July 6 public hearing for the City of Tampa's Architectural Review Commission welcome everyone I'm Ted Kempton chair of the Commission if you are here to present a project you will have limited time to make your presentation so we suggest being thorough but concise when coming to the microphone you will need to identify yourself and your relationship to the project the Commissioners will not ask any questions during your presentation your project should be presented in the following order site plan elevations architectural details wall sections staff will then present their report we will then ask for public comment please state and spell your name clearly if you were here to speak for or against a project your time will be limited to three minutes so take some time now to summarize your comments because three minutes goes by very quickly following public comment the Commissioners will ask questions in the same order as the presentation next the applicant will have five minutes for rebuttal the public hearing will then be closed after the public hearing is closed no further testimony can be given the Commissioners will then discuss the case and we'll make their decision based on chapter 27 of the City Code of Ordinances the design guidelines the Secretary of Interior standards historic preservation development review committee comments and the testimony given at the public hearing the ARC can only act on items that are within our specific jurisdictional responsibility owner agents are independently responsible to obtain any appropriate permits and or approvals if you have not already done so please silence cell phones introduction of the to read that starting on my left will introduce the Commissioners Elena Ketchum attorney representative John broke up by practice architecture Brian Hammond architect all right also in attendance we have Dennis Fernandez Elaine Lund Jared Barnum and our attorney Dana Crosby Collier all right looking for a motion for the minutes I move to accept the minutes of June 1st and 3rd 2026 second all right we have a second seeing no discussion all in favor signify by saying aye aye motion passes good evening commissioners Dennis Fernandez architecture review and historic preservation manager welcome to this evening's hearing it will most likely be a brief hearing I do want to enter the ARC staff approvals into the record and just call to your attention you do have this month's issue of Tampa bricks and mortar in which we feature the Tampa theater which is celebrating its hundred year anniversary this year and as so is appropriately going through a restoration of many of the elements of the theater and that is our subject of our preservation and progress this evening so Elaine will lead that discussion thank you Elaine lunch historic preservation staff moving to our preservation and progress presentation this evening this month we're looking into the current work at the Tampa theater and office building the project goal is to fully restore the Tampa theater in time for its 100th anniversary in October this is the present day aerial map showing the location of the Tampa theater and office building it's in downtown Tampa between Franklin Street and Florida Avenue and between Zack and Polk Street the office building tower front Franklin Street while the theater auditorium itself is located at the on the northeast side at the corner of Polk and Florida Avenue the 1931 Sanborn map shows the 10-story office building on the Franklin Street side of the block with the connected auditorium and notes that it was built of steel frame construction with concrete floors and roof and tile curtain walls the building was listed in the National Register in 1978 and it was one of the first buildings listed as a local historic landmark by the city of the Tampa excuse me when the citywide historic preservation ordinance was enacted the designated local landmark site shown here includes the theater lobby with the entrance off Franklin and the first floor of the 10-story office building and the auditorium at the corner of Florida and Polk Street. Construction of the Tampa theater and office building began late in 1925. John Eberson of Chicago was the architect and he designed over 100 movie palaces perhaps even closer to 200 not only in the U.S. but in other countries as well. R.E. Hall an engineer and architect from New York worked with Eberson on the Tampa theater and other theaters of this area including some in Miami. George A. Miller a local Tampa builder constructed the project. The theater opened on October 15th 1926. Here you can see the auditorium under construction in March of 1926 with the steel frame in place and the hollow clay tile for the curtain walls on site. The highly ornate Tampa theater was designed in the Mediterranean revival style which was popular in the 1920s. The Mediterranean Revival style features an eclectic mix of details borrowed from countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea including Spain, Italy, and Morocco. The 10-story office building has an asymmetrical facade with balconies, balustrades, finials, and terracotta accents. Most of the ornamentation of the ornamentation is on the building's base and its upper stories. The marble and cast iron box office and main entrance is of course off Franklin Street. An extended lobby leads to the theater originally designed to hold 1,600 patrons. The interior is richly decorated with wrought iron lamps, carved wood chests and chairs, statuary, wall hangings, medallions, and coats of arms, and paintings in the style of the old masters. Some of the furnishings chosen were genuine antiques including Venetian lanterns and Spanish and venetian lanterns and Spanish and Italian pottery. One of the major draws for the public of this theater was its cooling system which also filtered and dehumidified the air. This allowed theater goers to sit in comfort in the atmospheric theater designed to resemble an open courtyard surrounded by facades with arched galleries and balconies featuring wrought iron window grills and railings and topped by tiled roofs with accents of exotic vegetation. The lighting that mimics the lighting that mimics the rising and twinkling sun and twinkling stars. The theater also has an orchestra pit that holds approximately 20 musicians and a Wurlitzer Theater organ which provided the scored music that accompanied silent films. Art on the proscenium includes reproductions of famous sculptures by Michelangelo and those from antiquity such as the Venus of Ostia and figures from mythology. Also was included a statue of Christopher Columbus to tie in a link to the Tampas Spanish heritage. In 2024 the ARC reviewed exterior rehabilitation for this building which includes basenry cleaning sign repainting and some minor repairs. A proposed addition on the Florida Avenue elevation was reviewed by the ARC but that has been removed from the scope of the project at this time. On the interior the first floor offices on the Florida Avenue wing of the Tampa Theater are being renovated are being renovated to facilitate a green room storage restrooms and a break room. In the theater the pit below the stage will be renovated structurally and a new organ lift will be installed. The stage floor will be replaced and new accessible access to the stage will be achieved with an operable lift. The second floor of the Franklin Street Tower will be converted into an assembly space for exclusive events. The full authentic restoration of the paint and plaster requires that expert artists be able to access the access every part of the auditorium's ornate walls and its starry ceiling. So that's why you see so much scaffolding here within the multi-level theater. This allows artisans and restorers to be able to fully reach everything within the auditorium to restore it to its original grandeur. And here we see some of the plaster repair and painting going on. In addition to doing some of the restoration work in place some of the fixtures have been temporarily removed for cleaning and restoration. The building's infrastructure is being upgraded. So that's why you see so much scaffolding here within the multi-level theater. This allows artisans and restorers to be able to fully reach everything within the auditorium to restore it to its original grandeur. And here we see some of the theater. And here we see some of the plaster repair and painting going on. Um, in addition to doing some of the restoration work in place, some of the fixtures have been, uh, temporarily removed for cleaning and restoration. The building's infrastructure is being upgraded as well. And renovations to the theater will increase lighting levels in the lobby and stage areas with new mechanical and electrical equipment as well. To accommodate the theater's expanding education program, more than 3,000 square feet of underutilized office and storage space. It's being remodeled to make way for dedicated classrooms. And you can read more about this project in this month's Tampa bricks and mortar. Thank you. Thank you, Elaine. It's a wonderful project. I had an opportunity to see some of the artisans working. And, uh, in the eighties, when they did the last major restoration of the plaster work, there was some liberties taken at that time that changed some of the colors from what they originally were. And so these artisans are actually, doing tests on the original paint and restoring the original colors back to the plaster. So next time we see it'll be the more original version of the, uh, of the theater, which was really one of Tampa's probably best known preservation efforts. Many, you know, many years ago when, uh, preservation really didn't have a formal process within the city. So, uh, moving on, we will now have the segment of disclosing conflicts that of interest and expert communication, which are legal counsel lead. Good afternoon, Dana Crosby call your city attorney's office. Um, does any member have a conflict of interest with any item on the agenda this evening? I have a conflict with, uh, Helen Dodd. We're in a contractual relationship. Okay. Okay. So we will, um, prior to that document, that item, we'll, um, do our receive and file of the items that we received tonight. And then we'll adjourn with, uh, to reconvene on July 8th at 530 to hear that item when we have a full quorum. Thank you. And, and don't forget the form eight. Um, and has any, um, member of the board had a ex parte communication prior to, on any, on any item on the agenda this evening? I have not. Thank you. Thank you. We do have one continuation to act upon this evening. That is, uh, ARC 26 0000293, which is, uh, related to a vacating request. And the request is to continue to the September 2nd, 2026 public hearing. Okay. I move to continue, uh, granted continuance in case ARC 26 0000293, BAC 26 000012 for the property located at 207, 209, 215 West Byrne Street and 210 and 212 West Beach Place, um, to Wednesday, September 2nd, 2026 public hearing at 530 PM. Do we have a second? Not seeing any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes. Thank you. And with that, we're ready for our case this evening. Uh, Elaine will introduce the case and the applicants can. Do we need to swear in? Oh, we do need to swear in. You're right. Getting ahead of myself. So, uh, if anyone's going to be providing testimony, please stand and raise your right hand for the swearing. I do. And now we're ready. Thank you. Uh, Elaine Lund has short preservation staff. Um, moving to the top of the top of page three of our agenda. The first case that will be heard tonight is ARC dash 26 dash 0000300 slash REZ dash 26 dash 000047 for the property located at 1701 North Florida Avenue. Um, this application is a, for recommendation for rezoning. Rezoning. The, um, the, um, property that's being rezoned is partially in and partially out of the Tampa Heights historic district. So the rezoning request is from RM 24, uh, which is the zoning category of the parcel on the south side. That is 7th Avenue, which is outside the historic district. And PD for plan development, um, which is the current zoning category for the property that's within the historic district. And the, uh, rezoning request is to change that front to, uh, one combined, um, PD plan development. Um, this request includes a sky bridge to be connecting the two, uh, property parcels. And so what we're looking at today is the sky bridge that falls within the Tampa Heights historic district there along 7th Avenue. So moving to the photo presentation, let's see if we can, uh, explain that in a little bit better here. Okay. This is the, um, district map showing the location of the, uh, subject request. And you'll see that the parcel that's within the Tampa Heights local historic district, uh, the boundary of the local historic district is the red dashed line on this map. Um, is shown in the parcel within the district is shown in solid green. Then you see a little line, which represents the proposed sky bridge, which connects it to the parcel that is, um, just the green, um, outlined parcel outside of the historic district. This is the 1920 Sanborn map showing the, um, subject sites both within and outside of the historic district and the approximate location of the proposed sky bridge. You can see that, um, historically there were many, uh, individual buildings on the site, most of which are, um, have never been present as long as the historic building has been in existence. There was one site located at the corner of, um, Oak Avenue and Morgan street, which has been relocated over to the, um, east side of Morgan street. And that was done to make way for the development that's currently on the, um, parcel within the district. This is the present day aerial map showing the site with the, uh, the development that's more completed now than it was at the time of the photograph. Um, so you can see that it's, uh, bordered by Oak Avenue on the north, Florida Avenue on the west, Morgan street on the east. And then we have seventh avenue on the south side of the, um, northern parcel with the red line representing the boundary of the local historic district. And then the, uh, the green line representing the sky bridge that would connect it to the parcel outlined in green that is outside the district. Here at this view is looking south on Florida Avenue with the, um, new construction of the project that's within the boundaries of the district on your left. And we're looking south toward downtown Tampa. The, um, this is pictures taken mid block about between seventh avenue and Oak turning around. This is the view looking north on Florida Avenue. Um, so we're looking across Oak here and the subject site would be on your right. Moving a little further south, um, you get a better view of the project that's, um, new construction at, uh, seventh avenue and Florida Avenue. And then we're going to turn around in a circle and, uh, look at the buildings that are along on the northwest, um, side of this intersection. There's a non-contributing building at the corner there. It's Florida Avenue and seventh and another, um, excuse me, non-contributing building on the southwest corner of Florida Avenue and seventh avenue. Um, this portion of the, sorry, this parcel here that we're looking at, um, the southeast corner of Florida and seventh avenue is, uh, not within the historic district boundary. And then looking back, uh, northeast from Florida Avenue and seventh avenue here, we're back, uh, about where we started. And then we'll just take a look, uh, east on seventh avenue. So you can see the, um, historic brick street and granite curb that's still present along the south, the curb on the south side of the street on seventh. Moving further down the block, this is the view here. So, um, we're getting about where the proposed sky bridge would be between the two subject sites and then turning around looking west on seventh. This is the view from about, uh, mid block. So we have the recently completed construction on the right, subject site on your left. That's outside the district. Moving back a little bit. This is the view looking west from, uh, the corner of Morgan street and seventh avenue. And then looking around just to see, um, what's around here. This is the subject site. That's part of the request that's outside the historic district on the southwest corner of seventh and Morgan. This is a view looking south along Morgan street. So we're looking at, um, toward downtown Tampa from the southern boundary of the historic district here. Then looking southeast seventh and Morgan street. Um, this is some construction that's not historic and is outside the historic district. And then looking northeast from seventh and Morgan from that intersection, you see some new construction that is within the historic district and was reviewed by this board. Finally, looking north on Morgan street, um, from seventh avenue, you can see the existing, um, new construction on the west side of the, that's a part of this proposed request. And if you can make out just to the, um, on the right side of the photo, north of the white building, there's a little blue building. That would be the, uh, the one that was relocated from the subject site to make way for the proposed or the new construction. Now that's on the, uh, side on the left and taking us back to looking again here at the, uh, completed new construction on the project site. And then you have another little view of, um, seventh avenue there. So that completes the photo presentation. And at this time we'll ask the applicant to come forward and present the request. Good evening, commissioners, Alex Jailer, 400 North Ashley drive with the law firm of Gardner Brewer Hudson. I am representing the applicant. Um, Elaine did a great job setting this up. That was quite the tour. Um, I just wanted to give a little bit more background on the request. Um, this is a relatively nuanced recommendation on a rezoning. You all have seen plenty of recommendations on rezoning. So this one's a bit different. Um, this is a two phase project. It candidly wasn't really intended to be that way from the start. Um, so this board reviewed both a review of the request. Rezoning recommendation on what we have now called phase one, which that's the constructed building that you see here on the screen. Um, again, rezoning rec already happened back in 2022. Um, a certificate of appropriateness was also issued subsequently to that. As you can see, the building was constructed. It's been leased. It's operated. Um, and then the applicant had the opportunity to acquire this small piece across the street, which we are now calling phase two. Um, phase two is going to be a really small residential infill site. The site itself is just over half an acre. Um, it's going to be 101 units multifamily residential. And the reason that we have proposed the request for the sky bridge, um, is because we would like to share parking amongst, amongst these two different buildings. Um, phase one is grossly over parked. Um, there's 530 parking spaces on phase one. Um, yes, that's exactly. There's 330 units. So you do the math. Each unit parks at about 1.6. So a lot of vacant parking stalls there. Um, so again, what we're proposing here is just this connection to allow the future residents of phase two to park in phase one and have a safe direct connection from their car to their unit. Um, so as I mentioned, this is nuanced because, you know, phase one being fully constructed, phase two is outside of the district. So your purview this evening is truly just related to this yellow highlighted box that is shown on the screen here, which again, in 2D, it's a rectangle, but in 3D, it is a covered pedestrian walkway that the architects like to call a sky bridge, which sounds a lot scarier than I think it is. Um, so again, why the sky bridge, as I mentioned, there's tons of parking spaces on phase one with phase two being as small as it is. It's 0.6 acres. We couldn't do a wrap product and it would be really tough. If we had a parking garage there, we'd be stacking the multifamily units on top of four or five levels of a garage. As you can see, that height starts to add up pretty quick. And though it is outside of the district, it is bordering the district and there is that inherent height sensitivity there. So this solution seemed to make sense both in terms of a compatibility standpoint and again, just efficiency. We've got tons of leftover stalls. Why not use them without building more unnecessary parking? Elaine showed some of these site photos, but I did want to note that this photo on the left is looking east down 7th Avenue. Um, and if you go a little bit further down, driving further, this picture here, um, on the right, you can see that the entrance to the parking garage for phase one is located off of 7th Avenue. That new phase two site is proposed just across the street. So, um, don't have to do the math to understand that there's inherent safety concerns there. We don't want the residents from phase two to be running across the street where cars are entering and exiting the parking garage. And while I understand that, you know, this board is not charged with reviewing safety concerns, you all, that leads me to my next point that you are charged with reviewing architectural design. And that is really, really tough at this stage. Um, this is about all of the detail that we have right now on the rezoning plan related to this quote skybridge. Uh, we're committing to a 25 foot clearance. So 7th Ave will be fully open beneath the skybridge. And obviously the historic character in terms of the brick pavers, the granite curbs, all of that will remain intact. Um, but the good news is that this will come back before you for the certificate of appropriateness process. So you all will at that time have complete governing authority over the final design. So again, today we're asking for your blessing to move forward with this rectangular box on our plan, but that will come back to you in terms of a design to ensure that it is compatible with the rest of the district. Um, staff did a great job on the report. And, you know, I, I do want to acknowledge that it is so difficult to review these kinds of things. And I understand that, um, you know, we're applying design guidelines that were created really for residential single family bungalows to something like a skybridge, which is, it's, it's just inherently in two different categories. And we talk about that a lot with the rezoning recommendations, because that's also the case with these larger apartment buildings. Unfortunately, when these guidelines were written, none of that was really contemplated. So things like setback and orientation and the roof forms, all of that's not applicable to something like this. So we would ask that this board review the guidelines, the intent of those guidelines. And the intent of those is ensuring that the proposal of new construction is compatible with the district. And again, we think that it can be, we're very confident that it can be. And again, we would come to you all for approval of that in the future when we reach that stage. Um, so a couple of the notes in the staff report, um, mentioned some of the different guidelines. Um, in terms of scale and massing, I did want to note that obviously this will be subordinate in height to both the existing building and the proposed building. Um, so from a massing perspective, we're not adding any kind of massing in terms of height, alignment, rhythm, and spacing. Again, we are not vacating any alleys. We're not changing any kind of lot lines. All of that stays as is materials is going to be reviewed in the certificate of appropriateness process. And there is a quote in the guidelines about linking between old and new. And we felt like that was really applicable in this situation in terms of bridging that gap from what the design guidelines were intended to regulate. And then again, taking that intent and applying it to something that has come along in the future. Uh, the staff report also mentioned the national register criteria for different components of that. I did want to note those that, you know, in terms of design, we're not proposing a grid interruption. And I think that's the whole point of this, right? It's to elevate this above the ground plane so that the alley or the 7th Avenue stays as is with the historic pavers and with the granite curbs. Um, but again, at the same time proposing that safe pedestrian access. Again, this doesn't alter the setting in any way. If anything, it avoids that additional curb cut on 7th Avenue. And then feeling and association were noted as well. And again, these are such a measurable quality. So this is, this is so difficult, especially applying to something like this, but there is no direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Um, and then in terms of feeling again, you know, what creates this historic feeling of 7th Ave is the brick pavers and it's the granite curbs and it's the sidewalk. And all of that will remain completely untouched. And I wanted to close out with this. Um, again, I know that something like a sky bridge sounds inherently scary when you're looking at it through the lens of a historic district and historic character, but this does exist. This exists in Ybor city for the exact same reason. They are taking the sky bridge and connecting parking to a development and that's what we're proposing to do here. Um, again, I think, and I'm very confident that during the certificate of appropriateness process, we can get to a design that is compatible with the district. Again, we just ask for the opportunity to move forward, um, with that and give you all the opportunity to review it during the C of a process. So that's all I have, but I'm happy to answer questions. Great. Thank you very much. Um, moving to the staff report staff found that this proposed project is inconsistent with the Tampa Heights design guidelines and the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. Um, 7th Avenue, which maintains its historic appearance with its brick pavers, granite herds and concrete sidewalks, excuse me, serves as a gateway into the historic district. Um, and the proposed sky bridge over 7th Avenue, um, has no reference within the Tampa Heights historic district. It is incompatible with the established massing and building form and the alignment rhythm and spacing up the historic elements within the district. And it would diminish the district's historic character. Um, it would impact the integrity of the district and, um, certain aspects of integrity, which are. Um, it would be addressed in the, um, national register bulletin 15, how to apply the national register criteria for evaluation. And the reference for that is on page seven of your staff report. The, um, in design, setting, feeling, and association are the aspects of integrity that we focused on being those, um, that would be impacted by the sky bridge. The introduction of this modern mid-block sky bridge would interrupt the grid and, um, the, the grid of the streets and alleys that were originally platted in 1889, um, as this was one of the first early residential suburbs of the city of Tampa. Um, the visual interruption and obscuring the view along 7th Avenue also, um, factors that would come in when considering how the sky bridge would impact the historic district. So, um, with that staff is available. If you have any questions, thank you. Great. Thank you, Elaine. Is there anyone in the audience that's, uh, here to speak for against this project? All right. Seeing no one, we will begin with questions. I'll start on my left. I don't think I have anything right now. Okay. Trying to think if there's any questions, cause we have so little information to go by. Um, I'll pass for right now. Questions from me. Okay. Then I'll go back and ask you questions. Okay. To the applicant. Okay. To the applicant. Okay. This may come off as an insensitive question, but is the reason that you need the bridge because of zoning and, and parking for that, for that lot that's outside of the district? Yeah, that's a really good question. Um, yes, we do have a required parking ratio that we're supposed to meet for the zoning. We could ask for a waiver for the number of spaces. Um, but again, it just seemed like we have so many extra spaces over here. Why not use them? So is the feeling that the, the, the new construction on that lot outside the district would not have any parking? That's correct. There will be, there will be on street spaces. Hopefully that's conceptual. Obviously it's in the right of way. Um, but no structured parking. And so if you didn't have the skyway at the sky bridge, what happens with the part? I mean, you can still get the parking. It's just the residents would have to cross the street. That's right. Yes. Um, they are in the same zoning lot. So yeah, we, we, we could moving forward without the sky bridge. Yes. They would just have to cross the street across seventh. Okay. And then for staff, this is more of, um, so I can get a sense of the area. Isn't the new, the Y new YMCA building being built somewhere around this location? That's, um, planned to be north at the corner of Palm and Florida Avenue. So where's that? A couple of blocks north. One block north. So do you have a picture that you could point to that show where that building would end up being? This one here. Um, you see this? Um, this is the Y here. The new Y? Oh, no, no. Oh, sorry. The Y shaped right of way, but yes, the Y, the YMCA development. It's just north of that. Yeah. Can you see that? The YMCA is on, I thought it was on the east side of. No. It's just north of that. This is a standard oil building. That's part of the development. I was just saying generally the Y redevelopments here. It's multi-block. Okay. Okay. So, so is there a reason for timing of why to bring this before the board now? Is it because it's in connection with what's happening with zoning as far as the parking? That's right. Yeah. So, so we, we had an original rezoning approved. It was back in, we filed it back in 2021 and that's what was the approval for this building. Again, we have since after all of that was constructed gone under contract on this parcel here. And like I said, given we had so many extra spaces in this garage because the zoning code has changed relatively in the terms of their interpretation of parking. So this was parked at like the suburban city code rate, whereas now this stuff is parked at one per unit. So we would technically only have 330, but again, older version interpretation of the code, we have 530. So since we already had so much parking in here, we thought this makes the most sense. Let's, let's not do structured parking on this. Keep the height lower and just add a connection here to use those. And so the reason you have, let me just say it back to you and make sure I understand. The reason that you have so much parking at phase one is because there was an older code that required more parking. It was the same. This is a bit confusing and I'm getting in the weeds of zoning here, but it was the same code. But this use is now and not just multifamily and retail below. There's a, there's a use classification called storefront residential. And that's anything that has commercial or office on the ground floor and units above that parks at one per unit that for some reason in the code, that's like the mixed use definition. It wasn't interpreted like that before. So when we went through back in 2021, this was parked for regular multifamily rates and not the mixed use rates. Okay. Let me jump in one second. Sure. Are you saying that you can't share that parking unless you're physically connected to that person? No, no, no, no. These are, these are in the same zoning lot. So this is, this, this parking is shareable. I think we're more so concerned about having a safe connection, you know, out of the weather, out of the elements, et cetera. So. Yeah. Cause I think I asked, but you would still have the parking. It's just the residents would have to cross the street as opposed to using. So where on the existing building does the sky bridge connect? Sure. Let me see if there's, I think I printed the elevations and I believe in Patton, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's an existing corridor and they're punching through for the connection. As it's drawn right now, it's going directly into a air conditioned corridor. Um, there are two potential landing locations. One is directly into the garage and one is into the corridor. Our preference is in the corridor. Um, cause it will make for a nicer connection point, but it, yeah, it's, it's basically mid block. I think if it helps you to visualize too, not just the central Ybor example, but a long time ago, I used to live at two Bay shore and they have that same in the Hyde park district. They have that same connection between their two buildings. I remember I used to park in the garage and walk across the sky bridge to my apartment. It'd be like that. Sir, if you could please state your name for the record. Uh, Patton Chalera. I'm the co-developer on the project. Okay. And then to staff. Thank you. Um, so if the bricks and the curb cuts and all that are not being affected, then, uh, what's the objection to the sky bridge? The sky bridge would be a visual intrusion to this, um, this pattern. It's there, um, visually interrupts the regular grid and visual intrusions are, um, generally when you're reviewing for adverse impacts to historic districts, that is something that can be considered. Um, this we're going say through, um, a review through at, through the state historic preservation office, perhaps, then that would be a visual impact would be something that could be considered to be an adverse impact. Okay. Is there a height? If it was another floor up, would that mitigate the visual intrusion? I think that's really up to the, uh, the board. Um, one floor may or may not make a huge difference. I'm not sure, um, that that would impact the staff position, but you know, ultimately it is the, uh, your decision. I guess that's my question for staff. Is it, is it a, if it was above the view plane of your user of the street, does that help solve the problem or is it just your position is we don't want it there at all? I guess that would be my question. That would be my next question. Is there anything that can be done that the staff would? Commissioner's does Fernandez architects review and historic preservation manager. I think, um, just as what's kind of been unfolding, uh, with the agents comments, it becomes a reference in the district that then becomes repeated over and over again. I mean, if you think about the YMCA in Florida Avenue and the amount of traffic that's going down Florida Avenue, if they develop out that PD that was approved by council, you have another reference that would then connect into the historic district as well. But generally sky bridges, you know, tend to be an urban solution, usually in, uh, central business districts or more populated areas and really don't have a place in a neighborhood, which is what this is. Um, so, you know, I consider it just, uh, rather poor urban planning technique, which is not the focus of your, um, decision-making this evening, but impacts of the historic district, whether they're at two stories or three stories, uh, on a gateway of 7th Avenue that leads both into the Tampa Heights historic district and eventually into the Ybor City historic district. I think there's something that needs to be carefully considered. So can we just see one more time pictures of, of how this area is the gateway into these different areas? Just so one, one more time we can get a sense of space. Elaine Lund, I can go through the presentation again for you. Well, just, I would just pick a couple that show, I guess, of that, of that on 7th that show what view are we obstructing or interfering with. Okay. So this is the, uh, the view looking into the district, uh, from Florida Avenue. So, okay. So what is at the end of the end of that? There, there's another street, right? There's a cross street that comes up. Then you go underneath. Right. The, um, you would drive under the sky bridge and come to Morgan street next. And then after Morgan street is Jefferson street. And after Jefferson street is central Avenue. Okay. And then where the picture is showing the other. So this is, um, about at the location where the sky bridge would be here, still looking east and then turning around. Um, this would be looking west toward looking out of the district basically. And that's just backing up a little bit. So we're looking west, um, the same view, but further east from Morgan and south. Okay. All right. I have nothing further. Um, you reference central. Are there any other sky bridges anywhere in Tampa Heights? I don't believe that there are. So that's why we were trying to pull precedence from other historic districts. Gotcha. Thank you. And then how tall is the building going to be the proposed phase two building? How many stories? Let me check. Give me more. Not height, just stories relative to this one. Same height. Do you know? Seven. Seven. Yeah. And that's what this one is more or less. This one roughly. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I mean, I don't have any more questions. Um, okay. So you have five minutes for rebuttal. Okay. I'm gonna share a few words and then I'll bring Pat up here. Um, I think again, I, there's inherent precedent for these in historic districts. While there might not be one in Tampa Heights yet, you know, there, there is, or will be in the future likely. Um, I think that, you know, this is all, like I said, it's so early phases and it's so conceptual right now. Um, to address the points about height earlier on our plans, we show a minimum of 25 feet in height can always go up. We're just, again, this is, this is so preliminary. Um, but given the fact that this is within the historic district boundary and the rezoning requires a recommendation, that's domino effect is why we're here. But again, we feel so confident that you all will have so much time to review this and make sure that it is fully compatible and consistent with the district. Um, and again, that we need that CA to get this constructed. So if there's a point in time where we come before you all for the CA and you think this is not aligned with the character that you can deny the CA. That's absolutely an option. So, you know, again, this is not the final stop. This is just one stop on the way. Um, and you all will have, again, this will be in your purview again in the future with many more details than I have today. Um, Pat, did you want to share? Uh, thank you everyone for your time tonight. Um, I just, you know, we've been working on this project for over six years now. We assembled it back in 2020. Um, I've been kind of pestering Baycare to do something with this lot for literally six years now. Um, it's a kind of dilapidated lot. There's homeless people sleeping on it almost every night, um, barbed wire fence and finally got them to kind of move forward with something. Um, we're paying a lot for the site and we're the only group that can really kind of meet their demands because of the kind of the parking benefit that we have. Um, really the site is best is only available for, um, a small commercial development or, or potentially some townhouses, um, and Baycare has been tricky to deal with. So, um, you know, we think, and, um, we're excited about the opportunity to reuse some of the parking that, uh, kind of we were forced to do. Um, the neighborhood is excited about it. I know a lot of people to say you're excited about, um, creatively, um, utilizing that. Um, utilizing this parking rather than having a bunch of vacant, you know, uh, parking garages. Um, and you know, I think the, the safety is, is certainly an issue. We also think it's going to be beneficial to the people that are going to live there someday. Um, to be able to not have to walk in the middle of the pouring rain, uh, that we're about to go through right now after we get out here. Um, so, um, you know, appreciate your support. You know, we, we did a ton of, um, work on 7th Avenue when we did this construction. Um, it wasn't noted, but we completely, uh, repaved everything from the intersection to the south. All new granite curves, all new, um, uh, brick road. And, um, you know, we've worked on this project with staff and gone through a CA process already. So it's something that we're familiar with. Um, so I appreciate your consideration and hopefully we're back here in a couple months to talk about what it looks like. Perfect. Thank you. All right. At this point, we're going to close the public portion of the hearing and move on to discussion. So I'll start on my right. You knew it was coming. Yeah. Um, I, I'm having a hard time with this. Um, because, um, I mean, I, I understand, I think I understand why the applicant is here. He, he, he, uh, articulated that in the end is they have the excess parking. Here's a lot that they can develop further and utilize that. So it gives them, um, you know, a better opportunity to, um, maximize the site. Now, if this wasn't here, the, the bridge wasn't here, um, that, you know, the project would be different or non-existent. I don't know. Um, it may be that they can, um, I, I, I would imagine that they've studied what it's yielding could be if it is parked by itself. Um. They can still use the parking from the other building. They can still use the parking. They can still use it. Sure. You can, you can put signals up and all that kind of stuff. Yeah. Absolutely. Crosswalk signals. Absolutely. Or if, if, um, you know, that, if that is something that, um, isn't marketable, you know, to park across the street and walk across in a rainstorm. Um, probably not so marketable. Um, so I'm, I'm having a hard time, um, on one, one side of, of saying that this is okay. Because then when's the next one? And when's the next one, um, that, that comes along? Um, you know, I, I do think that if they, um, were able to have this bridge and park, that they could have residential units go all the way to grade. And, um, throughout, uh, you know, or maximize that. And, um, wouldn't have to have at grade parking. Or maybe it becomes something else. You know, maybe it becomes townhomes that, that have, tuck under garages or something like that. So, um, uh, I, I understand the, the, um, the benefit of that, you know, and what it does to the, um, to the, uh, pedestrian experience. Um, but I just have a hard time, um, in, uh, kind of justifying this. I mean, it's too bad that, I mean, this, this is a, a city code issue that, you know, we're, we're, we're requiring too much parking. You know, and that's, this is kind of going nationwide right now. Um, and it's really too bad. You know, it's too bad that that even happened on phase one. Um, right. But here we are. But I, I don't know that that, you know, doing this is the right thing. I'm, I'm looking at this from the standpoint of, of, you know, the density and, and the urbanity, like Dennis said, you know, you, you don't normally see these kinds of things outside of a central business district. In 10 years, this will be a central business with, if, if everything that's been planned along that whole corridor, you know, the Ellison project and whatnot, and, and, or if other people take it up. Um, um, it's unfortunate that we already allowed a seven story building in the district to happen at the southern end of the district. Um, and it's going to, and the mass of the, of the size of what's going to happen in the future is way beyond that. Um, so it, this is like the, the, the ugly stepchild that's happening first, that's in the bottom corner of a historic district. I'm not having as much a problem with it as I thought I would because of what is going to happen in the adjacent blocks and neighborhoods in the future. And that we're at the edge of the district that we already kind of, you know, we already let this building be built at the edge of the district. And now the sky bridge isn't really in the district. It's, it's connecting to another building of mass of height. Um, so I'm not having as much problem because we already let that building get built there at the beginning. And we're not touching seventh, frankly, you know, you're leaving seventh as a pedestrian through way. That's good points. So I have a question for legal, if I may, what is, what is being asked to be approved? That a sky bridge be permitted, but, but what, what would come back on the next phase? The look of the sky bridge, the height of the sky bridge, the, all that. So what exactly? Dana Crosby call your city attorney's office. This will be a recommendation to city council, um, regarding the rezoning. And then when they are ready to, um, produce the product on the south side of the historic district, they will bring back the design of the sky bridge for review. Which would include the height. Yes. It will include the, it will include the sketches just like any other elevations. Okay. And then last question for legal. Just hold on. Dennis has something to add. And for your information, the PD specifies a minimum height of 25 feet. Okay. But we could say it needs to be. Yeah. That's the minimum. Okay. And then the next question is, are we approving this sky bridge? If they decide at the end of the day, not to have the sky bridge, which I don't think is going to happen. But yeah, they don't have to develop the sky bridge. But if we approve it, if somebody else buys this piece of property, does it come with the ability to put a sky bridge? Yes. Once the rezoning has been approved by council that will travel with the property. This is a recommendation to council. That's correct. I have to admit, I don't have, I'm like you. I don't have a, I don't have a huge problem with it. I have a little problem with it. Um, just because if, if, if it was one block over, I wouldn't like there to be a sky bridge between two buildings. But, you know, I, I look at what is and it's right on the edge. And I don't know exactly where the lot historic, is it in the middle of the street? It's in the middle of the street, yeah. Yeah. So half of it is, would be fine, but it's the other half that's not fine. It's a weird, it's because of the location. And so I just generally, and I agree, you know, do we really want people walking across the street? And they're, I, I, you know, I look at all of it. It wouldn't happen. No, it wouldn't happen. Something else would happen. Yes. Something else would be designed there. Utilized by this property. Yeah. And they would do something else there to resolve the parking. Yeah. Yep. So then, you know, so then it's, if you're looking at 7th, does it bother you to see a sky bridge? So. On the one way, looking one way and one way. The issue that's going to come up. Yeah. And, um, Commissioner Prokop mentioned it. There is development that's going to be to the west and to the north. Uh, almost lost that note. Yeah. Um, to the west and to the north that is going to be at a larger scale than this. So then the applicants, future applicants will come back and say, I do have precedent and it's more urban now. So I can do that. I think we all agree. If it was on Florida Avenue, this would be a no brainer that we would say, no, this is inappropriate. But you could foresee 10 years from now, having a sky bridge from the Y, somebody coming and saying, Hey, it's for the kids. We got to protect the kids. Keep the kids. Yeah. And you know, it's just, it's that creeping effect. This doesn't bother me that much because from a gateway standpoint, literally if it went up one more floor and they planted oaks as opposed to those measly crape myrtles, you could have more of a canopy that would soften it and maybe make it go away anyway. That was my next question is, can we, can we condition this based upon adding, you know, enough landscaping or mandating trees of a certain, you know, quality and whatnot? Well, wouldn't that come up in the next phase? Yeah. And then it could also be the architectural design of it could be more transparent as opposed to walkie and, you know, to help minimize it as well. But yeah, it's, this is not a hard no, but it's not, I agree with staff that this is not great. And I, there are very few other positions where I could see myself supporting it. Um, but the scale of this building is going to be the scale of the building and there's already a, and they did a nice job on the building, but it is just a large mass. It's, it's. So. So I have one more question for legal. If it gets denied, are they able to bring it back up at some point? They're going to go to city council. They go to city council. We're just doing a recommendation. So then they'll go to city council and city council may or may approve it and then bypass us. And then it'll come back to us for seeing. For the look. Yeah. Okay. For sure. So I hear a motion. We want more discussion. Go ahead and make a motion. Somebody. I move to recommend the city council, uh, approve, uh, ARC 26 dash 0000300 forward slash REZ 26 dash 0000 047 for the property of 1701 North Florida Avenue in the Tampa Heights historic district. Uh, for the proposed rezoning. Uh, for the proposed rezoning from RM 24 and PD to PD. Do you give reasons? Do you give reasons? We really need to be specific. It's going to city council. And do indicate portion of the sky bridge within the Tampa Heights historic district. And that's for the portion of the sky bridge within the Tampa historic Heights district. Um, reasons that the existing scale and massing of the property in the district and the scale and massing of the building across the street. That's being proposed that would be connected with this sky bridge, um, are already beyond what would you normally consider to be appropriate for historic district, but their existing conditions. And I don't foresee this sky bridge being a harmful impact to that portion of the historic district. Okay. We got a motion for your second. Okay. I'll second it. All right. We have a second. All right. So we have a room for a little bit more discussion here. What's your hesitation? My hesitation is when the architects threw in, this could be designed with parking and they don't, which then why do we, then why do you need the sky bridge? And, and looking at the factors of, you know, I'm just having a hard time, you know, setting. I agree with you. The whole area is going to be built up eventually. And so the sky bridge may fall into the background, you know, realistically, when the other huge buildings get built up around it. Um, when you, you know, the factors from the national register. Yeah. If this was crossing into, from one side of the historic district, across the street into another side of the historic district. Now, we're crossing a boundary that's already the, the chickens flown the coop on this boundary. And that's why I'm not opposed. Yeah. I think we just have to be mindful if, if somebody else within the district, because I would only approve this for this very specific piece of property that half of this bridge is in, is outside of the district. Right. That if somebody comes before, they don't say, well, look what y'all approved over there. Right. And we'd have to remember. They're going to say that. And hearken back and say, the reason if it gets approved is because half of that bridge, this was a very specific piece of property that, and it's unlike anything of, it's totally different than two buildings within the district themselves. Well, I, I would tell you more importantly, remember that when you approve a large mass building of seven or eight stories in a residential area, because then that's the stepping stone that allows the sky bridge to come later. Right. It does. It does. Yeah. Um, I'm also very conscientious about the need for, you know, urban housing, right? Sure. You know, it's a, it's a big need. And this is a, this is a, a big win. This could be a big win without adding more parking and without adding, you know, and that's why I'm leaning towards it. Um, right. I mean, there's no doubt. There's no doubt that, that, that, that it, um, it would help and help, um, help that number of units in this area. And I, I, I'm not, I'm not a hard no either, but, um, on this, but, um, It's a slippery slope. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, this, this one is specific. This one is specific. So, um, but I do hesitate with what this does in the future. And I know we can be very, I mean, this it's, it's, it's case by case, right? It's case by case. Seeing no more discussion. We'll move forward on the proposal to recommend the sky bridge to city council. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Two. All against. Two. All right. So motion does not pass. Um, okay. So it's with your rules, a tie vote. When a matter is considered by the members and a tie vote is obtained, the motion fails and the application shall be denied. So in this case, the recommendation is the denial. Okay. Sorry about that. Good luck with the project. All right. So then we're going to look for a, let's go ahead and accept. We're going to do, if you'll allow me just to, we're going to lose a quorum on the next item. So with that in mind, if you all could just do a motion to receive and file the materials presented this evening. So moved. Then you can move to your second. Second. Second. All right. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Having lost quorum, I make a motion that we stand adjourned until July 8th, 2026 at 530 PM. City Hall. Second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. Motion passes and we are adjourned.