARC rules and procedures. Here are proposed elevations. This is currently what is there for phase one on the east and 7th avenue. From North Florida Avenue as well as oak avenue, and this is the proposal for phase two where you can see that pedestrian bridge connection at the east elevation, and here is the north elevation as well as the west elevations here and the south elevations. I also have photos. Here we have phase one. Subject property, phase one again from North Florida Avenue. This is a view of both phases one and phases two. Essentially where the bridge would be. Subject property at phase two. This is part of phase one here and this is a view from the north. North. Property to the north. To the east. Additional residential units to the east. Residential units to the east as well. This is the salvation army located to the south. Additional units to the south, and mix of commercial uses to the west. The applicant is requesting for waivers from 27283 to reduce loading berths from five to two, 60% reduction. Waiver 2, section 27284 reduce required tree retention from 50% for over -- tree retention of 50% for sites over one acre to zero%. 27283 to allow commercial traffic access to a local street from east 7th avenue and East Oak Avenue. And then waiver number 4 section 27283 to allow loading to occur in more than one continuous maneuver to allow loading to occur with single 30-foot truck and allow maneuvering in right-of-way. Development staff reviewed request and finds inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Please refer to transportation Architectural Review Commission and Development Coordination comments for overall consistency finding. If City Council approves application and waivers requested the modifications to the site plan as shown on submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading. Revision will not resolve transportation finding of inconsistent. I'm available for questions.

Alan Clendenin

10:19:26PM Council have questions? Hearing none, applicant. Tyler Hudson. 400 North Ashley Drive. Joining me this evening, in addition to my colleague Alex Schaler, is Patton chillura, principal with loci capital, who is the developer. He is also the eldest of the chill bros ice cream dynasty. [ inaudible ]

10:20:00PM If he brought a five-gallon container --

Martin Shelby

10:20:10PM Do you agree you can be free of bias -- this site came to you all in 2022. Rez 21-95 -- or 21-86. It was approved for multifamily development phase one. Florida Avenue, you've seen it. That site is entirely inside the Tampa Heights historic district. Important distinction that I'll talk about in a little bit. Phase one is open. Almost 500 people new residents, new neighbors in Tampa Heights who call that development home. Across the street, parcel of land came available, st. Joseph's hospital by right RM 24 zoning, could fit maybe a handful of townhomes on it. Because the phase one building has so much extra parking we're able to do a magic trick. This might be the first project ever brought before you for an apartment building that has zero on-site parking. Parking would be across the street. That allows a project like this to bring in a really nice amount of density. Hundred units is on the smaller side. Most of what you see is between 250 and 325 units. It is smaller scale but the magic is to be able to use some of the unutilized extra parking that's just sitting there right across the street in order to make a site like this work with the amount of density that r 83 really calls for. This is what it looks like. We don't have the colorful version. Ricky Peterika can talk more about the trees. We are proposing type one trees on the north, west, and south side. East side has overhead power lines. We don't want to make commitments we can't make work. Bonus side, we are proposing 10% set aside 101 units. That's 10.1 affordable housing units, we round up all the time with that. It's actually 11 affordable housing units. Worth noting that phase one we refer to that's already built also had a 10% set-aside requirement. We went back and forth with staff on that, we are asking that we have the flexibility to put the 11 units either all partially somewhere between the phases. It's a singular development, but for different reasons, it might make sense to have some of the set-aside units across the street. The building across the street is much more heavily amenitized. This will be an apartment building. The building to the north has a couple more bells and whistle due to its size. On waivers, some of these waivers already approved. I don't like to come in here presumptuously and say they are already approved. Part of the PD is already built. Loading waiver, we only have one building across the street which is significantly larger. It's worked out fine. Only want to have one waiver in this smaller building as well. Natural resources, the retention waiver down to zero was already approved. Ricky can talk more about this. I don't think there are any trees that we feel are really worthy of preservation of natural resources. Did find this consistent and hopefully partially based on what we're proposing to put back. The two areas inconsistency, transportation is the loading waiver which I think in the rankings is maybe the second or third most requested and granted waiver by this council. I do want to talk about historic preservation a little bit. Use the word denial, that's fair but more of a deadlock. Building is not in historic district. Historic district runs down the middle of the street. The walkway, sometimes called a sky bridge, a little bit of a strong word, they got the chance to review that walkway. There was a motion to recommend the rezoning. Again, they are just looking at the walkway, technically half of it, but not reasonable only looking at walkway. Motion of support. Two votes supported, two votes did not. Tie does not go to the applicant. It was a deadlock. Again, in their defense, really looking at it in a vacuum. The reason the walkway is a necessity to the point I mentioned, able to have a nice amount of urban density in a site where there's parking across the street. That's something very common in other cities. Having parking right inside your apartment building is not a universal condition in urban environments in this country. That's what it would generally look like. We don't really have elaborate design buildings. This will have to get a certificate of appropriateness from the Architectural Review Commission if we're fortunate enough to get an approval. There will be a public hearing process. Architecture drawings, things like that to show what it can look like. Again, kind of saw this a little bit already. That's where it will go. Obviously a lot of brick on 7th avenue. Masonry on the lower floors of the building that's already there. We already talked to the civic association about commitments that we're making in the zoning on materiality and things like that which will get fleshed out obviously in the process. These elevator walkways aren't totally unheard of. There are some in ybor. I think this has a cool opportunity to have a gateway signage function. We'll flesh that out with the neighborhood and Architectural Review Commission as we go forward. Council has approved in other circumstances these walkways to connect two buildings. It's hot. As you all know, it's hot right now. It rains a lot. Having people walk across the street at grade isn't something that we think is going to entice people to want to live here but a nice covered walkway in keeping with the architectural character of the building already there the one trying to build, the brick street around it is something I'm really confident we can figure out how to do. Tampa civic heights association. This is Patton's third project in Tampa Heights. Fortunate to have their support. They did ask the main thing we focused on was some commitments in the zoning on what the walkway could look like. We do have a supplemental revision sheet we want to include. They were understanding we still have to get the walkway approved architecturally. Because the zoning is binding, there was a desire to put some commitments in there just to make sure there is a match between what the current building looks like, what the new building looks like and the walkway that connects them which, of course, we want to do, too, but trust and verify. That's why we're proposing to put that note in. That's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Lynn Hurtak

10:26:52PM I think you mostly answered my questions but I'll ask again because the elevations are kind of bare. I did want to make sure that they are going to be complementary because it's not in the historic district you don't technically have to, but I would certainly hope that it would match. Additionally, great. I'm glad that will be there. I also, I know they are looking -- are you looking at adding the interior, like the on-street parking the same way you did on Morgan Street in that area and possibly 7th or no? I'm just asking if it will be kind of similar because you have that nice off-street parking on both morgan and 7th.

10:27:46PM Letting you know I think they will be doing restriping of because that 7th Morgan Street is a bicycle boulevard, that will lead into double protected bike lanes as they go further south. Morgan is the street now that like all the cyclists use. Just a little heads up. [Indiscernible]

10:28:07PM No, we're working on it. Just kind of add that as an aside.

Alan Clendenin

10:28:14PM Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

10:28:16PM Could you go back, to I think it was the second slide, talking about the housing, the affordable housing. This 10% will be in this phase two? The second building? We might want to put the units into the phase one building. We want to have the flexibility because it's a single one. There's 32 restricted units in phase one. We didn't do that for bonus reasons. We did a 5% set-aside for some land we bought from the city and then the neighborhood wanted that to be ten so we added five. So this is a pretty good amount of affordable units. Essentially 10% of the entire project which at full build-out will have 420ish units, will be set aside. These 10% units, which, again, stop talking about percentages. There's 11 units that we have to rent restrict if this gets approved, if this building gets built. Six of those will be restricted to 80% AMI level and 5% at the 120% AMI level. 11 units restricted either on top of what's already been restricted in phase one or all in the new building or perhaps a blend of both.

Alan Clendenin

10:29:50PM Any further questions? Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby

10:29:54PM Yes. Mr. Hudson, with regard to the supplemental, did you provide a copy to the clerk and staff? I've got a copy.

10:30:07PM With regard to the reference you made about the design -- it's by text. We thought about doing it geographically, but turns out that is harder.

Alan Clendenin

10:30:31PM Motion to receive and file. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Anything else, Mr. Shelby?

Martin Shelby

10:30:40PM This is on top of the revision sheet that already exists. Motion include staff revision sheet and supplemental provided by the applicant. That is our desire.

Alan Clendenin

10:30:50PM Any further discussion? Anybody in the public wishing to speak to this item? Ricky, are you sure you don't want to speak to this item? Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. I'll say this is kind of the density that we're anticipating for this area. Part of what the streetcar is counting on, to have that kind of density along the route. Good job. Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

10:31:18PM File number rez 26-47, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1701 North Florida Avenue and 207 east 7th avenue in the City of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section 1 from zoning district classification PD Planned Development and rm-24, residential multifamily, to PD Planned Development, storefront residential/commercial, all CG uses, residential multiple family and parking off-street commercial, providing an effective date.

Alan Clendenin

10:32:00PM Motion from Councilwoman Young, second from Councilman Maniscalco. The revision sheet.

Naya Young

10:32:10PM With the revision sheet and the supplement. You're welcome.

Alan Clendenin

10:32:15PM I have a motion and second. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

The clerk

10:32:20PM Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026, At 10 a.m. at old city hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Alan Clendenin

10:32:35PM I heard Mr. Maniscalco whisper how dare he walk into the council chambers without a 5-gallon bucket of ice cream.

10:32:54PM That concludes our regularly scheduled program. New business. Councilman Carlson.

Bill Carlson

10:33:01PM I have three. We mentioned Andy huse earlier. Guido, do you want to make that motion? Do you know who Andy was? I would like to make a motion to create an off-site posthumous commendation for Andy huse.

Alan Clendenin

10:33:18PM Motion from Councilman Carlson. Seconded from Councilman Maniscalco. All in favor, aye. Opposed?

Bill Carlson

10:33:27PM H-u-s-e. H-u-s-e. Thank you. I don't know if anybody sells Planning to do this. The rays' have asked us to put their item -- to put the vote for their contract on the August 27 agenda. Unless somebody else wants to do that, I'll make a motion to do that.

Alan Clendenin

10:33:57PM Motion from Councilman Carlson, second from Councilman Viera. Discussion?

Lynn Hurtak

10:34:02PM What contract?

Bill Carlson

10:34:06PM I also would make it, by the way, subject to them having it onbase by 5:00 tomorrow.

Lynn Hurtak

10:34:13PM I haven't seen it.

Bill Carlson

10:34:14PM I haven't seen it either.

Lynn Hurtak

10:34:18PM Yeah, if it's not in onbase by 5:00 tomorrow, sure, yeah.

Alan Clendenin

10:34:23PM With the condition --

Bill Carlson

10:34:25PM I make a motion to put the rays' contract vote on the August 27 agenda provided that it's in onbase by 5:00 tomorrow.

Lynn Hurtak

10:34:41PM I'm still not going to vote for it.

Alan Clendenin

10:34:44PM Motion from Councilman Carlson. Second from Councilman Viera. All in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Who were the nays? The three of you.

The clerk

10:35:03PM Carlson motion, Viera second, rays' contract motion carried with Hurtak voting no.

Alan Clendenin

10:35:10PM Also Maniscalco --

The clerk

10:35:11PM Motion carried with Hurtak, Maniscalco, and Miranda voting no.

Bill Carlson

10:35:19PM I got a long motion that was given to me -- so the West Tampa neighborhoods have been organizing. They have some concerns about the impact of the stadium. And they want the Planning Commission to help them. I've spoken to and they have also spoken to commissioner cohen and I think also myers and I spoke to elizabeth Zornitta and she gave input into this motion. I'll read it. Motion to enable and direct the Hillsborough county Planning Commission to complete a development impact study for the purpose of providing recommendations on a new West Tampa stadium district master plan. Within this development impact study plan Hillsborough will evaluate transportation and land use impacts anticipated for surrounding areas related to the proposed stadium and an assumed 8 million square feet of new commercial development at the Hillsborough College campus. The study and the West Tampa stadium district master plan shall include recommendations for improvements, addressing critical issues such as parking demand, transit opportunities, transportation, local businesses, local and regional connectivity, district branding and aesthetics, historic preservation, density, and how long affordability. Hillsborough will come back to City Council -- they are recommending three weeks. Sorry, to give us an update on the process that they would propose, not to get the answer.

Alan Clendenin

10:36:53PM How would that work?

Bill Carlson

10:36:55PM It's a separate process than the contract. They can't finish this before the contract. But parallel that, they would like a Planning process.

Lynn Hurtak

10:37:05PM I think the Planning process is a great idea, but that should happen way before a contract is signed. That's absolutely -- I mean, why would we -- what if they come back with a plan saying it's a bad idea? I think that's a great idea, but it should absolutely -- it would be instead of your motion to bring the contract forward next week.

Bill Carlson

10:37:39PM If you listen in there, they talk about the stadium and all the other things they want.

Alan Clendenin

10:37:44PM Could you make a motion instead -- to have staff come back and report -- I mean, just report on the possibility of doing something like this, not actually do it. Get the good, the bad and the ugly for it. Then you don't have to give so much time.

Bill Carlson

10:38:04PM Can we pick a date?

Alan Clendenin

10:38:06PM When is the next staff report opening on the calendar?

Bill Carlson

10:38:13PM September 17, there are -- so motion to have, to ask Melisa Zornitta from the Planning Commission and Jamie Jones from West Tampa Heights neighborhood association come to us with a proposal on studying for Planning the larger West Tampa area.

Alan Clendenin

10:38:36PM I have a motion from Councilman Carlson. Is there a second? Second from Councilman Viera.

Martin Shelby

10:38:45PM Where on the agenda does that appear?

Alan Clendenin

10:38:47PM Under staff reports. We have nothing. Any discussion?

Lynn Hurtak

10:38:54PM I will support it if we move the vote of the contract till after that. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Alan Clendenin

10:39:03PM About the feasibility of doing something.

Lynn Hurtak

10:39:11PM It sounds like you all have basically made your minds up. Y'all are voting for this contract.

Alan Clendenin

10:39:17PM This is bigger than just 120 acres because he's talking about the larger district.

Bill Carlson

10:39:24PM I don't know if you heard everything I read, but the stadium is a part of it, but they are asking for Planning for the entire area and how the neighborhoods with each other, branding, aesthetics. If you take out the word stadium, they still want this. I can read the whole thing and take out the word stadium. This is not dependent on whether we do the stadium or not. They never had a master plan other than the over lay district.

Alan Clendenin

10:39:53PM Let's hear what staff has to say about it. We have a motion and second. All in favor, aye. Opposed?

Charlie Miranda

10:40:00PM I oppose it. I oppose everything.

Alan Clendenin

10:40:04PM You're not in black, councilman.

Charlie Miranda

10:40:06PM Today is not one of those meetings.

Bill Carlson

10:40:09PM His neighborhood is West Tampa Heights, by the way.

The clerk

10:40:18PM Hurtak, were you -- so motion carried with Miranda voting no.

Alan Clendenin

10:40:29PM Councilman Viera.

Luis Viera

10:40:30PM Three quick things. This morning we heard from Mr. Tom Degeorge on small venues over in Ybor City. I had discussed his doing perhaps a report on suggestions specifically we can act on and to have it to us by date certain. I move, if I may, that that be given to us with a receive and file on October 15 on the agenda. To have under written report Tom Degeorge's filed report with us on ways that we can assist small concert venues in and around the Ybor City area. Sebastian, get with Mr. Degeorge. E-mail him.

Alan Clendenin

10:41:19PM Do you have this in writing for the clerk? Reminder for everybody, we should have these written for the clerk. Motion from Councilman Viera, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Luis Viera

10:41:39PM My next one is next week, Pastor Justin la rosso was supposed to come and discuss with us his Returning Citizens housing. He's undergoing serious health challenges and has requested this be moved to October 15 under staff reports when he and staff can come and we have that open. I move that for October 15. It will be taken off the agenda for next week.

Alan Clendenin

10:42:05PM Remove from agenda for next week and continue this to October 15. Motion from Councilman Viera. Second from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor, aye. Opposed?

Bill Carlson

10:42:16PM Everybody, please pray for Justin.

Luis Viera

10:42:21PM He's a good man. Thank you for that, sir. My last one, Michael gonzalez, some of us are going to go to that krewe of West Tampa thing on Saturday. Michael has gone through some very difficult times. His mother passed. Apparently being crowned king of the coronation ball. I want to off-site, not in the formal program, Councilman Miranda, are you going to that, sir? Do you want to pull it aside and give it to him. Let's do it. What the hell.

Charlie Miranda

10:42:52PM Not hell. You told me to go to hell. Thank you.

Luis Viera

10:42:57PM I said why the hell not, right?

Alan Clendenin

10:42:59PM We're already there. It is 10:45, we're already there.

Luis Viera

10:43:05PM I motion for Mr. Gonzalez a commendation.

Alan Clendenin

10:43:08PM Motion to issue commendation from Councilman Viera, second from Maniscalco. All in favor aye.

Luis Viera

10:43:17PM Very off-site.

Alan Clendenin

10:43:20PM Councilwoman Young.

Naya Young

10:43:25PM I don't know if you remember, when we were talking about the budget and talking about stormwater and there was a list of projects that came up that were either canceled or postponed. One of them was 56 and broadway project that came up during public comment at that time. Since that came up, myself -- we have gone out to the site to look at it and also talked with mobility to investigate a little bit more about that project. We actually have a meeting scheduled for next week. Just to kind of update the public and thank you, you know, to our constituents for bringing up during public comment so we can investigate further. Also, you all know the shriners were in town. I want to thank them because they did a lot in the community for what they did. Thank you all for what you're doing giving back to the youth. Also, just speaking for me, I am my own person, and I will make my own votes. When the time comes, when I take a lot of consideration into what I vote, I speak to my constituents daily, and I get information and I make decisions and go from there. I am my own person. Separate from anybody. I go from there. I don't want anything to be misconstrued about what I said and did not say.

Alan Clendenin

10:44:55PM Councilwoman Hurtak.

Lynn Hurtak

10:44:56PM This is from the Planning Commission. They are ready to come back with the comp plan. Request by the Planning Commission to set adoption hearings for the future land use section update ta/cpa 24-04, Housing Section update ta/cpa 24-05, and Coastal Management Section update ta/cpa 24-06 to the comprehensive plan for October 22, 2026 at 5:01 p.m. and to direct the Legal Department to provide the city clerk with the form of notice for advertising the public hearings.

Alan Clendenin

10:45:32PM Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak. Second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Opposed?

Lynn Hurtak

10:45:43PM Yes. If I slurred my words, I'm sorry. October 22, 2026. Thank you for the clarification.

Alan Clendenin

10:45:51PM Retake the vote. Motion from Councilwoman Hurtak, second from Councilman Miranda. All in favor, aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Is that it? Councilman Maniscalco, Councilman Miranda?

Charlie Miranda

10:46:02PM Just my three, TECO bill from may, June, July. Number one, number two, we're so SMART that we're to vote on something -- another thing real big, ad valorem taxes. First one passes, the second one will pass for sure.

Alan Clendenin

10:46:27PM Since your TECO bill is so low, can I give you mine to pay?

Charlie Miranda

10:46:32PM Yes.

Lynn Hurtak

10:46:37PM Chair Clendenin.

Alan Clendenin

10:46:39PM When we had our workshop on the budget, I had a laundry list of requests from the CFO to provide information. I need to pin that down. I motion for the CFO to provide a written report on August 31, 2026, no later than August 31, 2026 answering the questions I presented and discussed during the General Fund workshop on August 17, 2026.

Lynn Hurtak

10:47:04PM I have a motion from Chair Clendenin, second from Councilman Viera. All those in favor, aye. Any opposed?

Alan Clendenin

10:47:13PM I have a motion to receive and file from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. 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 - 08/20/26published: August 21, 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