Tampa City Council Evening Session - 10/08/26

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Monsoon Thursday in the City of Tampa, Florida, Tampa City Council. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll, please. Miranda. Here. Meniscalco. Here. Hertek. Here. Young. Vieira. Here. Carlson. Here. Clendenin. Here. We have a fiscal quorum. Thank you very much. Let's start off with clearing the agenda. Yes, sir. Good evening, counsel. For the record, Christopher DeMontsch Development Coordination. We do have two items to clear from the agenda this evening. The first is item 11, file number REZ 2636. This item needs to be continued to the January 14th, 2027 hearing. If I can. We need to open it. What? Well, this one is a continued public hearing, which means there's been a previous continuance. Is that correct? This item was continued at the June 11th, 2026 hearing. It was continued for tonight. The applicant had agreed to notice. They did not notice for this meeting, so we're essentially pushing that to the January hearing as a result of them not formally noticing to surrounding properties. Item 11, then. Is that what you're talking about? Item 11? Item 11, correct. Do you have anything? Do you have a problem with that? Well, no. It just has to be re-noticed. Do you have a date, time, and place already, or you'll just do it on? So we're asking for it to be continued to January 14th, 2027. Okay. I know I had one over here, but I hear now. I'll take the low-hanging fruit. Councilwoman Hurtick. At 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 32602. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco, with the addendum on the place, time, and location. With the re-notice. With the re-notice. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item 11 will not be heard tonight. It will be heard on January 14th at 5.01 p.m. Anything else? Item 12, follow number REZ 2679. This needs to be removed from tonight's agenda. Can I get a motion? Miss notice. Motion from Councilman Miranda to remove item 12, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Anything else? That's it? That is it, sir. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. I have a motion. Second. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtick, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? I have a motion to open. Motion to open the public hearing. Second. I have a motion to open the public hearings from Councilwoman Hurtick, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Councilwoman Hurtick. I'm just going to make this announcement because this is what I have to do Thursday nights. Because of my cancer treatment on Wednesday, I start to get a little tired, so I actually have a TV in the back where I can go lay down and watch. So if I leave, I am still watching and paying attention, and I will be in here to vote. If you are a petitioner who has an issue with that, please just let me know at the beginning of that case, and I will stay. Thank you. Very good. Let the record show that Councilwoman Young is with us. We have a full dais this evening, and we're going to move on to item number one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher DeMontsch. Actually, let me, let's stop there. We're quasi-judicial. Let's go ahead and get everybody sworn in. If you're here tonight to speak to any of the agenda items, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. Thank you very much. Christopher? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, again, for the record, Christopher DeMontsch, Development Coordination. Agenda item number one is REZ 2660. This is a request to rezone 1605 Waters Court from YC2 to YC9 for residential multiple family uses. Before I hand it over to the Planning Commission, I do want to pass out a updated revision sheet. The applicant had an item they wanted to adjust regulating the setback. Second from the bottom. Could you, could you tell us kind of in a nutshell what that is? Basically, they are just adjusting a reference to setbacks when the building has five stories. So they want to remove the reference to having an 18-foot minimum setback for the north and east setbacks if there's a proposed five stories. And I'll hand it over now to Planning Commission. Good evening, Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Historic Ybor Neighborhood, and the Central Park, Urban Village, and CRA, as well as the Ybor City Local Historic District and Evacuation Zone E. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mix of multifamily residential, commercial, and public uses, including Booker T. Washington Elementary School and Robert W. Saunders Sr. Public Library to the south. The site also fronts East 7th Avenue and is near transit along East Henderson Avenue. This map shows the site designated as Community Mixed Use 35, although UMU 60 is proposed through TACPA 2601, which is scheduled for second reading and adoption next week on October 15th. This rezoning request is contingent upon the approval of the plan amendment for UMU 60. The CMU designation surrounds the site on all sides. There's RMU 100 and UMU 60 to the southeast, associated with Gauss Works over here, as well to the southwest, associated with Encore. There is additional UMU 60 further west along East 7th Avenue. The request is rezoned from YC2 to YC9 to allow approximately 420,000 square feet of multifamily development at a proposed 2.9 FAR. This is consistent with the intensity anticipated under the proposed UMU 60 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposal and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern, including the Gas Works and Encore developments. The project provides sidewalks, shade trees, bicycle parking, and walk-up units with residential entrances oriented towards the right-of-way. Staff is requesting that the primary building entrances be clearly labeled on the site plan between first and second reading. Overall, the proposal would provide multifamily infill on an underutilized site within the Central Park Urban Village near transit, employment, and community services, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation, and I am available for any questions. Thank you. Does Council have any questions? Hearing none. Again, for the record, Christopher DeMange, Development Coordination. We'll start with an aerial of the subject site, which is outlined in red. The subject property encompasses a large majority of the subject block. It has street frontage along East Henderson Avenue, East 7th Avenue, East Scott Street, and East Estelle Street. Surrounding uses include a restaurant use on the northwest corner of the intersection of East Scott Street and East 7th Avenue. There's also a business professional office use to the north, retail and restaurant uses northeast of the subject site. Looking east of the subject site is a vacant parcel. Southeast of the subject site, we do have the Gas Works Development. South of the subject site, we have Booker T. Washington Elementary School, and immediately west of the subject site, we do have a place of religious assembly, Zone YC2, and then, of course, we have a drive-in restaurant, Zone YC5, to the immediate west as well. The site plan provided by the applicant proposes to redevelop the subject property with a single structure, approximately five stories, maximum of 60 feet in height, for multiple family development. Approximately 330 units are proposed. Looking specifically at the site plan itself, the applicant proposes an internal parking garage, providing 400 parking spaces. The access for the parking garage is along East Henderson. Additionally, there's on-street parking along East Henderson, East Scott Street, and East DeSell Street. There is a separate entrance for loading docks and solid waste in the southwest corner of the subject property, along East DeSell Street, and there are ground walk-up units along both East DeSell Street and East Henderson Avenue. Two internal courtyards are also shown on the site plan. Next, we have elevations. The back site proposed is 60 feet. We have our north, west, and northwest elevations. We have the southeast, east, and south elevations. There are two waivers requested with this application. The first is to Section 27-283. This is to reduce the required number of loading bursts from 4 to 2. There's also a second waiver, to Section 27-283. This is to allow two loading spaces measuring approximately 12 feet by 30 feet. We have some photos to show. Photo of the subject property. This is a view from East Henderson. This is the view from East Scott. View from East DeSell. This is the restaurant, immediately north of the subject site on East 7th. Across the street on East 7th. Looking northwest, south of the subject site. This is Brooker T. Washington. Looking southeast, this is the project part of the Gas Works. West of the subject site. Want additional use west of the subject site. Development Review and Compliance Staff has reviewed the petition. We do find the request in consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. It should be the pleasure of City Council to approve this application and the waivers provided in this presentation. Further modifications to the site plan must be completed between first and second reading. These revisions will not resolve the issue of transportation's inconsistent finding. I do also want to note that the subject property is located within the Ybor City Historic District. The application required recommendation from the Bay Area Latino Commission. The BLC heard this case on July 28, 2026, and did recommend approval as presented at that public hearing. And I'm available for any questions. Does Council have any questions? Hearing none. Applicant? Do you need to say something? Yeah. Staff for Historic Preservation, Heather Bonds. The BLC did hear this and recommend that out and approval, but I did want to correct and make one comment based on the BLC's conditions. Building height is to be held to a 45-foot datum line. Any additional height shall be held to one story with a setback of 20 feet from 7th Avenue, so it does not have the massing of a 60-foot building. Massing and building form shall require breaking the length of the building, including the top floor. The setbacks, orientation, and site coverage, particularly addressing any long facades, shall be broken up into segments. And finally, if City Council determines that the rezoning request from YC2 to YC9 should be approved, a note shall be added to the request that would allow for the BLC the ability to adjust the setbacks and heights of the structure by up to 10% for each elevation during the Certificate of Appropriateness process. Well, question, and maybe this would go back to Christopher, how does this, with the revised revision sheet, how does this fit the Barrio's recommendation and what's on the revised revision sheet? Christopher DeMonish, Development Coordination. With regard to the revision sheet, we did note on the last bullet point under Development Coordination where we do reference part of the recommendation related to the max building height that was recommended by the BLC. That bullet point states on the site data table, update proposed north setback along 7th Avenue for the 5th floor to reflect a 20-foot minimum setback from the property line. And that's in reference to what was in the recommendation overall from the BLC. The site plan, I believe, shows 18-foot setbacks. So that revision will be done between 1st and 2nd? Correct. So we were just correcting that 18, the reference to 20-foot in the recommendation. Councilwoman Hurtick. But the last bullet is not in there. The one that the BLC, the ability to adjust the setbacks, that's not in this? Oh, yes, that is in there. During the Certificate of Appropriateness? So in parentheses, we do have that portion of the Barrio-Otino Commission recommendation. So it does say building height to be held at 45-foot datum. No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about the last bullet. Oh. About the YC-2 to YC-9 and then that sentence. Yes, so that's not referenced in that particular bullet point in the revision sheet. However, it is referenced in the staff report. We included the BLC recommendation overall in the staff report. So we would have to add that separately? Correct, you would have to incorporate the BLC overall recommendation into your motion. We referenced it in the staff report and then where we worked with the applicant to correct the setback for that portion of the north setback along East 7th, we adjusted that and then we referenced that one section of the overall recommendation from the BLC. So could we get a copy of that memorandum? So if we needed to, yeah, if we needed to make it part of the motion, we could do that. Okay. If you could just get us a copy, a hard copy of it. Yeah, if each of us could get a copy of that memorandum that you're holding. It was included in the staff report packet. The memorandum, correct. Oh, it's a staff report. Yeah, but not all of us have copies of the staff report. So if we could, there's, who's working for you tonight? Sebastian or Darlene. Well, then maybe Sebastian or Darlene can come and make copies for us. Okay, very good. And so we'll move on to the applicant now. And applicant, if you could address all those issues during your presentation, please. Sure. True. Gardner 400 North Ashley Drive here on behalf of the applicant. And hopefully I'll address the one confusing part first, and then the rest will be pretty straightforward. On this setback issue, when we presented in front of the Barrio Latino Commission on both the comp plan amendment and the rezoning, we did show a lot of the designs. I think we actually got ahead of ourselves since we'll, hopefully we'll be going back to the Barrio Latino Commission for Certificate of Appropriateness. But I think actually it was a helpful conversation because it elicited from them where they wanted enhancements in the sidewalk, which we really wanted, to make it walkable as possible, and then for it not to feel like a sheer 60-foot building to where the setbacks would be. And so the revision sheet that Chris first proposed basically is the summary of where we ended up with the Barrio Latino Commission, again, hopefully getting ahead of ourselves, but hopefully making our Certificate of Appropriateness easy. And we're fine with all those, including the reference to the 10%. Very good. But yes, excited to be presenting this to you. It is a very thoughtful design that we have discussed with any and everybody. CTTV, can we get the presentation on the monitor? 330 multifamily units in a fast-growing area of Ybor City. And our journey started with Planning Commission, where we received unanimous recommendation. We went to the Barrio Latino Commission, received unanimous recommendation on the rezoning, which is what's presented to you tonight. We were last in front of you two weeks ago on the comp plan amendment, and then here for you for tonight on the rezoning. Should things go well tonight, we'll be back in front of you next week for second reading on the comp plan amendment, and then second reading on the rezoning, which then sends us back to the Barrio Latino Commission for the Certificate of Appropriateness on the design, where all these issues will be folded in. And from staff standpoint, we have positive recommendations from all except for a technical waiver on transportation, which is the waiver request, and Megan Smith is going to go over that. And then Councilwoman Hertak, you mentioned at the planning commission hearing, or I'm sorry, comp plan amendment hearing last week on the bike lanes. We have looked into that. We've been talking to mobility on that. And so Megan has a view of that she'd like to present as well. And then Ricky DeCamps is here, the developer, and would like to present a little bit on the design as well. But happy to answer any questions you may have. Councilor, have any questions? Okay, go ahead. Good evening. Megan Smith, 400 North Ashley Drive here on behalf of Gardner-Brew Hudson. So in terms of our two waivers, as Chris mentioned, we have one that's in regards to the loading number, the number of loading firsts. We are taking it from four to two and then proposing two 12 by 30 loading spaces. The development team feels like with their experience in multifamily that this will fit the needs of the community and really help logistics go through appropriately and then not use a valuable space within the development. And then in terms of the transportation, Councilman Hertak, you had pointed out I left off the bike routes last time. So I've got those now added in. So we do have Hart Route 9 running north and south on Nebraska Avenue. We have the Tico Street Lane car running from Ybor down to downtown. And then we have the city of Tampa bike routes on 7th Avenue. And then the new one that's going in on New Seal Parkway. The development is also proposing to do more than the required bike parking and then also having a workshop space to really help make it a bicycle-friendly, pedestrian-friendly development overall. And with that, if you have any questions, happy to answer them. And I will pass it over to Ricky DeGamps. Councilman Hertak. What about spaces for delivery vehicles, like Amazon specifically and FedEx, all those types of – are you proposing they use the loading berth or will they have a specific spot? So I will defer to Ricky on that. I know in past projects what they've done is they actually go into like a main hub and then they come in in a bulk instead of kind of that off-and-on process. It just makes it more seamless, doesn't use up a valuable loading space and gets them in and gets them out. So when they did do the on-site delivery, it comes in a smaller vehicle and can utilize the parking garage structure. So that way it's not blocking any right-of-way. Is that similar to like a DoorDash, too, or what will those types of deliveries have? I will defer to operations. Good evening. Ricky DeCamps. I represent the applicant developer for the project. So Councilmember Hertak. So it is a – it's kind of like a delivery version of DoorDash. Essentially it can go to a central location and that resident can then identify when they want their package delivered. I'm sorry. No, I'm talking about like Uber Eats. I'm talking about food. Oh, you're actually talking for food. Yeah, because that's not something that you can bulk. No, you're right. Yeah, what we have is on-street parallel parking that can be designated if we – well, it's on-street parallel parking in the right-of-way. We can try to work with the city and transportation department through some 15-minute commercial parking, which is – obviously we don't have any control of it, but we would be able to talk – we will be building it for the city and would work with the transportation department to do that. Yeah, I think that would be – yeah, I think that would be just – as we get more of these multifamily developments, we really have to be thinking about that sort of stuff. I mean, I don't think there should be any problem with the mobility team putting something like that for deliveries. I think – Special signage. Yeah, special signage, just something, because that's the – it's not just the future, it's the now. It's here. So, yeah, exactly. And we just don't want people double parking, getting parking in bike lanes, things like that. So, appreciate it. No, no, of course. Dinner or less, right? Yeah. Pretty soon you'll be – pretty soon it'll be – I was in Miami recently and it's the robots, the little mobile robots with the coolers in them that they're all over the right-of-way. So, we'll be finding parking for them too in the future. So, just wanted to just, number one, tell you guys about kind of what we're doing, how we've taken our approach on this project. Our design team has worked really hard. Initially, we started with the historic preservation, working with the city to make sure that we were ticking and tying as much as we can to maintain the feel of Ybor because we're in the historic commission. Obviously, we wanted to create an authentic place. It's really hard to create authentic when you're brand new, but what I'm really proud of is what we've done. And you'll notice in some of these renderings how we've incorporated the design standards of Ybor as much as possible. We are a five-story building. You'll notice that we are promoting and really just emphasizing the four-story brick and then trying to mute back our fifth floor as much as possible. One of the things that we learned, and our architects here, if you want to ask some questions, but when we presented in front of the historic commission, the buyer of Latino, they go, you're set back too much. We actually want you to bring the building more forward, which we did, and hence why you saw the last-minute boiler points and why they've asked for us to be able to have the flexibility of that certificate appropriateness to modify that. Going to the next slide, I did want to present you, this is a view of Henderson. One of the things that we mentioned, what we really wanted to work on is, look, I have roots to Ybor. I have family that's from the Dominican Republic that came here to Tampa to work in the cigar factories many, many years ago. My mom is a Tampa native, and when you think about the neighborhoods that I grew up in or going to in the Dominican Republic or in other commissions, terracitas, little terraces, are really big and important. So what we really did is try to emphasize that walkability. It's intended to be a neighboring, an area where our resident who lives off of Henderson can walk out without feeling like they live in an apartment, but more like a walk-up brownstone with their own front porch, if you will, which is pretty consistent with what you see in Ybor. And so you'll see here that's kind of the approach we have. I hate renderings because they never do a good job of showing the trees. We've met with the neighborhood groups. We've met with a lot of local stakeholders in the community and trees, and I'm a big believer, I just am, of shaded pedestrian walkways. These trees are, we don't do palm trees. We do live oaks or oak trees because we're encouraging for that shaded connectivity when these tiered trees mature. And so, like I said, I'll stop there. Happy to answer any questions you may have, and we'll go from there. Thank you. Questions? Hearing none. Does that conclude your presentation? Yes, it does. But, again, happy to answer any questions you may have. Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Opposed. I have a motion to close to Councilman Matascalko. Second, Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Councilman Carlson, would you like to read this? Councilmember Hurtag will make the amendment that she suggested. Oh, you want me to just, I can pitch it to her if you want to do it all in one? I would just say, I would just include all the bullet points in the memorandum from the Barrio Latino. Okay. And the revised revision sheet. Okay, move RZ 2060, ordinance being presented for first ring consideration, ordinance rezoning property in general vicinity of 1605, North Waters Court in the city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification, YC2, Ybor City Historic District Residential to YC9, Ybor City Historic District Site Plan, controlled residential multifamily, providing effective date, including the revision sheet and the four items in the August 4th. August 4th, 2026 memo from the Barrio Latino Commission. Thank you. I have a motion from Councilman Carlson, seconded Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have you nationally. Clerk. Okay. Second reading and adoption, motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Item number two. Brea Dixon Development Coordination. Agenda item number two is REZ 2665. Request to rezone 4911 East 10th Avenue from RM24 Residential Multiple Family to CI Commercial Intensive. Now turning it over to Planning Commission. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District and evacuation zone E. The subject site is outlined in purple and is currently vacant. The surrounding area contains mostly commercial and industrial uses with single-family homes and vacant FDOT property to the north and west. This map shows the site designated as CC35, Community Commercial 35, which surrounds the site to the east and west. To the south is light industrial. To the north is CMU 35. And then we have some R20 to the northwest. The request is rezoned from RM24 to CI, which is consistent with the CC35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it comparable and compatible with the surrounding area and would provide infill on a vacant site. Future development should provide appropriate buffering from the residential uses adjacent to the site and address pedestrian connectivity. Overall, the request is consistent with the surrounding development pattern and the comprehensive plan. I am available for any questions. Any questions? Here or not. Next. Council, Brea Dixon Development Coordination. I have an aerial map of the subject property. You can see the subject property here outlined in red. It is just south of East Columbus Drive and west of North 50th Street. Here it also has frontage on East 10th Avenue as well as East 8th Avenue. To the west, there is a place of religious assembly, zoned RM16. To the north is a vacant parcel, also zoned RM16. To the east is CG as well as a Taco Bell, currently operating as a restaurant. And to the south, you also have IG, Industrial General Zoning, which is currently a McDonald's or a restaurant use. I have a survey. Once again, you can see the parcel here folded. And it has frontage again on that East 10th as well as East 8th Avenue. Here are some photos. This is the subject property on East 10th Avenue, East 8th Avenue, the vacant parcel to the north, the restaurant to the east, the restaurant to the south, and then the place of religious assembly along the west. Development Coordination and Compliance staff have reviewed the application upon the request to be consistent with the City of Tampa and Land Development Regulations. I'm available for any questions. Council, have any questions? Abrea, hearing none. Perfect amount of photos, by the way. Not too many, not too much. Not too many. Got it. Okay. Applicant? Yeah. Good evening. My name is Annie Fan. I'm the applicant and authorized agent. We, well, this land is a little over half acre. When my husband and I bought it, we were intentional was building a small apartment building. But after we hired our engineer and we did some science study and tried to figure out the right layout for the land, it's become very difficult because the narrowness and it's also because it's a front on both streets. And after we meet all the requirements of the parking and setback and everything, it's just financial, physically, very difficult for us to do anything on that site. And so after we consult with the engineers and also the staff, we found out we can rezone to CI, which is still consistent with the CC35 future land use destination, as well as the Tampa comprehensive plan. So, therefore, we try to find, to get it rezone again to CI, so to find a more appropriate use and will be positive and consistent with the patterns of the surrounding area. Thank you. Does the council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the public who wish to speak to this item? I'm going to close. I have a motion to close to Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Menescapo. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. I say that. But Councilman Vieira, would you like to read item number two? I move an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4911, East 10th Avenue, City of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in Section 1 from zoning district classification, RM24, residential multifamily to CI commercial intensive, providing an effective date. I have a motion from Councilman Vieira. Second from Councilman Miranda. Miranda, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Thank you. Okay. Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. So you got that for a second reading, the applicant? Yes. Very good. Thank you so much. Okay. Item number three. Brea Dixon Development Coordination. Agenda item number three is REZ 2674, request to rezone 2099 North Armenia Avenue and 2342 Walnut Street from PD Plant Development to CI Commercial General. There was an error on the agenda and staff report that incorrectly lists 2342 West Avenue instead of street. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Old West Tampa neighborhood, West Tampa Urban Village, and Evacuation Zone E. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mix of single-family, multifamily, commercial, and institutional uses. Additionally, at the southwest corner of Armenia and Spruce is the historic Santayela Cigar Factory here. This map shows the site designated as Community Commercial 35, which is primarily concentrated along North Armenia Avenue and North Howard Avenue to the east, which are both designated transit emphasis corridors. Of course, R35 is located to the east, and R20 is located further west. The request is rezoned from PD to CG, which is consistent with the CC35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The request would allow infill development within the West Tampa Urban Village and along a transit emphasis corridor, supporting commercial opportunities near transit and existing residential uses. Future development should provide appropriate buffering from the residential property to the east and address pedestrian connectivity. Overall, the request will provide compatible infill development within the West Tampa Urban Village and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Land of all. Mayor Dixon Development Coordination will start with an area of the subject property. You can see the subject property here outlined in red. There are two parcels, one to the north and one immediately south. Subject property, sorry, the subject surrounding zoning of the subject property is RM16 to the west, the north, the south, as well as the east. There are single-family semi-detached and detached residences throughout the area. And right here in this RM24 zoning designation is a residential multiple-family development. There is a survey of the property. And this has the frontage here on that West Walnut Street, as well as North Armenia Avenue, 122 feet here and then 90 feet here at the north. I also have some photos. Here is that Walnut and then North Armenia currently existing. This is the property immediately to the north. This is the alley behind the subject parcels, single-family detached to the east, single-family detached to the south, and then the residential multiple-family to the west. Development Coordination and Compliance staff review the application and find a request to be consistent with the City of Tampa land development regulations. I'm available if you have any questions. Any questions? Hearing none. Applicant. Good evening. My name is Benny Calzone. I'm the applicant and the owner of the property. And we're trying to preserve the building. It's been an office since we purchased it 10 years ago. So never realizing what the PD was. When we changed and had a tenant move out, we found out all of the information on it. And we've, over a year now, have had it vacant because of that reason. So we're trying to develop and preserve it and hopefully develop the parcel next to it. Does the council have any questions of the applicant? Hearing none. Is there any of the public who wish to speak to this item? I motion to close to Councilman Escalco. Second for Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I say aye. Councilwoman Young. File number REZ-26-74, an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, an ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2009 North Armenia Avenue and 2342 Walnut Street in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in Section 1 from zoning district classification PD plan development to PD plan development to CG commercial general, providing an effective thing. Second. I have a motion from Councilwoman Young. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Clerk. Okay. Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Okay. Go ahead. Rio Dixon Development Coordination Agenda Item Number 4 is a request to rezone 3209 North 22nd Street from CG commercial general to PD plan development for pharmacy, retail, sales, sales, convenience, and shoppers' goods. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff. Thank you. Quinn Steel Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the North Ybor neighborhood, and the East Tampa Urban Village. It's also within evacuation zone E. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mix of residential, commercial, and public quasi-public uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along North 22nd Street with multifamily uses directly west, including the Belmont Heights Estates community, and single-family homes to the east. This map shows the site designated as Community Mixed Use 35, which is primarily concentrated along North 22nd Street. R35 is located to the west, with R20 and R10 to the east. The request is rezoned from CG to PD to allow pharmacy, convenience, retail, and shoppers' goods within the existing commercial building. The proposed 0.58 FAR is well below the maximum 2.0 FAR allowed under the CMU 35 designation. Staff requests that the applicant correct the proposed FAR and max FAR in the site data table between first and second reading. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it consistent with the surrounding area and the existing site conditions. While the existing building and site configuration limit the ability to fully achieve the pedestrian-oriented development encouraged by the comprehensive plan, the applicant has made improvements, including six-foot sidewalks, a pedestrian bench near the Hart Transit stop, bicycle parking, and replacing the existing chain-link fence along the eastern property line adjacent to a single-family home with a six-foot PVC fence to improve screening. Overall, the staff finds the proposed PD consistent with the comprehensive plan in the context of the existing building and the proposed change in allowable uses, the proposed pedestrian amenities, and screening to improve compatibility, although the existing site limits how fully the mixed-use corridor design policies can be met. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Any other questions? Hearing none. Thank you. I love your firing that off. Brea Dixon, Development Coordination. Once again, we'll start with an area view of the subject property. You can see the property outlined here in red. To the north, there's an RM24 zoning that currently contains a single-family detached residence. To the east, which is zoned CG, there's also another single-family detached residence. To the south here, there is a medical office. And to the west, there's a planned development that has residential single-family dwelling—sorry, residential single-family semi-detached, as well as single-family residential multiple-family developments, and is known as Belmont Heights. I also have a site plan, as provided by the applicant. The property is existing. It hasn't existed for several years. It has three frontages, one on Lake Street, one on North 22nd, another here. There's a single-family, again, detached residence here, as well as another single-family detached residence here. I also have elevations provided by the applicant. We have west here, east, south. While nine parking spaces are required by the applicant, only one is proposed, and the proposal is located centrally within the neighborhood, which will thus provide a neighborhood amenity. There are no shade trees, and the applicant proposes to reduce the impervious area to restore the eastern portion here. And you can see that impervious area outlined here in green. The additional 450 square feet of green space is considered an overhaul enhancement for the existing development. The applicant is requesting five waivers. One is from Section 27-283 to reduce the number of required loading berks from 5 to 2 for a 60% reduction. Second waiver is 27-283 to reduce required parking from 9 to 1, an 89% reduction. Third waiver is 27-284 to reduce the use-to-use buffer along the eastern property line from 15 feet with a 6-foot masonry wall to 2 feet with a 6-foot high fence. Fourth waiver is from Section 27-284 to reduce the use-to-use buffer along 22nd Street to all adjacent right-of-ways from 8 feet to 0 feet. The fifth is from Section 27-240 to reduce the front yard setback to allow a 0-foot setback instead of the required 10 to 12-foot range required due to the existing building. And sorry, there's a sixth waiver. Section 27-284 to pay into the tree trust fund for required trees not being planted on site. Development review and compliance staff reviewed the petition and finds the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Please refer to transportation comments or overall inconsisting findings. If Council so wishes to approve the application and waivers as requested, modifications to the site plan that's shown on the revised submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading. Revisions will not resolve transportation's findings of inconsistency. And I have here copies of the revised revision sheet, which was revised to include a correction to the FAR that was listed. I'm available if you have any questions. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Good evening, Council, Steve McElhinney, representing the petitioner. Let me kind of walk you through the site and show you exactly what's being proposed here. This is an aerial photograph showing you the proximity to the large affordable housing development directly across the street. This is a close-up of that. Let me show you what we started with, which was this, and the renovations are currently underway. This is the subject property here. There's a close-up there. This shows you basically the site. And we are severely constrained with the site conditions about what we can do regarding renovations. They recently received a $75,000 appropriation from the CRA for renovations and for upgrading. The basic purpose of this PD is to allow a pharmacy, which would be neighborhoods serving commercial and retail, for those houses that I showed you across the street. There is a bus stop here in front. Hartline has requested us to do something about that, but I think that it more appropriately, and we'll work with Hartline to do this, instead of placing it here where it's existing, is to move it over here so they can provide the bus shelter that was being requested. And, again, you see what kind of site we're dealing with. We added a handicapped space, and that apparently triggered the requirement for the parking. We are here on this site, and those are all existing conditions. The waivers that were being requested are because of existing conditions, not because of new construction. Again, this is neighborhood-serving commercial. It's badly needed in the area that used to be the grocery store that was there is now gone, and the staff has noted that, although we have a technical objection from transportation, overall, they were pleased with what we were proposing for this location. Just in terms of meeting the criteria, let me go through that real quick. To promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure, existing building, existing water and sewer connections, existing transportation, and 22nd Street has been redeveloped in that area. Allow the integration of different uses. This does that. Encourage the flexible land development. It complies with that. Promote and encourage development site where appropriate and location is badly needed in this location. Promote the desirable living and working conditions and environment. It does that. Promote the architectural features, and although you don't have the best renderings of the elevations, it will be much more attractive than what was previously there. And promote the retention of existing infrastructure and buildings and structures. We meet all of those criteria. We're respectfully requesting your approval. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer. Council, have any questions? I have a copy of the letter from CRA regarding the $75,000, if you want it. Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Hearing none. Motion to close to Councilman Maniscalco. Second, Councilman Randall. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I have it with the revised revision sheet. Councilwoman Hurtick. File number REZ 26-78. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 3209 North 22nd Street in the city of Tampa, Florida. And more particularly described in Section 1, from zoning district classification CG, commercial general, to PD, plan development, pharmacy, and retail sales, convenience goods, and shoppers' goods, providing effective date, including the revised revision sheet. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtick. Second, Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I just have it number five. Okay. Motion carried. Thank you, Council. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026, at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Is that November 5th? Thank you. At 5.01 p.m. Oh, 10.30? 10.30. Excuse me. 10.30. 10.30. Sorry. Second reading. Okay. Go ahead. Brea Dixon Development Coordination Agenda Item No. 5 is REZ 2682. Request to rezone 620 West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard from RS50 Residential Single Family to CG Commercial General. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff. From Steel Planning Commission staff, this site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Tampa Heights Neighborhood, and the Tampa Heights Urban Village. It's also within evacuation zone D. The subject state is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mix of commercial uses and single-family homes. Commercial uses are concentrated along West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard with single-family homes to the north and south of the corridor. This map shows the site as CMU35, which is concentrated along MLK. R10 is located to the north and south of the corridor. The request is rezoned from RS50 to CG, which is consistent with the CMU35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The site is currently vacant and fronts a transit emphasis corridor and mixed-use corridor where redevelopment and intensification are encouraged. Any future development should address pedestrian connectivity, access from the alley, and appropriate buffering from adjacent residential uses. Overall, the request would provide an opportunity for compatible infill development within the Tampa Heights Urban Village and along a transit emphasis corridor and is consistent with a comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Council, have any questions? Hearing none. Rhea. Rhea Dixon, Development Coordination staff. Here you can see the subject parcel outlined in red. It is currently vacant. It is just south of West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and it is just east of North Boulevard. To the north, you have a planned development that is currently for a pharmacy and is operating as a CDS. To the east, you have another vacant parcel, which is zoned RS50. To the south is also a residential single-family development. And then to the west, you have CG Zoning, which is the location of the former Hoot Toes Corner. I have a survey, and again, you can see that the property has, sorry, just a little, the property has frontage here on West Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard, and it is bolded here. I also have photos. This is the subject property. This is the CDS to the north, the vacant parcel to the east, the residential single-family detached to the south, and then that CG Zoning large parcel to the west. The development coordination and compliance staff review the application and find a request to be consistent with the City of Tampa and development regulations. I'm available if you have any questions. Council, do we have any questions? Hearing none. Okay. Thank you. Applicant. Hello. My name is Amarulis Peters, and I work with AD Engineering, and we're representing the owner. Unfortunately, he used to have a single-family home at this property that actually burned down, and now it's vacant. So he wanted to change it from an RS-50 to a CG so he has more options for developing in the future, and we will be assisting him in developing, whether he goes commercial or he goes back to a family, multifamily. Any questions? Hearing none. Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? I motion to close to Councilman Matiscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. That was a 50-50 shot there. All those in favor? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Matiscalco. Thank you. All right. There's no revision sheet with this? Nothing? No? No? All right. I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration, ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 620 West Martin Luther King, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd, in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in Section 1 from Zoning District Classification RS-50, Residential Single Family, to CG Commercial General, providing an effective data. I have a motion. Councilman Matiscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you. Clerk. A motion carries unanimous. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Christopher, before you start, we've had a lot of people show up, and I think we're getting into the meat of your items, so I think we need to get some more people sworn in. If you are here tonight, you have not been sworn in, and you're planning on speaking or testifying in any of these hearings, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. Thank you. Thank you. Christopher? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Agenda Item Number 6 is RZ 2685. This is a request to rezone 5510 and 5400 Southwest Shore Boulevard from CI Commercial Intensive to Plan Development for daycare and nursery facility, an air-conditioned storage use, and all CI uses. Before I yield to Planning Commission staff, we do have an updated revision sheet. We inadvertently left off an item under Planning Commission staff. This was just to ensure that the site plan between first and second reading depicts a floor area ratio of 1.06. According to the Steel Planning Commission staff, this site is within the South Tampa Planning District, the Gandy-Sun Bay-South neighborhood, and evacuation zone A, as well as the coastal high hazard area. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mix of multifamily, single-family attached and detached, and commercial uses. The Marina Shopping District is located to the northwest. This map shows the site designated as CC35, with CMU35 to the north and R10 to the east and south. There is also a pocket of heavy and light industrial to the west. The request is rezoned from CI to PD for a daycare and nursery facility, air-conditioned storage, and all CI uses. The proposed 1.06 FAR is below the maximum allowed under the CC35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposal and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The project places the buildings near the right-of-way, provides internal sidewalks and crosswalks connecting to West Shore Boulevard. The site also provides landscaping and buffering along the north side adjacent to multifamily uses. Between first and second reading, staff is requesting that the front entrances for the daycare and the existing storage building be labeled on the site plan, as well as correcting the proposed FAR to 1.06. Overall, the proposed PD is consistent with the development pattern and vision under the CC35 designation and the comprehensive plan. I am available for any questions. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Development. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher Dimanche. Development coordination. Starting with an area of the subject site. Outlined in red, subject property is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of West Tyson Avenue and Southwest Shore Boulevard. Surrounding uses include residential multiple family uses to the north zone planned development, single-family semi-detached dwellings to the east zone PD. South of the subject site, we have Legacy Park Drive. And just further south of that, we have single-family detached dwellings, zoned RS-60. And then west of the subject site, across Southwest Shore Boulevard, we have IG Industrial General Zoning with open storage and warehouse uses. The proposed site plan depicts a project site, approximately 2.19 acres in area. It is proposed as a mixed-use zoning lot with a daycare and nursery facility proposed on the west side of the property, depicted as Parcel 1. And on the east side of the property, we have an existing air-conditioned storage facility identified as Parcel 2. There are no changes proposed to Parcel 2. The only change to the site is the addition of Parcel 1. The site is accessed by an existing two-way entrance on the northwest corner of the subject property. There are approximately 44 surface parking spaces to be provided on-site between the two uses. With there being no changes to Parcel 2, which is the air-conditioned storage facility, we only have elevations to show you for the proposed daycare and nursery facility. This new building for Parcel 1 would have a maximum height of 36 feet 7 inches. And we do have one waiver with this request. It's to Section 27-284. This is to reduce the required lot island width from 13 feet to 9 feet. The development is proposed with a floor area ratio of 1.06, with the applicant entering into a bonus provision agreement. The bonus provision agreement is being processed concurrently with this application. My photo is to show. This is the subject site. This shows what would be Parcel 2, the existing air-conditioned storage facility. This is looking from the northeast corner of the site, around the northeast corner of the site, near the air-conditioned storage facility, looking out towards West Shore. This shows the site from West Shore, looking eastward. The grassy area in front, that is basically the site for Parcel 1. North of the subject site, south of the subject site, and, of course, between the subject property and those single-family detached units, we do have South Legacy Drive. I don't have any pictures of the development to the east as it's a gated community. And then looking west across West Shore, we have the view there. Development View and Compliance staff has reviewed this petition. We do find the request consistent with the applicable City of Tampa. Land Development Regulations should be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application and the waivers listed above. Further modifications to the site plan would need to be completed between first and second reading of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet, and I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Christopher. Any questions? Hearing none. In your next year, you need to be a wedding photographer. Good evening, Council. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive. I'll skip some of the setup stuff. Chris went over that in great detail. I wanted to give you guys a little bit of a background on this. We've been working on the site since, I think, like 2022, so it's been a long time. The prior owner who owned the entire parcel, both lots one and lots two, when Life Storage came online, we wanted to split it so that Life Storage could own their own land. We were going to plat this. We had a plat filed, and then the city at the time had recommended, since it's just a split into two, that we just do a formal decision and tie them together as one zoning lot. So that's why Life Storage is part of this application. They're just along for the ride because they're using our density. So we decided to do the PD for both parcels together because we need a small amount of bonus, which I'll go into in a second. So as mentioned, these do, because of that FDN, function as one zoning lot already. They will, again, with the PD. As you can see, they do share access and parking and drainage, so they function together as one parcel. As mentioned, that's not changing at all, and that's why that facility is not changing. What we are proposing is just this 11,500-square-foot daycare. This parcel in the front, lot one, was always intended to be an outlot for some form of retail or something similar, commercial use. We do need the 11,500-square-feet, and that is why we have a bonus agreement for .06 FAR, which is the smallest BPA I've ever done. But we need a little bit of that. And like I said, life storage is actually using the density from our land because their building is so large, it's about 90,000 square feet. We are a bit over-parked, and the reason for that is because the daycare, it doesn't operate like a school or a charter school where there's, like, a queuing lane and a drop-off. The parents park and take the children inside. So during the peak hours, it's nice to have a few extra spaces just so we can make sure that there's enough parking for everybody on site. We do have one waiver. It's regarding the parking lot island width. That's just from 13 feet to 9 feet. Again, that's just to accommodate some extra parking spaces, but we can still fit a VUA tree inside the parking island width at 9 feet. Staff on this application, fully consistent, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them, but that's all I have. Any questions? Hearing none. Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? I motion to close to Councilman Randa, second from Councilman Maniscalco. I think whoever said this was a good idea deserves an award because it's a great symbiotic relationship to creatively do this. Good job. Councilman Miranda, the change is between first and second and the revised revision sheet. In order to read zoning property, general vicinity of 5510 and 5400 Southwest Shore Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in section 1 from zoning districts classification, CI, commercial intensive to PD, plan development, daycare and nursery facility, air-conditioned storage, and all C1 uses, providing an effective aid along with the revision sheet and... The change is between first and second. Pardon me? The change is between first and second. And the change in between first and second reading. Okay, thank you. I have a motion for Councilman Randa, second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? I have it unanimously. Clerk? Okay, motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 3-3-6-0-2. Thank you. Christopher? Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher Dimash, development coordination. Agenda item 7 is REZ 2686. This is a request to rezone 2202 West Kennedy Boulevard from CG Commercial General to plan development for a drive-in restaurant. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff. Deal, Planning Commission staff. Turn it back off. CTTV, whatever you're doing back there, we can hear you. Okay, go ahead. Ready to roll. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District in the South Howard neighborhood, as well as Evacuation Zone C. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is primarily commercial along West Kennedy Boulevard with a residential neighborhood directly to the south. This site is also adjacent to a gas station to the west and an office to the east. This map shows the site designated as UMU 60, which is primarily concentrated along West Kennedy Boulevard, which is a designated transit emphasis corridor. CMU 35 is located along South Howard Avenue to the west, with R20 directly south of the site. The request is rezoned from CG to PD to allow a drive-in restaurant. The proposed 0.07 FAR is well below the 3.25 FAR anticipated under the UMU 60 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found the use comparable with the surrounding development pattern. While the drive-in restaurant is inherently vehicle-oriented in low intensity compared to what is envisioned for the UMU 60 designation, the site design places the building and primary entrance near Kennedy Boulevard, provides lighting and bicycle parking, and places parking at the rear. Staff is requesting that between first and second readings, the applicant label all front entrances, clarify the northwest sidewalk connection, and clarify the drive-through window location and screening. Overall, the proposed PD is comparable with the surrounding commercial development along West Kennedy Boulevard and is consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I am available for any questions. Council, have any questions? Hearing none, Christopher. Starting off with the area of the subject site outlined in red. I'm sorry, Christopher DeMontsch, development coordination. Got ahead of myself. Looking at the aerial here, the subject site is outlined in red. It is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Southwestland Avenue and West Kennedy Boulevard. Surrounding uses include medical office use to the north, zone CG. South of the subject site, we have a mix of single-family detached, semi-detached, and attached uses, zoned RM-16. Immediately east of the subject site, we have CG zoning with business and professional office uses. We also have an existing PD zone property. This is from 1984, approved for an office use. And west of the subject site, we do have CG zoning. This is a Circle K gas station. All right, looking here at the applicant's proposed site plan, the site is approximately 13,763 square feet with a single-story drive-in restaurant proposed. The building itself is 965 square feet. It is located on the south side of West Kennedy Boulevard. The site, as designed, has a two-way driveway on the southern portion, utilizing an existing 15-foot paved alleyway. There are four parking spaces, along with solid waste, proposed on the south side of the property. The drive-through itself allows for up to 10 vehicles, and there is a one-way egress proposed on the south side of the building. There is also a pathway from the parking area leading up to the existing, to the proposed drive-in restaurant. And, of course, with the positioning of the building along Kennedy Boulevard, it is fairly accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. There are also off-site pedestrian connections proposed along Kennedy that would have to meet the Kennedy overlay standards, and there is an existing sidewalk which runs north to south along South Westland Avenue. We have post elevations. The elevations as proposed, there is a maximum building height proposed of 25 feet. Here we have the south and east elevations. And then next we have the north and west elevations. There are six waivers that are proposed with this application. The first is the Section 132. This requests to weigh the requirement for direct access to an arterial or collector street. This is part of the Special Use 2 criteria for reviewing drive-in restaurants. The second waiver is to Section 27132 as well. This is a request to reduce the required distance for a queuing lane to a residential use from 50 feet down to 24 feet. Again, this is part of the SU-2 criteria, which was added as a waiver. Third waiver is to Section 27284. This is a request to reduce the required 8-foot vehicular use landscape buffer to 6 feet along South Westland Avenue. The fourth waiver is to Section 27284. This is a request to reduce the parking island width from 13 feet to 12 feet. The fifth waiver is to Section 27284, which is to eliminate the buffer along the south property line where the property line abuts alley right-of-way across from residentially zoned property. And the sixth waiver is to Section 27243. This is to increase the allowable distance for access on the local street, South Westland Avenue from 100 feet to 115 feet from the intersection with West Kennedy Boulevard. We do have photos to show of the subject site. First photo is looking south. This would be from, if you're standing near Kennedy Boulevard, this is south looking north. This is looking north of the subject site across West Kennedy, south of the subject site. And this is a view looking south directly from the subject site at the residence, which is immediately south. East of the subject site and west of the subject site. And I do have a photo I want to show, which shows that alleyway. And this photo is taken from South Westland. This is looking west. And basically, if you walk or drive, you're going to go directly into the Circle K site. Development and Viewing Compliance Staff has reviewed the petition. We do find the requesting consistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application and waivers listed above? Further modifications to the site plan would need to be completed between first and second reading, as stated on the revision sheet. These issues will not resolve the issue of transportation's inconsistent finding. I'm available for any questions. Councilor, have any questions? Councilor Maniscalco. Was there a fire at this location at what was previously there and it was demolished? Is it that site? There was a previous restaurant. I don't know if the circumstances for closing, though. Yeah, it was, okay, no questions. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive, with the law firm of Gardner Brewer-Hudson. You guys are going to be really sick of me tonight, because this is 204, so I'm honored to kick off the drive-thrus on the agenda. I know there's a couple today. Chris set us up really well. This is adjacent to Circle K. This is the former site of Pup's Pub, and it did burn down, so to answer your earlier question, it is zoned currently, CG Commercial General, and it is within the Kennedy Boulevard overlay. As Chris mentioned, there's a mix of uses in the vicinity. There's some office here. There's some multifamily, and then commercial, obviously, as well. This is what we're proposing. Chris showed the site plan. I'll show it to you again. This is a very, very small building pushed to the front of the site, obviously, to comply with the Kennedy Boulevard overlay. As many of this is unsurprising, I'm sure, to many of you, but our curb cut on Kennedy Boulevard is being closed by FDOT, so we are proposing to add that one relief valve on the east side of the site along Westland. The access that is attached to the alley, that one exists today. Chris showed a picture of that, but I have more, and I'll show those as well. We're also bringing the site up to compliance with the Kennedy Boulevard, so we're adding kind of that pavement scoring there, the larger, widened sidewalk, street trees, et cetera. Why a PD? I think that some of you may know this already, but surprisingly, a drive-thru restaurant is not allowed by right in commercial general. It requires a special use-to application, so if you need any other waivers, it just makes more sense to go a PD. But a drive-thru, to me, is the epitome of CG uses, but it is not allowed by right, so that's why you'll see so many of these drive-thrus come through as PD zonings. Because the site is the former site of not only Pup's Pub, but also the bungalow before Pup's Pub, which was a restaurant, this does have a current active wet zoning approval. So before we got in contact with SWIG, and Sean is here with SWIG, and he'll come up and speak to you a little bit about SWIG's operations, whatever I'm done, we were approached by a different bar use to build a building here within the same footprint as the original wet zoning. That wet zoning is chapter 14 hours, so it allows alcoholic beverage sales until 3 a.m. We believe that, obviously, the SWIG is a better use for the site, and I think that some of the residents would likely agree. Sean will speak to some of the hours with SWIG, but even though there are some complexities that come along with the drive-thru, we think that this is an improved use for the site compared to the current approvals that exist there today. We are requesting some waivers, as is relatively consistent in some of these overlay districts. They add a little bit more layer of complexity to these applications, and given the site being so small at 0.3 acres, we're obviously trying to move some things around to make things fit. So I tried to organize these into different categories, the first one being an attempt to keep traffic off of Kennedy. I'll go into detail on these in the succeeding slides, but just a high-level summary of what we're asking for. The next three are really related to on-site queuing, and obviously on-site queuing is very important in order to keep the traffic off of the local streets. And then the last two are related to existing conditions at the site and things that we're not changing, but that we still need to re-request those same waivers for. So the first one is the access to Kennedy. As mentioned, DOT is closing our Kennedy access, but what is actually relatively interesting is that the city's standard code doesn't like access on commercial streets. However, the Kennedy Boulevard overlay specifically requests access on the local streets, and that's because the Kennedy Boulevard overlay, the intention of that is to make Kennedy walkable, have it be very pedestrian-friendly, and having those intermittent curb cuts along Kennedy obviously disrupts the pedestrian experience. So I have some text from the overlay here on the screen, but the overlay does encourage that access on Westland versus Kennedy Boulevard. Second three, as I mentioned, are related to on-site queuing. So I have these two teal arrows on the screen. We're required to measure this queue lane to residential from the very first entrance to the queue lane. So as you can see, when someone drives into that drive-through lane where the dashed line is, that's where the measurement is taken from. To me, I think queuing is more so when the vehicles are stacked. And as you can see, that's a much longer distance than what that 24 feet would suggest for the technicality of the waiver. We're requesting a buffer reduction, but we are compliant with the Kennedy Boulevard overlay and will be even with that reduced space there along Westland Avenue. We'll be able to include all of the tree, the landscape and the tree plantings in that buffer. And we're requesting a slight reduction in the parking island width in order to make everything fit on such a smaller site. But I did think it was really important to note that while we're requesting relief for some of these different requirements in order to make things fit, we are making sure that we are still providing the intent of the code and still providing enough green space. As you can see, we're providing almost 2,000 square feet of green space against about 1,200 that's required. That's about a 36% increase in what's required per standard code. So rest assured, the green space will be on site. It just might be not in the specific areas that code had originally designed. The last two, as I mentioned, the waivers are related to the existing conditions. So these are images from when the site, when the building Pup's Pub was still there. I used to go there with my dog, so I'm very familiar with the site. There is no current buffer on the south property line, and that is the way that Pup's Pub operated as well. So they took the alley, donated or dedicated, not officially, but gave an easement to the city to widen that alley to have this on-site parking here. We're proposing to do essentially the same thing. Obviously, this is turned to the site plan. But as you can see, we're using the alley. We're adding extra space to the alley to widen that to the full width of a dry pile, and then adding the parking spaces there. So it'll be wider than what you see here in the image, but same design intent there. This next one, same thing. So the city actually requires your driveway connection to be within 100 feet of the intersection, and that is so that traffic does not spill further into the neighborhoods on local streets. Obviously, this is at conflict with what DOT wants, which they want the entrance to your property as far away from the intersection as possible to not have traffic back up on Kennedy. But either way, this is an existing, as mentioned, this is an existing alley. So we are reusing the same curb cut that already exists today. We're not changing that. We're not increasing the degree of the waiver of that. That is just where the alley is today. So we're just utilizing that. Staff did find this application consistent with the exception of transportation. That inconsistency was based specifically on the waiver that requires us to be 115 feet from the intersection curb cut, which, again, that's an existing condition, so not something that we're specifically changing on the site. And with that, I'm going to bring up Sean Larson with SWIG. He's going to talk a little bit to the operations of SWIG. Good evening, Council. Sean Larson. I'm with Bubbles Group. We're the local franchisee of SWIG drinks in the Tampa-St. Pete area. So, yeah, the overall concept is it's SWIG drinks. We do what's called dirty soda. To clarify, that does not involve alcohol. It's any kind of cola, and we mix things into it. The concept is a fast drive-through type thing. Our average drive-through time is between three and four minutes. So cars move through pretty quickly. There is no patio seating or any other seating where people would stay. Also, most of the businesses drive-through, we have some walk-up. This would actually be one of the first ones that's in more of an urban setting. And so we're, as Alex mentioned, we're trying to provide for the walkability and things like that. As part of our outreach, we did reach out directly to the residents of the building that's across from the alley to go over what we're doing with them and see if they had any comments or questions and encountered no opposition. So with that, are there any questions? The walk-up, is that on Kennedy for walk-up on window? It would be on Westland. On Westland. Yeah. It's like a window kind of situation, yeah? That's correct. Okay, very good. Any other questions? Hearing none. Okay, thank you. Thank you. That concludes our presentation, but I'll be back up and can answer any questions that you have. Okay, does anybody in the public wish to speak to the side of the council? Okay, I have one online speaker. Patricia, can you hear me? I'm sorry, Diane. I'm sorry. Yeah, not Diane Carter-Lyons. Diane? Diane, unmute yourself. Is that better? Yep, much better. If you start with your name, please. My name is Diane Carter-Lyons. And we need to swear you in, so there you go. We can see you now. Please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk. Okay, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Diane. Start with your name, please. It's Diane Carter-Lyons. I'm the owner of the 2124 West Kennedy Boulevard adjacent to the property being discussed. I have owned and operated professional offices in this address over the past 45 years. And I've directly, practically, and not have full knowledge of what the access constraints would be, the parking needs, the traffic conditions, and service patterns in our block. I write this letter to respectfully oppose the application being considered for the zoning change to operate a drive-through, one-stop swig drinks at 2202 West Kennedy Boulevard. A high-volume drive-through business is not compatible with the constraints on the local street alley and parking network surrounding our block. The primary concern is traffic circulation. A drive-through business depends on frequent short trips and queuing traffic throughout the day and also into the evening. This location is bound by the new traffic median being constructed along Kennedy Boulevard, which will prevent westbound turn-ins. This will force a large volume of traffic to the outed via constrained one-way and narrow local access routes. These streets and service alleys were not designed to safely accommodate the volume, turning, movements, short-cutting, and queue spillover that a drive-through will create. The alleyway behind my building, which connects Albany to Westland, is an unpaved and only one vehicle wide. Across via this route is relied on by service vehicles, garbage collection, deliveries, and et cetera, not a public circulation route or a bypass for drivers through the traffic. These traffic patterns may not be intended, but they would be the inevitable result. Parking and neighborhood compatibility are additional concerns. The purpose we would bring high volumes to employees, customers, third-party delivery drivers, and late-evening activity through a mainly residential and professional office environment. Existing on-street parking is relied upon by nearby residents, outside business tours, and hours, and by the businesses for deliveries. Service access, service access, a day-to-day operations, and the current zoning has functioned well for many years alongside the existing residents and businesses. I ask that the application be denied in order to protect traffic safety, service access, parking availability, and the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Diane. You're welcome. Okay. Applicant, would you like a rebuttal? Sure. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive. To address a couple of those points, the first being the alley. The city encourages use of alleys. So I know that while it feels like a private road and it is one car wide, city policy does direct use of the alleys. That's why we still have them. That's why this council is relatively hesitant to vacate alleys because we like the grid system. But completely understand the traffic concerns. I will say that, you know, this is not a Chick-fil-A. It's not a Starbucks. It's designed very, very differently than that. As Sean mentioned, the average queue time in the drive-thru is three minutes. So this is really, really quick. There is no food. There's fast bites. Again, like pretzel bites, stuff that's meant to be really quick. I have a feeling that Councilwoman Hurtack is going to bring this up. So I wanted to say this in that while we are proposing for a SWIG to come here, obviously, if we get the entitlements for a drive-thru, couldn't any drive-thru come through here? So I wanted to address that and say that the SWIG building specifically is 965 square feet. So this is a really small building. If you wanted to put a Chick-fil-A here or you wanted to put a Starbucks here, that building square footage would have to get increased and we'd be right back before U.S. City Council. So I do think this is very tailored to our specific application. There was some mentions about on-street parking and circulation. SWIG also doesn't do DoorDash or Uber Eats because the drinks, by the time they pick them up and deliver them to the customers, they're flat. So that's obviously not the intention of the business. So I think, like I mentioned, this is a very different operation. We don't expect there to be cars or delivery drivers parking on the streets. We expect people to come in through the drive-thru, spend their three minutes, and be on their way. And I'll just conclude with the fact that if no drive-thru on Kennedy, what's a better location for the drive-thru in an already CG-zoned category? So that's all I have, but please, questions, I'll answer them. I have questions about adjacent usage. Yes. Can you go around the property? Do you have the overhead specifically address the property that Diane owns, what that usage is? And then I understand the RM property behind this as a multifamily. Yes, that's right. This is a little blurry. Okay. Subject site here. CGV, can we get there? We go. Okay. Okay. Subject site here, Circle K, very close to the west, to the south. Yes, this is a multifamily building here. This is actually an older PD. This is a really, really small office building. It's actually a title company I signed in there. And this is the parcel that Diane owns. These are offices that are adjacent to Kennedy there. And the alley runs along our southern property line, so like this. And I believe that Diane's parcel has access on the alley. So there's no single family homes adjacent to that property? Okay. Very good. Okay. Thank you very much. Councilman Cross. Sorry if I missed this somehow, but can you put the plan back on? Yes, this one, the aerial or the site plan? Yeah. Sorry, the other one, the site plan. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to plug that one in. The one with the drive-through. Yeah, sure. And I'll just tell you my question is the unintended consequences. You mentioned Chick-fil-A. There's also Trader Joe's and others. The problem that people run into, if this is amazingly successful, every Starbucks. Yeah. The Starbucks on Dale Mabry by Neptune, they line up all the way down to Dale Mabry, a few cars. And so the question is, where do people stage before they get into that queue? Sure. I mean, I can just speak to that directly. How would you handle it, especially when it's opening, when you might have minor cars? Yeah. Do you guys do anything specific for opening, like when the traffic's really big? Here, I'll let you. Start with your name again, please. Sure. Sean Larson. You don't have to bend down. It's very sensitive. You can hear me okay? Yes. Perfect. Okay. Sean Larson. So obviously the design queuing is meant to handle what we typically see. It's, you know, just to kind of hit on that, like it's not a Chick-fil-A. It's quicker. Our lines typically aren't as long. And I believe you asked specifically about openings and things like that. So we do, in most cases, do a grand opening and you might see longer lines there. In that case, we would work with, what we typically do is work with the local police departments to come up with something that's, you know, going to minimize impacts. But then additionally, what we do is also focus the menu on one thing and staff up so that it goes even quicker. So, you know, for example, we just did an opening in, up off of SR-54 in Pasco County and Odessa, and we were able to keep our queue on our parcel pretty much the whole time with minimal impact. So that's what we do to address those things. Any further questions? Councilman Miranda. Thank you. I've received a few emails. I don't know, maybe 10 or so. I don't know. And they're specifically mentioned the name Culver's. Is that, that's what it is? No. That's the difference. That's the next, that's further down. Okay. Got it. I want to make sure. Okay. Anything further? Hearing nothing else. No. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Can I get a motion to close to Councilman Vieira? Second from Councilman Maniscalco? Yeah. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Councilwoman Hurtek. I'm going to try a motion. I move to deny REZ 2686 for the property located at 2202 West Kennedy Boulevard due to the failure of the applicant to meet its burden approved to provide competent and substantial evidence that the development as conditioned and shown on the site plan is consistent with a comprehensive plan and city code and the applicant's failure to meet its burden of proof with respect to the requested waiver. Mainly, the waivers are not in harmony and do not serve the general intent and purpose of Chapter 27. Six waivers very clearly shows that this is not appropriate in location. I thought it was interesting that the applicant mentioned that if it's not on Kennedy Boulevard, where? Kennedy Boulevard is where we're supposed to be having density. It's not where we're looking for suburban traffic pattern, which this is. Also, this does not promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure with careful considerations to potential adverse impacts to on-site natural elements, which is Section 27-136, Subsection 1. And it does not, and Subsection 6, does not promote and encourage development where appropriate and location, character, and compatibility with the surrounding impacted neighborhood, built environment, and existed geography. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtek. Is there a second? A second from Councilman Miranda. Discussion? You know, I struggle with that, Councilwoman Hurtek, because I hear what you're saying, and I agree with the density issue. My problem with it is that the existing use being that bar, and also the adjacent, that's why I asked about those adjacent parcels, the difference between this and other issues that we're dealing with. It seems to be fairly light usage for that particular parcel, considering what it was was a bar. And it seems like, if not this, then it could go back to being a bar. I mean, there's nothing wrong with a bar. But it was high-intensive use. Well, I mean, but Kennedy is a place for density, and this is not density. A bar wouldn't be density. Like, this is where we want high, tall, very dense buildings. And I know this is a small parcel, but I'm just saying that the drive-in is the furthest thing from density that we could possibly put on this parcel. Thank you. Okay, any other discussion? I have a motion, and I have a second. Yes. Please. Miranda? Yes. Miniscalco? No. Hurtek? Yes. Young? Vieira? Carlson? Clendenin? No. Okay. Motion carried with Miniscalco, Vieira, and Clendenin in both. Very good. Nick? No seconds. Second reading in the top. No, no, no seconds. Oh, I'm so sorry. No seconds. Number eight. Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Christopher DeMontsch, development coordination. Agenda item eight is REZ 2687. This is a request through Zone 2101 West Hillsborough Avenue from planned development, previously approved for retail sales to planned development for drive-in restaurant uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the University Planning District, the Armenia Terrace neighborhood, and Evacuation Zone D. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is primarily commercial along West Hillsborough Avenue, which is a designated transit emphasis corridor with a single-family neighborhood one block north. Additionally, Mendenhall Elementary School is located to the southeast. This map shows the site designated as Community Commercial 35, which is primarily concentrated along West Hillsborough Avenue, as well as Howard and Armenia. To the north is R20 and the R10 designation. The request is to rezone from PD to PD to allow a 986-square-foot drive-in restaurant. The proposed 0.026 FAR is well below the 2.0 FAR anticipated under the CC35 designation. Planning Commission staff have reviewed the request and found it compatible with this running development pattern, although the use is vehicular-oriented and low-intensity compared to what is envisioned under the CC35 designation. The site provides pedestrian connections, sidewalks, and the building located close to West Hillsborough Avenue. Between 1st and 2nd reading, staff is requesting that the sidewalk along the east side of the building connect to North Albany Avenue. Staff also encourages the applicant to explore shade trees along West Hillsborough Avenue. Overall, the proposed PV would provide compatible commercial development along a transit emphasis and mixed-use corridor and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I am available for any questions. Staff, our council have any questions? Hearing none, it's Christopher. Thank you for the record. Christopher DeMoss, Development Coordination. Starting off with an arrow on the subject site. Project is outlined in red. It's located at the intersection of West Hillsborough Avenue and North Albany Avenue. Looking at uses surrounding the subject site, we do have RS-60 zoning to the north. This is comprised of single-family detached uses. South of the subject site. On the south side of West Hillsborough Avenue, we do have CI zoning across from the subject property. On the south side of West Hillsborough, we do have a warehouse use and an open storage use. Looking to the east of the subject site, we still have CI zoning. We have an existing drive-in restaurant there to Starbucks and west of the subject site. We have CI zoning with an air-conditioned storage facility. Looking at the proposed site plan, this site plan depicts a 37,662-square-foot site with a single-story drive-in restaurant. The proposed building has approximately 986 square feet. It's oriented to Hillsborough Avenue, providing walk-up access from adjacent sidewalk on Hillsborough Avenue, as well as a total of 10 parking spaces on site. There are two access points to the site, the first being along Hillsborough Avenue, and the second is along North Albany Avenue. There, the proposed drive-through, it's two-lane. It can permit up to 20 vehicles. The site plan also depicts proposed off-site sidewalks of 5 feet in width along North Albany Avenue and along West Mohawk Avenue. Next, we have elevations. The max height proposed for the proposed drive-in restaurant is 24 feet. There are no waivers with this application. You have site photos. The site was previously used for Family Dollar. It is now vacant. The view from Hillsborough, this is from North Albany, north of the subject site, looking south, east, and west. Additional pictures just showing the back entranceway. Existing driveway would be, would remain. The review and compliance staff has reviewed the application. We do find the request consistent with the City of Tampa land development regulations, and should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application, further modifications to site plan would need to be completed between first and second reading, as stated on the revision sheet, and I am available for any questions. Does Council have any questions? Hearing none. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive, with the law firm of Gardner Brewer-Hudson. Can you guys see this PowerPoint? We can, but it'll come up around the, there we go. Okay, I'm like frozen. Okay. Chris explained this, but I won't go into detail on this. Yes, this is a vacated family dollar. It was, it's, the rezoning request is from PD to PD. The PD reflects the family dollar that exists on the site today. This is just under an acre. Running through the site plan on this one, this is for Dutch Bros Coffee, as you saw in the elevations. What's really unique and interesting about Dutch Bros, we did their site down in South Tampa, south of Gandy. They try to adaptively reuse the site as best they can. So as you can see, I'll flip back and forth from the aerial to the site plan. But as you can see here, they've got that entrance on Albany, also an entrance on Hillsboro. The retention's all to the north. All of that stays the same. So from a circulation perspective, the site will function very largely like it does today with, again, a couple different drive-through lanes for the actual coffee. We do have two access points for enhanced circulation, and we have a bit more parking spaces in the required as well on this one. They do have a little patio outside, a walk-up, so people can park and walk up and grab coffee if they want at the window as well. This one has additional green space beyond what's required as well, and partially that's because of adaptively reusing some of that green space on site. The current retention area, again, not reconfiguring that and starting over, reusing a lot that's already there. We're providing new sidewalks on Mohawk and Albany as well, and I don't get to say this very often, so I've highlighted this in blue. We are not requesting any waivers in conjunction with this application. Staff did find this application fully consistent, and that is all I have, but I can answer any questions that you may have. Do you also have any questions? Hearing none. Applicant? I'm sorry, is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Yes, sir. Okay, come in. Good evening, Council. My name is Jamie Coleman. I'm an active duty captain and chaplain in the U.S. Air Force. My wife and I and our three children live directly across the street to the north from the proposed restaurant, and we would be the most impacted. I'm here tonight as a husband, a father, and a homeowner, and I'm asking you to consider carefully what this restaurant would mean for our family and for our neighborhood. Our biggest concern, obviously, is traffic. I just heard that it could accommodate up to 20 vehicles at a time. That's a whole lot of cars. There's already, as has been mentioned, a new Starbucks across the street. It has constant traffic entering and leaving onto Albany. Albany is a very tight, constricted road. We've already seen an increase in congestion. Now we're considering adding another high-volume business with a two-lane drive-thru directly across from it, and that means more cars, more traffic, more headlights shining directly into our home. We're also concerned about noise, obviously, idling cars, engines, doors, horns, speakers. That noise will be right next to our home. But there's one more thing important to us. My wife and I have a six-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, severe autism, and a seizure disorder. Our home is a place where we work hard to give her a safe, peaceful, and predictable environment. And noise, constant activity, bright headlights, and increased traffic can affect her very differently than it might affect the average person. For our family, this isn't simply a question of what gets built across the street. It's a question of what kind of environment we will have in our own home. We recognize the city may ultimately approve the restaurant, and if that happens, we'd ask you to put meaningful consideration or protections, meaningful protections in place for the neighboring homes. We ask for a barrier that would be between the restaurant and our residential property that would have a mature landscaping and greenery, a substantial barrier. And we want that barrier to reduce noise, headlights, odors, and the visual impact of the restaurant. Obviously, we're not asking the city to stop progress, but we are asking to balance progress with responsibility and to remember that there are families on the other side of this proposal. We live here, we raise our family here, and we will live with the consequences of this decision every day. And we ask you to consider whether this restaurant is truly compatible with the residential neighborhood right directly behind it. Thank you. Anybody else in the public wish to speak to this item? Applicant, rebuttal. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive. This here. Wolf out, please. Yeah, let's see. Okay, so this is the north side of the site, just south of Mohawk. The retention pond is walled. So there's already a wall along the northern portion of the property, and the six-foot-high chain-link fence is proposed to remain. It's also noted up here as well. How high is the wall? Can you see that? But absolutely understand the neighbor's concerns, 100%. And I will get his contact information, and I will pass it along to Dutch Bros, and I will personally make sure that they reach out to him to make sure that this change in the development does not affect their family. How high is that existing wall? Well, this fence is six feet, but it's chain-linked, but it doesn't say what the concrete wall is. Joy, do you know that? Six feet? The retention of Julie Farr is the engineer of the records office. Oh, you've got to speak at that. Yeah. And have you been sworn in? I signed in. Have you been sworn in? Okay, clerk. Good. Start with your name. Julie Farr with Sea Development Services, a Galloway company. We're the engineer of records office. There is an existing retaining wall around the site. It's not, I don't have exact height. It's approximately like three feet tall. And I know one of the concerns with speakers, Dutch Bros does not use speakers. It's face-to-face ordering. There is no seating provided inside or outside, so people will be going through the drive-thru and leaving. They won't be hanging out on site making noise. We've done substantial, sorry, improvements in our plans, trying to reduce the impervious from 66% to 59%. We're doing additional green space beyond what is required from 30% up to 41%. We're providing additional parking, so all of our restaurants are landscaped and try to be very compatible with our neighbors and not do anything other than bring jobs and product that the people want. I think, for Alex, I think that you have to, the difference in this is that you have single-family homes to the back. Yeah. So I think that you have to address that. Sure. Yeah, and I was going to add, too. Thanks, Julie. You're good for now. And we came about the landscaping. Yeah, so that's where I was going. I was going to say, if it makes council more comfortable and if that's also beneficial to the neighbor, which you mentioned, landscaping as well, we're happy to do an enhanced landscape buffer. We can plant additional trees. We can use, we can commit to planting trees that are the largest commercially available in the nursery. Ricky's probably laughing at me because I'm using his phrase. Could you do a six-foot masonry wall with landscaping? A masonry wall. We can. Yes, we can do that. Yeah. Yeah. Let me go to the other council person. I saw councilman's project first, then councilman Miranda, then councilman Vera. So my other question about this was, you have an entrance off of Hillsboro. Why would you, and I know you said you wanted to do adaptive reuse, but there's already problems on Albany. Why wouldn't you simply close the Albany connection and then extend the waiting area to add room for even more cars and then maybe just tilt the dumpsters so that, you know, solid waste can get in. It just seems like you're using a lot of space for a driveway that probably isn't necessary and is detrimental to the neighbors. I'm always going to be concerned when there's a drive-through that empties out onto a residential street. So it just seems that Hillsboro is the better place for that since you already have that. Councilman Miranda. Echoes the same item. I mean, when you have Hillsboro Avenue, you've got most businesses from gas stations on out. Hold on, guys. We only have one conversation at a time. And they've already, from what I've heard, nodding the head for a masonry wall. The gentleman, the captain, was correct about the light and everything else on that type of situation. You know, and I understand, and I think that even helped us some noise from Hillsboro Avenue. It's a very highly traveled road, very highly. And I would imagine that even with vacant land, he would get some of the noise from the vehicles on Hillsboro Avenue, which has got to be 100 feet away. Christopher, we can't have this conversation. Chris, we can hear you. Remember, the acoustics in here are so loud. Okay. Do you have any questions? None at all. Councilman Viera. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And so, and thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, on the issue with regards to the masonry wall. So that's something that can be done, correct? Absolutely. Okay, one thing I would ask, and again, and I say this, I always look at these things as an attorney. I try to. And here we have something with no waivers. But there's the Ten Commandments, and then there's the Ten Suggestions. And you have a gentleman here who came, and God bless you, sir. You shared from your heart. And I appreciate that. And one thing, and Mr. Shelby stopped me if I'm wrong, or strike that, stopped me if I'm going out of bounds or whatever. I would say, again, the Ten Suggestions, not the Ten Commandments, but is for – may I have the gentleman come up, sir? Mr. Chair? I have some question. The gentleman in the green shirt, I got a question. The public speaker, the owner. Yeah, go ahead. Come on up. Yes, sir. And it's a quick yes or no question. We'll give the option another opportunity. Oh, no, no, absolutely. And it's a quick yes or no question. You said it's a daughter, correct? Correct. Yes, sir. Oh, name. Sorry? Say your name again, please. Chaplain Jamie Coleman. Thank you, sir. Yes. Does she have a – like an ABA therapist or anything of that nature? She does. Okay, great. That's all I have. Thank you, sir. That's all. Thank you, Mr. – and then back, if I may. Okay, back to the applicant, so. Thank you. This is a traditional rebuttal. My question, if I may, is would you be willing – so there's a number of things that Chairman Clendenin talked about. There's other things that can be done. Would you be willing to meet with this gentleman and his ABA, his daughter's ABA therapist? Absolutely. Because there could be some very unique issues that you guys could accommodate as good people. Yeah. Again, between first and second reading, if that moves forward to this way. Because, again, there's no waivers. There's the Ten Commandments. Then there's the Ten Suggestions. Maybe the Ten Commandments. Whatever. I'm tired. But, yeah, so just a thought. So I would ask that – do you commit to doing that again? And that has no bearing whatsoever on my vote, et cetera. Is that something? If I may inquire, Councilman, the question would be, and the question also would be for staff, if something does come of that that requires additional changes that aren't made between first and second reading, because it's coming back for a second reading in an adoption public hearing, what is the course of action that's available to Council to be able to effectuate anything that comes out of a result of this meeting? Sure. We're more than happy to make in second reading, if we're fortunate enough to get one, a first reading. If there's anything that comes out of my conversation with Mr. James, that requires site plan revisions further. Thank you. And so if I may, you would commit to doing that, correct? A hundred percent, yes. Great. Okay. And that would appear to – I don't want to put anything. But go up to Mr. Shelton. One more situation with the masonry wall. A landscape plan of mature landscaping of the masonry between first and second reading as well? Yes, I think – do we have a landscape plan? To buffer that single – We do, but we'll alter it to make sure it – Again, my concern is the adjacent usage of the single-family neighborhood and the commercial establishment. So if we have a six-foot wall and then mature landscaping to be able to buffer the usage, maybe they'll actually have a better circumstance now versus what it was with the dollar store, you know? Yep. We'll update that between readings, yeah. Okay. So if I understand – Martin Shelby, city council attorney – so if I understand council's direction – Well, not yet, but where I'm – where I'm lending – pulling towards, yes. Should I – should I hold my comments or questions until we have – Yeah, until we have – until we have an agreement, yeah. Okay. Christopher. Mr. Chairman, Christopher DeMange, development coordination. If I could interject briefly, is there a consideration by council to close the driveway off of Albany? Yes. I raise that because you have a proposed solid waste location, and that location has been reviewed by staff for auto turns, for accessing, exiting the site. Additionally, we also have had fire review the site, and so that may kick us back now to a DRC, because now we've got solid waste, fire. We'd have landscape involved, but that's the one thing that would throw off the site, is if you're closing that driveway. And then the other item would be we, as staff, would need kind of a baseline to go by going into second reading. So if we were to establish, let's say, you know, a six-foot masonry wall along the entirety of the north property line, and then we could work out details on a landscape buffering, it kind of gives us some guidance going into the second reading. But it would really depend on the direction you're going with that driveway entrance, because it does affect solid waste in fire. I don't want to inject testimony in here, so I'll wait until we close to address the driveway thing, because I don't want to provide testimony. So, yeah, I mean, my question is, for the applicant, was, was that something that they would be able to consider, or something that they wouldn't? I need to confirm with the civil. Can you guys give me just a couple? Go ahead and take your sidebar, Mr. Shelby, put your microphone on. Martin Shelby, City Council Attorney. Council, before I go to what I was going to ask or talk about, I just want to bring to your attention that another option would be that, although no request for a continuance by the applicant or petitioner shall be granted after the applicant has made their initial presentation, unless determination by City Council that it is necessary for purposes of procedural due process. What I'm hearing from City Council is there are adverse impacts that you are suggesting need to be addressed, and perhaps on that basis, then the applicant would therefore not object to a continuance being granted at first reading for that purpose. I don't know if we're there yet. Let's see what we're at. Okay. I don't know. I think we can get to a yes. If you get to a yes, Council, I'll wait until I finish talking, because I want the applicant to hear what I'm about to say. Okay. I think there are some issues with going from the two access points to the one access point, but we can commit to doing a write-out only on Albany. If that's helpful, we can make that work, if that addresses the concerns of Council. Okay, Christopher is having a pain on his face. Although the applicant's offering a suggestion, I think we would need to see some auto-turn renderings. It would have to be, if we're going to have, so your suggestion, Alex, that this would just be a write-turn out only, right? The problem, though, is the solid waste location here and how that gets access. They can still come in. They can come in. They just can't come in. They just can't go left when you're leaving. Not into the neighborhood. So it would be a write-turn out. It wouldn't change the end. Okay. To protect the neighborhood. And turn into the pick-up, the dumpster, and then come out onto Hills World. I don't have more. That shouldn't affect anything. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Mr. Shelby. The question would be for staff. Can this be accomplished? A, do you have sufficient direction? And B, can this be accomplished between first and second reading? Or perhaps it may have to come back on first reading. I believe the applicant has offered to be in that position if that's the case. Does that work? If needed. I won't speak for staff, but I think having the out be only a right instead of a left doesn't affect any kind of the traffic studies or any site circulation that we've done. But if there needs to be. Ms. Susan Johnson-Velez. Susan Johnson-Velez, legal department. I think the concern is that solid waste, even though we're talking about whether or not their trucks can get in or out or come out on Hills World, they haven't reviewed what is being proposed here tonight. So I think at this point I would probably, further to what Mr. Shelley was suggesting, either see if the applicant is willing to continue this or it might be that second reading might have to go back to first reading depending on the extent of the changes. But it sounds like at least solid waste might need to review what changes the council is discussing. Can we move forward with this intention? And if solid waste, we can reserve the right to push this back to first reading on the second bite of the apple? Councilor, I should also bring in Mr. Dimash. There's also the other issues. I heard issues such as buffering, heights of walls. I mean, I would assume that, again, this is one council person suggested that. So we need to make sure we have consensus on that or at least a four vote. A six-foot masonry wall with landscaping. And let me try to surmise where we're at. Six-foot wall to buffer the neighborhood with landscaping. And then the suggestion that it's right, it's only access towards Hillsboro. So right turn in, left turn in, right turn out, left turn in only on that side street access point. It would be left, right out. Yeah. Right. So depending on where the dump is. Yes, yes, I'm sorry. Yes, you're correct. And then is it, would it be proper with that assumption to move forward on taking this from first to second? And if there was a solid waste or transportation objection, being able to kick this back to first reading when we come back or to address that objection? So, okay, so this is the current auto turn for solid waste. So the proposed change about not being able to turn right doesn't change anything about the loading. So it's all good. So the solid waste will not need to look at this again. But if staff is more comfortable with us doing, going back to first reading on second reading, we can. But I don't think there's any substantial changes to the site plan that would require that. Because we're just adding the wall and the buffer. The wall and the landscape buffer. Right. But. And if something else comes up, we always have the right to say no on the second reading. I just, I mean, nobody is here from solid waste. So I can't say whether or not they. I mean, we always have the right to say no on the second reading. If some new evidence comes available to us on the second reading, so. Or we could always come back to first reading. Yeah. Yeah. It's, Mr. Chairman, that's the point that I wanted to make. The point is that you have identified adverse or negative impacts as the code permits you to do. And to be able to come up with solutions to that. What I'm hearing is that council is considering moving this on first reading to a second reading and adoption public hearing for the purposes of having those adverse impacts addressed. And barring that, with the additional, without the additional information that you might need at a second reading, based on the information that you have with regard to those adverse impacts, you could, in effect, move to deny a second reading on that. And I just want to be clear for the record that that would be the choice that the applicant is making rather than agreeing to a request for a first reading continuation. Yeah, I don't think it's necessarily fair to make my applicant wait for a continued reading because solid waste isn't here. When I have the auto turns, that solid waste approved right here. Yeah. Okay, so I'm going to. But I understand your concern. I'm going to suggest that we read this on first reading with the revision that the applicant will make the change of the six-foot masonry wall with the landscaping plan between first and second reading and the right, and the turn, the right turn left, the turning radius or turning in and out changes that we've suggested on Albany. In the meeting with the neighbor. Yes. Is that enough time? Yeah. And the meeting, yes. Yes, absolutely. Okay. So do we have a consensus on that? Okay, Councilman Vera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanted to add, again, the meeting with the day. Yeah, we just said that. Oh, sorry. And all that. But may I ask just, it's a quick yes or no to the gentleman in green. And I just want to make darn sure, if ma'am, Mr. Chair. Let's not right now. Just one second. No, come on, let's not. We're good. I just want to make sure that he's okay with this. If so, nod. I mean, like. I don't think that's proper. I don't. It's not proper. It would taint the record. Yeah. It would? Okay, well. Christopher. Just so I could get just a summary before any vote or anything. So you are going to vote to go to a second reading. Well, when I get a motion, we haven't had a motion yet. If you hear a motion, it's going to include a six-foot masonry wall. Okay. A landscape plan between first, with that masonry wall to buffer the neighborhood. Okay. And then the restrictions on the turns in and out on Albany and the meeting that Councilman Vieira discussed. And the alpha, you get no concerns? Okay. Okay. So, okay. Okay. So we're good with this? I think I've left off with Councilman Carlson. Is that right? Close. Oh, yeah. Motion to close. Most close. Councilman Vieira. Second. Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Aye. Thank you for that. Councilman Carlson. We have file number AZ-26-2087 ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance rezoning property in general vicinity of 2101 West Hillsborough Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly described in section one from zoning district classification PD plan development to PD plan development restaurant drive-in providing effective date. Also, including provision that they come back between first and second reading with plans for an eight-foot masonry fence and plans. Six. Okay. Sorry. Six-foot masonry fence and a landscaping plan to buffer noise and light and to require a right turn only from Albany and to have had a meeting with a neighbor. It's a right turn in. Yeah. With the turn in restrictions that we discussed. Yeah. Okay. I have a motion. Councilman Carlson. Second from? Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Councilman Vieira. Thank you, sir. I was waiting on when it was coming back. So this will be coming back November 5th. So obviously I won't be here for that, but just for the meeting with this gentleman. Thank you. Okay. Item number nine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Agenda item number nine is REZ 2688. This is a request to rezone 202 South Dale Mabry Highway from CG Commercial General and RS-60 Residential Single Family to plan development for a drive-in restaurant use. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff. I'm Steve, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Bonnet neighborhood, and Evacuation Zone C. This subject site is outlined in purple along South Dale Mabry Highway. This surrounding area contains a mix of commercial, single-family, and multi-family uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along South Dale Mabry Highway and West Kennedy Boulevard, both which are transit-emphasis corridors. To the east is a single-family neighborhood. This map shows the site split between CMU-35 along Dale Mabry and R-10 in the rear. CMU-35 is primarily concentrated along Dale Mabry Highway, with UMU-60 and RMU-100 further north. R-10 and R-20 are to the east. The request is rezoned from CG and RS-60 to PD for a drive-in restaurant. The proposed building is entirely within the CMU-35 portion of the site, with accessory parking in the R-10 portion. The proposed building is approximately 4,250 square feet at a 0.2 FAR, which is consistent with the CMU-35 designation. Staff is requesting that the applicant correct the featured land use designation in the site data table between first and second reading. Fitting Commission staff reviewed the request and found it consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Although the use is vehicularly oriented in low intensity compared to what is envisioned under the CMU-35 designation, the site provides sidewalks along all frontages, a pedestrian connection to West Cleveland Street, bicycle parking, and street trees. However, staff identified opportunities to better activate the Dale Mabry corridor by bringing the building closer to the street, orienting the primary entrance towards the corridor, and moving parking to the side and rear, as encouraged by the comprehensive plan. The applicant did not incorporate any of the requested changes into the revised site plan. The site abuts a single-family home to the east. The proposed building provides significant setbacks from that property line, with existing landscaping and a six-foot masonry wall to provide screening for the residential use. Overall, while the design could better support the pedestrian-oriented development pattern envisioned along a mixed-use and transit emphasis corridor, generally, the proposed PD is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Council have any questions? Hearing none. Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Christopher Damage, Development Coordination. Right, we will start with the aerial. Subject property is outlined in red. It's located at the southeast corner of the intersection of West Cleveland Street and South Dale Mabry Highway. Looking at surrounding uses, the subject site has split zoning. We have CG on the west side of the property along Dale Mabry and RS-60 on the back side of the property. East of the subject site, we do have single-family detached. We have RS-60 zoning here. North of the subject site, we have single-family detached with RS-60 zoning and CG zoning with strip-shopping center development to the north. South of the subject site, we have an existing restaurant. And west of the subject site, we have PD zoning approved for strip-shopping center, which includes a mix of retail uses. The applicant's proposed site plan depicts the 36,702-square-foot property with a single-story drive-in restaurant. The building for the proposed drive-in restaurant is 4,250 square feet. Access to the site is provided by a two-way driveway located on the south side of West Cleveland Street. There is a one-lane drive-through. We have the ordering box area on the west side of the building and the pickup window located on the south side of the building. There is a total of 37 surface parking spaces throughout the site. There is a new five-foot sidewalk proposed on the south side of West Cleveland running east to west connecting into a five-and-a-half-foot sidewalk that exists that runs north to south on South Dale Mabry Highway. We have the various elevations proposed. The brand for this, of course, is Culver's. We do have the various elevations. The max height proposed is 24 feet 3 inches. There is a total of seven waivers with this request. And I do have an updated revision sheet I do need to provide. The reason for the updated revision sheet, we actually had a conflict between stormwater and natural resources. Stormwater here on the revision sheet has a note for between first and second reading to remove all trees and vegetation from the stormwater retention pond, which is located on the east side of the property. And we actually have a requirement in our code for natural resources, which calls for a 15-foot use-to-use buffer. And, of course, there's planning requirements associated with it. So upon discovering that stormwater doesn't want any plantings in the stormwater detention pond, we informed the applicant that they would need to request what would be, in this case, an eighth waiver to the request. So, essentially, the eighth waiver states to omit only tree and shrub planting requirements from the required 15-foot use-to-use buffer on the east property line due to existing stormwater infrastructure. So, just wanted to get that into the record. Now I'm going to go ahead and note the requested waivers. The first requested waiver is from the special-use-to permit criteria, which is Section 27-132. This is a request to waive the requirement for direct access to an arterial or collector street. This was required due to the two-way driveway being proposed along West Cleveland. The second waiver is to Section 27-283. This is to allow access from non-residential parking lots to a local street at greater than 150 feet of the intersection with an arterial or collector roadway. Waiver 3 is to Section 27-284. This is to reduce the eight-foot-wide VUA right-of-way landscape area to five feet wide with no changes to the required plantings along the West property line. Waiver 4 is to Section 27-284. This is to reduce the eight-foot-wide VUA right-of-way landscape buffer to three feet wide with no changes to the required plantings along the North property line. Waiver 5 is to Section 27-289 to allow a freestanding sign setback of 10 feet and an overall height of 17 feet. The code allows a maximum height of 15 feet. This would allow for a brand standard height for Culver's franchising system. Waiver 6 is to Section 27-289 to allow a freestanding sign area of 57.17 square feet, including the electronic message center. The code allows a maximum sign area of 50 square feet per sign face. This would allow for a brand standard sign for Culver's franchising system. Waiver 7 is a waiver to allow a mural to be designated as art and excluded from the overall square footage of the building signs consistent with Chapter 4, Public Art, Section 4-2, Definition, Works of Art, or Artworks. And Waiver 8, I referenced previously, but I'll reference it again. It's to Section 27-284 to admit only tree and shrub planting requirements from the required 15-foot use-to-use buffer on the east property line due to existing stormwater infrastructure. You'll see in the photo, the subject site is the former Shell's restaurant. This is a view from near Dale Mabry. Another view at the site from Cleveland. This is looking to the east half of the site, looking north, south, immediately east, looking west. And I do have additional photos if you need to see some additional. Development, View, and Compliance staff has reviewed the petition. We do find the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations. Should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve this application? And the waivers listed above, further modifications to the site plan would need to be completed between first and second reading, as stated on the revision sheet. And these revisions will not resolve the issue of transportation's inconsistent finding. And I'm available for any questions. Does the Council have any questions? Councilman Maniscalco. Can you show me photos of the north? Mm-hmm. Sorry. That's one example. How deep is the property? Does it end at that back parking lot, or does it continue facing residential homes? There's residential. If you're driving down West Cleveland and you pass this development, you're going to run into residential. I do have some photos of that. As part of this rezoning, reach is beyond that? Well, this is on, let me pull up the. This is closest to Dale Mabry, but the property was deeper, so. Yes. Give me one moment. Can you show just the Shell's property? Let's see. And then the single-family house behind it. I'm looking for the aerial, and it's right underneath the photo. Yeah. So the subject property, it does go back to the east. And those are two single-family homes north of there? To the north, correct. Okay. Thank you. Two to the north of there. And to the east. And to the east, of course. Then you get more further back into the neighborhood. Any other questions? Hearing none. Applicant? Council members, thank you for your time. I just want to speak to those. Yeah, start with your name, please. Sorry. Mike Corelli, Teresa Hutchins. Teresa Hutchins. I just wanted to speak to Culver's and what we bring to the community. I'll be brief. Teresa and I own three Culver's in the county, none in the city. We opened our first one in 2017 in Brandon. We own one in Riverview, and we have one in Carolwood on Northdale Mabry. Our friends and family members have been asking us for years to bring one to the city, and we think we found the perfect property to bring it to the city, so we're excited to develop it. But we bring good food. We have fresh beef, never frozen, great hamburgers if you've never tried them, cheese curds, and fresh custard, which, unlike some of our competitors where it's a powdered product or packaged, it's fresh Wisconsin dairy that comes in. We run it through a custard machine. We make it fresh every couple hours. It's a very good product. The second thing we bring, I think, to the neighborhood and the community is jobs. Each restaurant employs about 60 people. We're one of the only restaurants that will give 14- and 15-year-olds a shot. Many times we're the first job and opportunity that a lot of young kids have to start work, build self-confidence, and learn to act properly in a workplace. In addition, we're all franchises and all locally owned, but we have a development path for managers that stay with us a long time where they can work into an ownership position. In fact, our two restaurants in Brandon and Riverview this year, we have two GMs that have been with us since 2017, since day one, and they both work themselves into ownership positions. So, you know, if you've ever watched The Founder, this is a little bit of a food service nerd, but they always, McDonald's says that we're not in the burger business, we're in the real estate business. We sell burgers to develop real estate. Well, at Culver's we say we're not in the burger business, we're in the talent development business. We sell burgers to develop talent. And we take people, we nurture them, we keep them, we develop them, we give them career opportunities they might not have otherwise. And the last thing is we like to be involved in the community. You know, we do a kids' night once a month, which is kind of a halo event. We offer $2.99 kids' meals, so people that can't afford to normally go out to eat can bring their kids. We have a caricature artist. We'll have a balloon artist. We'll have a face painter. You know, we give them people experience, like I said, that they can't normally eat out that they don't have. And in addition, we like to ingrain ourselves in the community and support the community, so we do share nights. A good example is recently in Carolwood, Teresa just set one up. It was actually our most successful share night ever. It was a couple weeks ago with Carolwood K-8 by the Carolwood Restaurant. We did a share night for their ESE program. They were thrilled. It was twice, we donated twice the amount we've ever donated from a share night because it was such a big event. We even blocked off the entire parking lot and allowed these kids to have a trunk or treat because they don't normally get to participate in things like that. So just to give you an idea of what we bring, we'd love to have this development go forward and bring it to the city of Tampa. Thank you for your time. Do I have any questions? Oh, sorry. Oh, yeah. Do you have a presentation? Yeah. How do you go? Thank you. I was not sworn in. Daniel Bergen, 15436 North Florida Avenue, Suite 101, Tampa. I do. I believe we delivered a presentation earlier. We're going to just use the exhibits. All right. Yeah, as soon as you say your name, it'll, yes. There it goes. I got one now. Yeah, say your name again, please. Daniel Bergen. Thank you. All right. So we went through this here. Okay. This is just some typical site data information here requesting the rezoning to PD due to the drive-through. I'd like to identify because I was understanding that there was some questions about the depth of what we're constructing. So it is a split zoning, as staff had mentioned. The entire development portion as far as the building, the drive-through, is all within the CG zoning. So it's the same as what Shells has now. You have back of house and parking that's in the rear that's within the special use portion of it. And then the CG zoning is what contains the meat, the building, et cetera. So we're not asking for any variation with respect to that. This is what was gone over earlier. We have the zoning map, so I won't repeat myself. Here's our site. And I think this is really important. I've read through opposition. I understand the neighborhood of the Bonaire residents. You know, I've been a professional engineer and working exclusively in Hillsborough County for 20 years now. I hate to say that. But, you know, Dale Mabry is an evacuation route. It's also an arterial road. It's controlled by FDOT. And it's Florida statutes through the department that nonconforming driveways onto an arterial road that are on an evacuation route that don't mean spacing criteria are not permitted. And if you were to see, which we'll get to the next slide, Shells, as it's currently designed and constructed, is a labyrinth of nonconforming driveways with no consistent access, both onto Dale Mabry and onto Cleveland. So, as part of our stewardship, you know, we need to create safe, accessible, commercial developments within the city with conforming standard driveways that allow for proper turning mechanisms, queuing, that don't bog down roads like Dale Mabry with a driveway every 15 feet. And that's what DOT is driving for. That's what's safe for the citizens. And that's what this development is doing. So, as you can see here, we've consolidated, and I'll show you the consolidation before, but we have sidewalk on all sides, which is consistent with the code. We have one singular driveway that has removed an offset from Dale Mabry, which allows people to actually turn onto Cleveland and then safely access the site. All queuing is done on-site. That's displayed through the traffic analysis, right? Majority, the sales are forever increasing with call-ahead or text-ahead orders through Uber Eats, DoorDash, those types of, you know, ordering services. So, we have queuing that is done through parking spaces. The driveway is not just being accessed. So, you have much quicker in and outs. So, this is a self-contained development. And, again, as the franchisees were saying, you know, this is much more family-oriented than you would see with a lot of other type restaurants. So, I think most importantly to understand, you know, the benefits of what we're doing is to kind of see, you know, what we're asking for and how those improvements are going to take place. So, we have several waivers here that I'll just kind of touch on. All of these are improvements. We have some de minimis differences. I say de minimis, small, minor differences that are resulting of the actual franchisee signage, which is just a small differentiation between the city code and the franchise signs, right? So, those are not intentional, but we're asking for consideration due to the standardization of Culver's and what they're asking for. So, it's not anything outlandish or crazy. Currently, there is really no VUA or right-of-way landscaping. It's a sea of asphalt that lines Cleveland and Dill Mabry, right? So, we're trying to increase that with not asking for reduction in planting requirements, just asking for reduction in width. So, this is going to be a beautification in the end compared to what is currently there. I was talking about the driveway. I know that's a waiver, but it is a requirement by DOT. That driveway would never be permitted by DOT. If the site were to be redeveloped, they would require us to access the local road. We don't meet any of the criteria to put a driveway on a Dill Mabry for this site. And this is what I was discussing earlier. So, if you were to go and visit here, and Shells has been closed for a little bit, but I know a lot of people are probably at PressBox tonight, which I ought to go there right now. So, you have basically one continuous open driveway along Dill Mabry, which is a huge safety issue. That's just not something that can happen. It's unsafe for pedestrians, unsafe for accessibility. No one can access Dill Mabry safely from this site. It's just completely irregular and non-conforming. And then you have three separate driveways that access Cleveland. So, how someone can determine where you turn in, where you turn out, this is just one accident waiting to happen. So, if another restaurant were to come occupy this building, those safety issues would then be of more concern to the city. So, we're trying to improve all that. We do have some concerns between natural resources and stormwater. We're really indifferent. If you want us to have plants in the pond, we'll put cypress trees. If you don't, we won't. So, that's something that's kind of going on back and forth. But it is fair to say that there is an existing buffer with oak trees. There is a wall on the east side of the parcel. So, I have not seen any concern with respect to our buffering from the eastern residents. It seems to be all driven around the driveway. That being said, the driveway location, if shifted towards Dill Mabry, really would not create anything but more safety problems. It's not going to dictate the number of trips that go down Cleveland. It's not going to determine the number of through traffic or through streets that happen in and around Dill Mabry. Those are already there. All it's going to do is by keeping the driveway where we're at, and it is offset from the other driveway, specifically across the street, is it's going to allow for proper turning and queue length and detention time for someone to get on to Cleveland and then access our site safely, as well as pedestrians. So, right now, if we were to move it closer to Dill Mabry, the person would turn on to Cleveland, and then they would turn right in, and it would be too much. That's why there's spacing criteria. We would be outside of that. So, we're trying to maximize the safety operation and maximize the on-site storage so there is no issues. This is the proposed access here that we're showing, as well. We do maintain cross-access with PressBox. It's already in existence, and I'm available for any questions. Also, Madam Scott. I think I appreciate the presentation. If you look at the existing shelves property now, you have that access off Dill Mabry, which that would go away, and that, you know, a lot of the traffic will come off Dill Mabry and go onto the property. And then the access points on Cleveland, you showed that there were three. They don't go as far back as – so the commercial property across the street stops here, the access points are here, and then you have the residential homes. My concern is the ingress and ingress here on Cleveland, it's facing people's houses. There's two houses there. I mean, they're driveways. I understand, you know, because of FDOT, because of, you know, if you're going to change it, they want to close off that Dill Mabry access. The neighborhood is not used to that, so it would be, you know, it would appear to be, like, more traffic going on Cleveland. Even if you had, like, a no right turn and make folks turn on to – take that left on to Dill Mabry to get out. Remember, this is question and answer time and not testimony time. Yeah. So if you get to a question for them. I'm good. Thanks. I can answer. I think I can answer the question. DOT doesn't allow right out onlys currently on arterial evatuation rounds. That's in the past. And, you know, I've been working on these sites for a long time. There is going to be no permitted driveway access once the site is redeveloped. Or if shelves were to be reoccupied because of the duration that has been shut down, it would be reconsidered for all access points on the Dill Mabry. So the Dill Mabry access is not ever going to happen when this site comes back into consideration and reuse. So there will be an access on the Cleveland. It's a matter of what is the safest and best, and that's what we feel we're proposing. And the driveway location being where it is, it's still conforming. Yes, it is beyond the 150, but that is a more desirable distance with respect to safety. Okay, so then a question would be, is there any way, you talked about the 150, is there any way to move that ingress, egress closer to Dill Mabry and make this work so it's not going into people's, you know, facing people's properties as folks are coming in and out? I mean, I would question, you know, what would be the distance, you know, that would make this go away? You know, I feel this is an accurate design, it's the best design, it's the safest design. I mean, we still have to hear from the public, but my idea would be, so it matches the commercial development. Is there a way to move this entranceway from Cleveland closer to Dill Mabry so it at least lines up with the commercial property that's there and it doesn't encroach onto the residential side? Can we see the aerial? I know that there's parking spaces there, but shift it over and close off that area so you're not going into people's, you know, facing people's driveways. I mean, it's, I don't, I'm not positive that it can be shifted more to where it would make tangible impact, and that's a truthful statement. I mean, it's, I think our concern is that we're going to want to meet DOT criteria, spacing criteria, and, you know, keep the cross-access aligned with press box as it is. So that's, that's why it's where it's at. If we were to shift it 25 feet, I think they would still have a, you know, an issue. You know, I think the main issue is that it's on Cleveland. If I've read through the opposition, it's that it's on Cleveland. And unfortunately, that's here, if you want to ask him what this, what the requirement is from transport, David, oh, I'm sorry, who's over there? Jonathan. All I can see is the top of a head. Hey, hey, hey. He's got hair. Jonathan, Scott, transportation. What was the question, sir? The question was, can that ingress and ingress off of Cleveland be shifted closer to Dale Mabry and meet, for example, with the commercial property that's just to the north, because there's a commercial property and then the residential begins, so the cars aren't going in and out facing people's driveways. It's basically closing it off there and making that ingress and egress closer to Dale Mabry, shifted over. Yeah, thank you for the question. The way they designed this site, once again, we got the solid waste coming in and everything else. And they did have intentions of pushing it farther away from Dale Mabry for access as well. You know, could it be done? Yes. But talking about another redesign, in my opinion, it's not a good idea. I think the way they did it is good. And I respect the other professional engineer that has put testimony into that fact as well. Councilman Miranda, followed by Carlson. Thank you, and I appreciate everything you said about your business and your company and so forth and so on, but this is about zoning, not about what you do for your employees. But I really appreciate it, because I'm a customer of yours. I go all the way to the one by the Outback, and I go past it, and I make a left-hand turn, and I get on the west side of the road, because there's an entrance there that the road is only for your entrance. Am I correct? You're talking about Dale Mabry and Hudson. The little plastic plaid or whatever it is. Dale Mabry and Hudson. Once you get in there, you drive right into your place. You don't have to worry about the traffic. You drive in. Yes, sir. You go around, and you have parking on both sides of the north part of your building next to the Outback. You're facing the Outback. You're parking part of the parking is Outback. Then you have the side entrance door. You come in, and you go in, and you order, and you sit down, and then you're driving windows to your south. Yeah, we're familiar with this. It's the old Hudson Nursery site. So the problem, as I see it, and I understand we have an ingress and egress problem here, not a product problem. You're going to be very, very well received whenever you go. However, there is a neighborhood behind you. Everything that's happened today is in District 6, no matter. And this is also in District 6. So I'm just listening to everyone, and you heard what happened on Hillsborough Avenue, how we try to work things out. We're not trying to hurt anyone, yourself or the neighborhood, so we have to come to something to work out if possible. Notice I said it very clearly, if possible. And I've taken a lot of people there because I like the product. Remember, this is the Q&A time. I got three minutes. No, but it's Q&A time. We'll have that part afterwards. All right, all right, we'll do that so that I'll stop right now. Okay, so speaking of the Hudson Nursery properties, I was involved with that development there when it converted over with Cheddar's, Outback, and Culver's. The Hudson property, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about where you're at, where he, that was the Hudson property. That was the Hudson property. I got it. I know where it was at. Mr. Hudson. Yeah, Hudson Lane and Dale Mabry on the west side of the road in Carolwood. I go there with my buddy Andy Scott Laney all the time. I'm sorry. Stuff those down. That mean chair. Yeah, you don't get this body by not going to Culver. This is Q&A. So, yeah, the difference, the separation there, the spacing criteria is what it comes down to, right? So we have limited, we don't have sufficient spacing between driveway accesses to access Dale Mabry. And that's what we were testifying. It's not something that I'm making up. It's not something that's desirable. We do not, under any circumstances, through waivers, special design exceptions, meet spacing criteria for Dale Mabry access. That's nothing that I've come up with that is from the state. Couple it with an arterial road, an evacuation route, we will not be able to access that. That section of Dale Mabry and that particular property has multiple frontage. Like, it's a very long frontage. They bifurcated the property with a singular right in, right out access, right? And then that's how they access that point. So, yes, it is a different scenario. It's a much more developed complex and retail center versus this is a single-use, single-parcel retail center. Thank you. Councilman Carlson. I wonder if Jonathan could come back out and then maybe the applicant could respond to whatever Jonathan says. So, he was talking about this FDOT rule about not allowing access on a hurricane evacuation route. Hopefully, I characterized that correctly. Under what conditions? Are there no conditions under which that would be grandfathered in? Like, if shells came back and used exactly the same building, same footprint, would they be allowed to do this? And then what other uses would allow the Dale Mabry access that would then trigger? And then what would then trigger this to require it to be shut off? Jonathan Scott, transportation. Thanks for the question. That, you know, if the use didn't change, they obviously could use it the same way. And the way DOT looks at it, they consider if there's a significant change, which would mean any kind of, basically any kind of change in use or in trips, then they have this distance separation requirement for the driveways, just as the other professional engineer mentioned. He was absolutely correct. It wouldn't meet their criteria. So, specifically in this case, what is it that's changing? You said it's the distance requirement from other driveways and other roadway. But if they had somehow been able to keep the exact same building, then it wouldn't have triggered it? Yeah, if they kept the same use, the same building, yeah, that would be, they wouldn't change it until that time. Thank you. And then if you have what I want to say. I'd like to add to that. Go ahead. It has to do as well as how long the business has been shuttered. So, any sort of redevelopment now, if you, new state statutes, and this is from two years ago, any development that is done along DOT right away has to go in front of DOT. So, if you were to come in and do anything of the slightest modification to that building, it would trigger a DOT review, even if it were to be something as minor as putting a canopy or any sort of site improvement work. Also, if the building is, or the business has been closed for a certain duration, I believe it's two years, then it no longer, the use is no longer grandfathered. So, the longer something stays closed, then it has to go back in front of DOT. And this is their way of systematically completing safety upgrades along our tiered order. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? If you, okay, we got it. It'll be one at a time. You know, you can stay comfortable, like, three at a time if you'd line up against the wall. And when you start, since some of y'all probably are not familiar with this, when you start, you'll come up to the podium. You'll start with your name, and the timer will come on. It'll have you three minutes. When the yellow light comes on, you still have 30 seconds left. So, always start with your name. And has everybody been sworn in? Everybody's been sworn in? Okay. Did somebody say they have not? Oh, you have not. Okay. If you have not been sworn in, please stand, raise your right hand. If you're going to testify on either of these two remaining hearings, stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. Okay. One at a time. Come to the podium. Start with your name, please. Very good. Good evening. My name is David Kozlowski. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to speak here. I have a lot of neighbors here. And I'd like to just start to say that there couldn't be a greater difference in opinion and view than what's been presented to you folks here tonight. Culver's talks about being engaged in the community. Culver's has not reached out to anybody in the community. As a matter of fact, the community has reached out to the developer or the EOR, the engineer of record, for Culver's. And we've, from the onset, discussed the concerns with where this entrance is going to go. This construction is not consistent or compliant with the city of Tampa's rezoning staff report. The proposed construction, if approved, will immediately subject a heavily occupied residential neighborhood with a very high concentration of children to an immediate safety risk. This is a very vibrant neighborhood. Every single house on that block has two or more children that are in, from infants all the way into middle school, high school, et cetera. It's a very busy street. I would encourage anybody to drive down that street any afternoon or evening hour, and you will see residents taking advantage of that street. There are no parks in that neighborhood. And we are talking about encroaching onto a, what is currently being redeveloped. If you look at the newer homes that are on that street, you'll see there's a new home under construction right now, a multifamily home, four-bedroom home, my home, five-bedroom home, all of these other homes. This is a very, very highly residentially utilized neighborhood. I feel like these concerns have kind of probably been addressed previously by some council before this time here because this is zoned residential, half of that area is. And there's been a brick wall that's been built there to protect the homes of my neighbors that are directly across from that commercial slash residential property to shield that neighborhood from these things that we're now trying to take away, right? And it's really sad because if you guys actually saw the neighborhood, I think you'd have an understanding of kind of what we're talking about here. And the community, this has been an area that has been neglected. The community has come together. They raised over $25,000 to plant sod, to plant trees. Now we're talking about, if you guys look at the stormwater, they're talking about possibly knocking down an urban forest. Look at the trees that are on the property to the east. That's my property, right? These are old-growth oak trees here. This would significantly affect the neighborhood here, folks. And then there's a couple other things here, too. There's a buffer agreement under Tampa Code 27, commercial transition. The city's supposed to maintain a step transition between these commercial zones, intrusion of commercial. There's inconsistency with Imagine 2040, a comprehensive plan. There are so many things that are just being overlooked here, and I think you guys are going to have an opportunity to hear from and talk to the rest of my neighbors here. I strongly oppose this rezoning. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Very good. Sir, start with your name, please. This is Ray Wong, a resident of the Bonaire neighborhood. I want you to listen to how this is being proposed and the language that is being used as a perfect solution. And it is, in fact, a perfect solution based on not being able to meet the requirements of several different code requirements, which is why the variances are being requested. As an architect, I'm generally pro-development. In fact, I've previously spoken before city council advocating for approval of other development projects. Many of my fellow neighbors share my perspective. We are not anti-development, but this particular project makes little sense, and it is questionable at best in this particular location. I'd like to drop on my nearly 30 years of professional experience as an architect and focus on three specific regulatory concerns. First, Tampa code section 2728312J, which seeks to minimize the impact of non-residential traffic on residential neighborhoods. Yet this proposal directly directs its primary public street access to Cleveland Street, a local neighborhood road 200 feet from Dale Mabry, which exceeds a 150-foot standard and requires a waiver. This applicant has not demonstrated why this exception is justified or how traffic and potential drive-through queuing will be kept off Cleveland Street. I know that we talked about traffic studies that have been done. We said the same thing about the Trader Joe's on Swan, and you all know how that backs up onto Dale Mabry and Swan. Second, section 27136 and 138, which establishes planned development standards addressing neighborhood compatibility, appropriate site design, and adequate street infrastructure. To this point, the proposed commercial driveway and vehicular circulation encroach into the residential transition area, placing restaurant traffic approximately 50 feet from the existing homes and well within the realm of the existing neighborhood. Third, section 27139, which establishes criteria for granting planned development waivers, including considerations of impact on nearby homes. This application is requesting waivers, including seven to eight different waivers, including reductions in required landscape buffers along Cleveland Street. For those reasons, I respectfully ask Council to deny this rezoning. This is simply not the right project for this neighborhood. Thank you, Ryan. Next speaker. And for those of you that are speaking, remember, if somebody's already testified to something, you can always say you agree. You don't have to repeat everything somebody else has already said. Great. Good evening. I'm sorry, Mr. Martell. Is David Rydine here? And you're waiving your time, your three minutes for an additional minute? That'll be a total of four minutes. Okay. Start with your name. You have four minutes. Great. Jeffrey Martell, resident of Bonaire, also the Bonaire Neighborhood Association president, submitted a letter. Hopefully, Council had a chance to review it. I think the applicant did as well and attempted to counter a bunch of things. Very quickly, we met twice within the last three weeks. One was more informational. The second, we had a formal meeting, formal vote. 100% of the residents that attended that meeting voted to oppose the project. So I'd like to present a couple quick points. I know I only have a certain amount of time. The rezoning staff report, of course, inconsistent. And to me, also a professional engineer, also in the land development industry for 25 years, these are what I consider heavy waivers. The access location, the reduced buffers. Obviously, we have an eighth buffer now as well. These are significant, in my opinion, relative to any rezoning or PUD consideration. The access on Dale Mabry is being removed. I heard the testimony. Did a write-in only access be attempted? Did a coordination with PressBox, which I think has some common ownership? Would this property be attempted or any solutions attempted other than to simply say, evacuation route, there's nothing I can do? Put my driveway on West Cleveland. It's set back further than 150 feet. There was an exhibit presented. One of the councilmen has pointed out a couple times. It is directly across the street from two houses. And I would further that statement. We're not only talking about Culver's. We're talking about cross-access with PressBox. We're talking about late hours, midnight, 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m. I don't know what time the employees leave. Coming out and going with their headlights directly across from two neighbors. We acknowledge the property is commercially developed. The use and character is different. The masonry screen wall being removed, 70% of it, along West Cleveland. That was previously considered by whoever, zoning staff, planning staff, city council, to put there. That essentially protected the rear third of the property, which is residentially zoned. That's being removed. Not only is it being removed, the trash enclosure is being introduced, the drive-through is being introduced, cross-access with PressBox exit is being introduced, as well as the additional traffic. The reality is the property is too narrow. They're asking for a buffer on West Cleveland. They're asking to have a site plan with no bypass lane. We've seen no queuing study, at least to my knowledge. There's five or six cars in this queue. There's no double drive-through that all major fast food people are using today. This property will back up. The queue will go past five or six cars. I don't care about pickup and all this. People are going to park on West Cleveland, and that's the reality. There's also zero setback to PressBox, or close to zero setbacks, as well. The waiver for the buffer on West Cleveland is significant, as well. The masonry wall should remain. The buffer should be intact. We also heard now there's an eighth waiver to the rear, to the east. The other reality here is that the PressBox and Shells, albeit maybe have slightly different ownership, I think it's the same in Family Trust, they have cross-access, they have cross-parking. The employees for PressBox park behind the Shells. The customers park behind the Shells. We're going to remove most of the PressBox parking. So we're not just looking at the Culver's property here. We're not just looking at Cleveland. We're also looking at the next street to the south. I don't think this council has anywhere near as much information to even consider this application. I think there's considerations with PressBox. I think there's further need to push DOT to consider at least a write-in at a minimum. There's stormwater management requirements. There's landscaping. And there's other things as well. So on behalf of the Neighborhood Association, we requested the city council deny this application. They didn't reach out to us to meet. There's been no neighborhood coordination. The only reason I've heard today is that they can't make the Dale Mabry driveway work. Then the use doesn't work. Period. They're asking for a rezoning. They're asking to look to use the rear third of the property in a completely different character in use than today. It just doesn't work. It's too narrow. Thank you. The commercially zoned property is not deep enough. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Speaker, start with your name, sir. Good evening. Sean Wilson, 3714 West Rowland Street. I'm the past president of the Bon Air Neighborhood Association for many years. I also sent you all a letter. Gosh, if they're so community-oriented, why didn't they ever reach out to the community? To me, that speaks volumes. How can we believe anything that they've said? Now, it's not just about the driveway location. It's also, as you heard, they're removing a wall. That wall is a treasure. We love that wall. Our neighbors have adopted that wall and the swale, and it's planted. And I know that you have driven this neighborhood, and I invite you to come walk the neighborhood, and you will see that it's very vibrant. The existing traffic pattern works. Right now, there's about a 4,500-square-foot restaurant. It used to be Shell's. It was there for decades. The traffic works. They're proposing about a 4,000 or 4,500-square-foot restaurant. I'm going to do something that maybe my neighbors don't want. I'm going to invite culverts to come to the neighborhood. Bring your custard machine. Bring your fresh beef. Load them up. Put some chairs in. Paint it. Hang Culver sign up, and start selling hamburgers. But you don't need to demo a building and then build a new building, which is the same size, and ruin that whole area. I would love to see, as I put in my letter, the city incentivize the owners to maybe do kind of a grand redevelopment, demo the press box, demo shells, come back in with a bigger building that's fronting out on Dale Mabry, but that still retains the driveways that are aligned with the current commercial driveways, both on the north and the south. So we're not moving driveways into the neighborhood, leaving the driveways where there are. I mean, I think that would be a great idea. That would be a true community redevelopment. But what they're proposing is not. And now I heard tonight that maybe somebody wants to remove all these beautiful oak trees that are on the east property line that are right next to Mr. Kozlowski's house. We're definitely, I mean, I will hug those trees. Those trees are not going to be cut down. The storm drainage works. The circulation works. It has all worked for decades. TPD knows how the circulation works. The neighbors do. Y'all know how the circulation works. There's no reason why it can't work just because now they're selling hamburgers instead of fish sticks. So, I mean, I don't see what the hullabaloo is about here. The other thing is, I mean, you're putting in fast food where there is no fast food in our neighborhood. We host many great restaurants that y'all know. They're locally owned. Olivia, we just got Sodo. Now Violet Stone, I think, is coming in where Renzo's used to be. We love restaurants, but they have to stay on the perimeter. They have to stay on the perimeter. And so, again, I urge you to not approve this. If they want to come in, again, and sell hamburgers in the existing building, I think I heard that they can keep the driveway on Dome Avery. Thank you, Sean. That's great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Start with your name. Hi. Good evening, everyone. Kelly Holbrook, 3700 West Cleveland Street. I know there's a lot of our neighbors that are architects. I'm not an architect. I'm an attorney, but I'm not here today as an attorney. I'm here today because I'm a mom, and a mom who lives on the corner of Cleveland and Sterling. I bought my house because of the community. There was a swing in the front yard, and that was one of the selling points for me. We are an active, active community. Our kids are not on games inside. They're outside playing. All of us know each other because we're also outside socializing on the exact street that they now want to place all of this traffic. I know they said they're for community, and that's fantastic, but we are the community, and they also said that it's not safe to have that traffic backing up on Dale Mabry. But you know what's also not safe? Having the traffic back up on our family street where our kids play. I am absolutely opposed to this. It is a round peg in a square hole, and I hope you all consider this is not the right use for this property. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please start with your name. Hi. My name is Christopher Henry. I'm a resident at 3620 West Horatio Street, a few streets down from where this is. I want to just echo all of what my neighbors and friends have been saying. Hey, I would love to have a Culver's here. I think it would do really amazing business. Look at what the Chick-fil-A does with two drive-thru lanes. It's constantly packed up. I'm just here to protect my neighbors the way I would want to be protected. I would just ask each and every one of you, would you want to see a traffic jam at every lunch and dinner hour, seven days a week? I wouldn't. That's why I'm here at my first council meeting, and I hope you guys can consider what we're worried about. Thank you. Appreciate your brevity. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Brooks Wright. I live at 3711 West Cleveland Street. There's been a lot of talk about safety. I completely understand that. I'm an emergency medicine physician. I work at a trauma hospital. I have children, and I am concerned about their safety with this current proposal. So I'm writing or I'm here today to oppose this current layout for Culver's. I'm not opposed to Culver's as a business at this location, but I'm opposed to getting to the layout here, as everybody else's previously spoke about. I know that there's confusion about whether or not a wall is being removed. If you look at this current proposal, a wall is being removed. I know that people are saying that it's not, but this is going into my neighbor's driveway, and then it's going to be sharing my driveway, too. I feel like I'm mirroring the last concern from a different project, but I have two young children myself, which includes a six-year-old, autistic, nonverbal child who's prone to elopement or running away. Beyond my own family, our block is home to several families with children who require protection. The constant influx of hundreds of cars directly facing our driveway creates a high-risk environment for my special-needs daughter and causes ongoing anxiety for my family that I feel is unnecessary. When I bought the house in 2021, again, there was a barrier that was existing. I bought the house knowing that there's ample distance between me and the business that was already there, Shells. This new proposal completely will get rid of the barriers that I felt comfortable with when buying my house. Everything else that I would have to see at this point mirrors all my neighbor's concerns, so I'm going to end it here. But, again, I really thank you for your time and consideration with this, and this is very important to all of us, so please think about us. Thank you. Thank you, doctor. Next speaker, please. My name is Matt Romanek. I'm at 3701 West Cleveland Street. I wanted to show a picture of the wall that everyone keeps talking about because there – you want to try it? It should work. Okay, there we go. Perfect. All right, so this is the picture that no one has really seen yet because it doesn't favor this movement. Right, so this is Brooks' house right here who just spoke. This new driveway is going basically right here. You can't even see the whole thing, and this is the wall that's going to be taken down to accommodate this development, this rezoning of this property. So – and I think it was also a pro that there's about half of the sidewalk – or they're replacing all the sidewalk. Half the sidewalk is already there, so they're just changing the setback, which they're asking for, so now they're going to have to replace the sidewalk. So that's that. I also live – just so you know, a lot of the neighbors here – I live – here's the shelves, okay? I live on this corner here. On this corner into our entrance of our property, of our neighborhood, and at the other entrance here, there are multiple no-semi-truck signs. So I ask, how is this going to go through – how are these trucks going to service this business, right? We already have a problem with the semi-trucks pulling in and out, and we deal with it. We understand we are a cut-through neighborhood and that we have a lot of traffic. We deal with a lot of traffic, but we deal with it. We work with the city quite a bit on stop signs and road comming devices and work with the local PD to – you know, because everybody cuts through on Dale Mabry and Kennedy. But I just wonder how the bigger semi-trucks are going to service these businesses if the only entrance is now off of Cleveland, when you're not even allowed to pull semi-trucks into the building in the first place. I have three kids, often playing in the streets, Brooks too. I mean, we have, like they said, dozens of kids on this street just playing and doing what kids do, which is they should be outside. So all my other points kind of echo what everyone else has already said, but I want to bring up a couple other points that kind of isolate just why this site doesn't work. So Culver's, on the site plan that they proposed, there is no car stacking in there. And I don't know why, like each of the other drive-throughs earlier showed car stacking and there was identified car stacking. This isn't shown on here. So my question is, how many cars are going to be stacked? I think it's not favorable, which is why. I would say that the traffic count for Culver's is around 500 to 700 cars a day. That's just a typical QSR drive-through. So where are these cars are going to stack during their peak hours, which would be during lunch? Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Start with your name. Hello. My name is Michael Lorenz. I'm at 3705 West Cleveland. I had a letter my wife wanted me to give to you guys. You can hand that to our attorney here. Yeah, she wanted to be here, but we have four kids, and like all my other neighbors have mirrored, we have 15 actual children on our block. The new house that's being built across the street from me is we're going to add another one. So it's very exciting. We moved in possibly about 11 years ago. At that time, we've only had nine. So we're slowly growing or quickly growing in a community. We have young kids, and all we care about in our neighborhood is the safety of our children, especially in this world of electronics. We don't want that. We want them to grow up like we did, outside the neighborhood with their friends. And so for brevity, I agree with all my neighbors who believe safety is paramount. And most importantly, we want to keep the character of our neighborhood, and this proposal doesn't do that. We aren't against business by any means, but we would want a business that represents our neighborhood in the best light. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Does anybody else that wish to speak to this item? Hearing none, applicant, would you like a rebuttal? Sure. So Daniel Bergen, engineer. So we're going to try to go systematically through some of the opposition's concerns and the neighborhood's concerns. So I think we'll start first with the drive-through ordering and stacking and operations. This is going to take place at the restaurant. I know that was a concern. So if you could. Yeah. So a number of people mentioned that there's no car stacking on here, I guess, because the cars aren't drawn on here. But the arrows show the flow. I'm sorry we didn't draw the cars on here. But we try to design the site to have as much stacking as possible. We actually tried to design it with a double side-by-side drive-through, but we were told the building had to be as close to Dale Mabry as possible. So we changed that to a double tandem drive-through. So we do have a double drive-through. It's two order boards linearly in a line. So we can push a lot of volume through, and we have it set up so the cars can wrap all the way around the building. No matter how busy we are, 100% of the time, all the stacking is going to happen on the site. Do you want to explain the flow here a little bit? Well, we also have iPads and tablets. So in addition... Start with your name, please. I'm sorry. I'm Teresa Hutchins. In addition to the tandem drive-through, at peak time, so during our lunch rushes or our dinner rushes, we also put tablets out there. So we'll have four order takers, maybe five or six, out there taking orders. So the cars will not back up onto Cleveland. If we have more than three cars past the order board, we send the iPads out to keep the line down, because if the line's too long, it's not good for business, and we never want that to happen. In addition, there was some talk about the commercial trucks, and I'm not the engineer, but nobody even mentioned the fact that we have cross-access and we have Platte Street. And I believe even the trash trucks are planning on coming through from the press box side on Platte Street. They weren't planning on coming through on Cleveland. So I understand the neighbors have concerns, but I think that got entirely missed, that Cleveland isn't the only access point. People could come through on Platte, cross through the back of the lot, get to Culver's. The commercial trucks can go through there as well. I believe we designed the trash to line up exactly with the press box trash so the trash truck can come from Platte, pick it up from press box, pick it up from us, and then leave. So I think that was missed in some of the opposition. And also, if you look at the exit, where we have the cut onto Cleveland, it doesn't technically line up with two homes. It lines up with one, which I understand if I was in that home, I would have a complaint, too. But it's not two. It's one. So do you want to address that? I understand the concerns of the neighborhood and the children, and, you know, it's valid. This is a, you know, highly traveled suburban slash urban area, and we are restricted to the access point. I promise you that. And so I keep reiterating that. I think the city has spoke to that. You know, our access, whether it's 150, 100 foot, or 200 feet, whatever gets developed here will be accessing Cleveland. In that consideration, you know, we do not want to be bad neighbors. You know, we would, to Mr. Miranda's request, we could possibly shift it 25 feet west, and I would have to confirm with DOT that that would be an acceptable distance. But that is something that we could do to try to avoid less conflict and intrusion into the neighborhood. But we are dealing with one owner, one parcel, single-family residential that it is aligned with, so we would be able to shift it further away. But the residents that are to the east of that, this is a, it's a commercial use. The use itself is permitted as a commercial perspective, and we are just, if the driveway was moved closer to Del Mabry, which would be non-conforming with DOT, it would still access Cleveland. So, as much as I understand their concerns, there is going to be an access to Cleveland. There's currently accesses to Cleveland. This is a much safer, consolidated, singular city standard access with defined pedestrian sidewalks. If you were to go there now, you would see a sea of asphalt, 150 feet long, that does not define where cars and where people and where bicycles go. There is no buffer. There is no anything. And to say that that would stay in its existing condition would be unfortunate. Can I get a motion to close? A motion to close first, and then we can discuss. I'll make a motion to close. A motion to close. Councilman Hernandez second. Councilwoman Hurtick, all those in favor to say aye. Aye. Opposed, I have it. Councilwoman Miranda, would you like to? I was going to say that the difference that I see and what I've seen before of this company is you're talking about bourbon and suburban areas, and there's a vast difference in what we have. Where I go to, there are no houses. There are no relatives. There's no friends. There's no dogs. There's no human beings around you other than big business. Out back on one side, you have a road. On the other side, you can guide on and leave and deal and run. And your company is a great company, but you're in the wrong, in my opinion, you're in the wrong property. Because now you're touching people's lives that you don't touch where over there, where I go. It's a different, complete area. It's a different mindset. Everything is different. And I'm not trying to be a preacher. I'm not. But what I see in business, you have a great business, but a wrong location. You're interfering with the lives of people. And here again, I'm not against you or anything else, but I mean, I'm not thinking only for myself. But what I see here, there's, I mean, seven different, I think, you know, site plans and waiver plans and south setback and west setback and data table and south back to the west, 27 feet. I've never seen hardly so many of these in one zoning area. And it's just not feasible to do this. It's about lives. It's about living. It's about understanding, watching the birds fly. We don't have none of that over there. You have a great business, and you're in the wrong location. This area of Tampa has unfortunately experienced, you know, more than its share of burdens. And this particular location, as Councilman Miranda said, it's just, it's, it's, it's, obviously, it's a great location. I mean, that's why you like it, but it's, it's just the wrong application for this location. But a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru with the intensity and the amount of waivers, it's just, it's, it's too much on this particular parcel. Um, the, the burden again in South Tampa is, is for these, every, the residents have been, has been too great. And this, this would fit in a, in a more suburban area, but not in this location. Councilman, do you have any chance? I thought he wanted to, I thought you were going to make a motion, right? I was going to let people talk first. Okay. Yeah. I was, I don't have a discussion first. Okay. Councilman Vieira. Yes. Thank you. And if a motion was made, I would support, and I'd like to explain my vote on things like this, which is, and I think councilman Miranda did a great job of that. Um, in, in the sense that the, the, the, and the waivers here, I think just go too structural to the surrounding properties in terms of the reasonable use of the surrounding properties. Um, and, and, and like council member Miranda said, uh, your, your company is, is wonderful. And you guys seem like, I believe very sincere people who were here as professionals wanting to work with the community and run a business and create jobs. And I, I go a lot to the one at Lutz, uh, I mean a lot. And then the one at Wesley chapel, um, over, I know, right. You're like, whoa, Vera. How those cheese curves. I know. I'm a fan. I am. I, I really am. Um, but again, at this particular location, I think it's something that poses way too much, but a reasonable burden of the surrounding neighborhoods. So I always like to explain my vote, but thank you. Any other discussion for, I'm going to defer to councilman Hurtick for a motion hearing none. Councilman Hurtick. Um, so I'll, I'll just say I've, I've been here for several years now and I've never seen eight waivers. That's just not something that people bring to us. That's, that's absolutely shocking, um, that you couldn't solve at least some of these. Um, so I moved to deny REZ 26 dash 88 for the property located at 202 Southdale, maybe your highway 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 and the applicant's failure to meet its burden of proof with respect to the requested waivers. I also adopt the findings of city staff reports. Um, particularly, um, the waivers are not in harmony or serving the general intent or purpose of chapter 27. Um, also the PD plan requirements section 27 dash 136, um, subsection one does not promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure with careful considerations of potential adverse impacts to surrounding impacted neighborhoods. Subsection six does not promote and encourage development where appropriate and location character and compatibility with the surrounding impacted neighborhood built environment and insist in geography. Um, someone mentioned, uh, a square peg and a round hole. This is a very suburban type of development that you're trying to break bill to bring to an urban area. And I suggest that you really revisit what a site plan might look like in an urban area. Thank you. I have a motion of councilman her tech. I have a second for councilman Miranda. Any further discussion? Okay. Um, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Clark. Okay. Motion carried unanimously to deny. Thank you. We'll give a moment for the room to clear. Take care, Sean. Okay. Item number 10. We're going to close it out. Bring it home. Mr. Chairman, again, for the record, Christopher de Monge, development coordination, agenda item 10 is REZ 2699. This is a request to rezone 1728 East 2nd Avenue, 1704, 1720 and 1722 East 3rd Avenue from YC6 and YC9. Uh, the YC9 is approved for residential multiple family to YC9 for retail sales, shoppers' goods and all CG uses. I'll turn it over now to planning commission staff. Okay. Why don't you take that thing off the roof here? Yeah. Didn't see that. It was still up there. It confuses me. All right. Quinn Steel planning commission staff. This site is within the central Tampa planning district, the historic Ybor neighborhood, the Ybor city local historic district, and evacuation zone A. Additionally, portions of the site are within the coastal high hazard area. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mix of residential, commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Ybor city in this area has, um, increasingly transitioned from light industrial uses towards a more urban mixed use development pattern. Um, Adamo drive in the Salmonix Westway are one block south, and we have the port down here as well. This map shows the site designated as CMU 35 and GMU 24. The CMU portion of the site allows up to a 2.0 FAR without a bonus because it is within the Ybor city local historic district. The surrounding area contains a mixture of future land use designations, including light industrial to the south east, UMU 60 to the south, RMU 100 to the south west, uh, which is the channel district, CC 35 to the north, and UMU 60 along, uh, the seventh avenue corridor. The request is rezone from YC six and YC nine to YC nine to allow residential, or sorry, excuse me, retail sales, shoppers, goods, and all CG uses. The PD proposes a 1.11 FAR within the CMU 35 portion of the site with parking in the GMU 24 portion, which does not require a bonus putting mission staff reviewed the request and found it consistent with the surrounding development pattern in the historic character of your city. The existing building is located close to the right of way with entrances and sidewalks connecting to East 2nd Avenue, North 17th street and Angel Olivia senior street. The site also provides shade trees, bicycle parking and screening around the surface parking areas. The site is well-serviced by transit, including the Tico streetcar and heart route eight and is approximately one block from East Adamo drive, a designated transit emphasis corridor. Overall, the request provides infill commercial development that supports the evolving mixed use care character, excuse me, of Ybor city while addressing the pedestrian connectivity, transit access, and historic compatibility, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Any questions? Hearing none. Again, for the record, Christopher DeMontz, development coordination. I do want to mention that after my presentation, we do have a member of historic staff here. to speak before the applicant jumps up. So I did mention that on that one from earlier in the evening. Thank you. All right. All right. The subject site is comprised of four parcels. The property here is noted as YC-9. This will be parcel one on the site plan I'm going to show you. But we also have parcel two, parcel three, and parcel four. Looking at surrounding uses here. North of the subject site, we do have retail uses, restaurant use. South of the subject site, we have indoor recreation, which is a pickleball club. East of the subject site, we have business and professional office uses, warehouse uses. And then west of the subject site, we do have automotive repair uses. We also have west of parcel four, we have some vacant parcels. And then northwest of the subject site, we do have residential multiple family. The site plan proposed by the applicant shows adaptive reuse of an existing warehouse, which is on parcel one. Parcels two and three are proposed for surface parking. Those provide approximately 31 parking spaces. And parcel four would provide an additional 15 surface parking spaces. There are sidewalks proposed along the perimeter of parcels two and three and four. The site plan depicts five and six foot sidewalks adjacent to parcel one on East Third Avenue and Angel Olivia Senior Street. And parcels two and three depict six and a half foot sidewalks along East Third Avenue and along the west side of Angel Olivia Senior Street. And five foot sidewalks on the south side of East Third Avenue and North 17th Street. Next we have proposed elevations. These elevations show how the existing warehouse would be transitioned to provide the proposed retail sales, shoppers' goods and CG uses in general. There are two waivers requested with this application. The first is section 27-178. This is to reduce the required number of overall parking spaces in the YC zoning district from 86 spaces required to 46 provided. This would be a 47% reduction. And the second waiver would be to section 27-283. This is to reduce the required backup width for standard 90-degree parking spaces and compact 90-degree parking spaces from seven and six feet respectively to four feet. First photos here will show parcel one. This is the existing warehouse, East Third Street, a view from Angel Olivia Senior Street, and the backside of parcel one along East Second Avenue. These are parcels two and three approach for parking. This is from East Third. This is parcel four, which is further west of parcels two and three along East Third Avenue. This is north of parcels two and three. Next we have to be south of parcel one, the warehouse south of parcel four. This is east of parcels two and three, east of parcel one, west of parcel one, and then of course west of parcel four. And then I've got one last one I'm going to show. This is a warehouse use. This is located between parcels two and three on the east and parcel four, which would be west of that property. Development, view, and compliance staff has reviewed the petition. They do find the request inconsistent with the applicable City of Tampa land development regulations, and should it be the pleasure of City Council to approve the application and waivers listed above. Further modifications to the site plan would mean to be completed between first and second reading, as stated on the revision sheet. And these revisions would not resolve issues related to transportation's inconsistent finding. I also want to note, with it being in the local Ybor Historic District, this one did go before the Borough Latino Commission, and the Borough Latino Commission reviewed the reference request for the property located at 1704 East Third Avenue, 1720, and 1722 East Third Avenue, and 1728 East Second Avenue at its meeting held on September 22, 2026, and the BLC voted to recommend approval as presented at that public hearing. I'll yield now to historic staff and be available for any questions. Thank you. Council, I have any questions? Hearing none, go ahead. Heather Bonds, Historic Preservation. As Christopher mentioned, the BLC heard this and recommended approval. They also approved the two parking lots through separate Certificate of Appropriateness through the Ybor City New Parking Codes. I'm here for any questions. Any questions? Hearing none. Thank you, applicant. I know. It's really sick of me. I don't even think you need it. I have to pronounce if we need to, but yeah, this is... CTTV, do we know what's going on here? Your laptop's on? We can see your laptop, but it's just not projecting. Yeah, this is just completely dark. I've never seen that before. I do have paper slides if we need to. I actually have some technical issues in there. Oh, you are? Oh, we have paper slides. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I'll have you come up and then I'll just get these back up. Thanks. There we go. Well, Alex sets that up. By 1996. Avi Freedman Shah with Casa Ybor at 1313 East 8th Avenue. I wanted to provide a little bit of context on this project. We actually came before City Council, I think, a few years ago to bring it to a YC9 zoning, which is effectively a PD. We purchased this primary building about 10 years ago, and it's gone through a couple of different iterations. We previously rezoned it for office and art studio use. In that rezoning, there's a small, about 8,000 square foot west section of that warehouse. It looks like it's two buildings. It's the same building that was going to be used for parking. Ultimately, we weren't able to make that concept come to fruition. Over the past year, we have negotiated with and finally signed a lease with a large regional showroom tenant. They operate showrooms across the southeast where you're able to go in, take a look at various kitchen, bath, or appliance packages they have, and then buy it there, and they will ship it to you. So they don't have any inventory on site. It's not like in a Kia. You don't walk out with big boxes. You'll just order it there, and they'll ship it to you. So we're really excited to bring this use to Ybor. They've made a big commitment. Both we and they are going to be spending significant amount of dollars to rehabilitate this historic warehouse. It's a contributing structure, and we're hoping to get them open in 2027. As part of their use, they will need some parking. This building is lot line to lot line. There's obviously no parking that you can put on the building itself, and they needed all 30,000 square feet of the building for their actual use, not taking some small chunk of it for parking. The two lots to the north, which give us about 45 to 50 parking spaces, that's all they need underneath their for their business. Like I said, they don't need a whole loading area. It's just for customers to park. Those parking lots are going to be exclusive to them, so there will be signs up that say for this customer only or for this tenant only. All others can't park here. And then I'll just want to make one note on that waiver. If this building was two blocks south outside of the Ybor City Historic District, the required parking would only be one per thousand for furniture sales or furniture warehouse. But because we're in the Ybor City Historic District, that parking need doesn't exist. There is no furniture sales category within Ybor, and so it just kind of all falls under this blanket retail sales shoppers goods category, which is why it's set at 341. So that's why we're requesting the waiver. Other than that, we're really excited to bring this use to Ybor. Alex, if you have more details, I'll let you run through your presentation. Sure. Alex Shaler, 400 North Ashley Drive. Avi covered the large majority of it. I was just going to show you if this does work again. Okay. That's okay. It looks like this is – can you guys see that or no? Nothing? No. Okay. That's fine. What I was going to add is in regard to the parking waiver. Avi mentioned this, but I did have numbers that I was going to show on the screen. Yeah. The general standard city code has a use for furniture that parks at one per a thousand. The Ybor City specific code does not. So they only have retail sales that parks at three per a thousand. So that's triple what the city thinks that a furniture or showroom use would need. That's why we're requesting this parking reduction. Under the standard city codes furniture parking ratio, we'd only be required 29 spaces. And again, we're providing 46. So we're well over what we think the intent of code was. Again, just Ybor didn't have that specific of a use in their parking code. So nothing further to add, but happy to answer. Any questions? Any questions? Hearing none. Does anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? I motion to close. Councilman Scott goes second. Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. I believe we left off with Vera. Move an ordinance rezoning property in general vicinity of 1728 East 2nd Avenue, 1704, 1720, 1722 East 3rd Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly described in section one from zoning district classification YC6, Ybor City, Historic District Community Commercial, and YC9, Ybor City site planned controlled. Real retail sales, shoppers, goods, all CG uses, providing an effective date. That was different. I have a motion for Councilman Vera. Is that going to be your last motion? No, no, no. I have a motion for Councilman Vera. Second Councilman, Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on November 5th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Okay. That concludes our regular scheduled program. Let's change it up tonight. How about we start with Councilman Miranda for new business. Make a motion to present an offsite accommodation to purchase the department recognition of the 20th year of receiving the Achievement of Excellence Procurement Award from the National Procurement Institute. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. I would like to make a motion to present an offsite combination to Hispanic Man and Woman of the Year Gala, which would include combination to Hispanic Man and Woman of the Year Jason Fernandez and Amy Ruiz. Okay. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Thank you. Councilman Maniscalco. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion and just some comments. I move to make a motion to present an offsite accommodation on November 10th, 2026, recognizing the 40th anniversary of the University of South Florida Institute on Black Life. Second. I have a motion from Councilwoman Young. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I also just wanted to thank Anointed World Church of Tampa Bay. They were celebrating 36 years and myself and Mr. Joe Robinson received Community Impact Awards. So I wanted to thank them for that. And also, I don't know if you all remember when I did the accommodation for Albert Owens, Mr. Bucket Five Bird. He actually got his game ball yesterday and we went to the train facility. It was a good moment. He was very excited and he was very thankful that we honored him in that way. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Vieira. Councilman Vieira. Yes, sir. Two quick ones, if I may. I've always done. I won't be here for this, but Holocaust Remembrance Day every year for I don't know how long. We always have our friends from the JCC Federation over and I moved to have it on January 21st, 2027 for like five, 10 minute presentation. I have motion from Councilman Vieira. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I oppose those. Thank you, Council. Yes, ma'am. I'm so sorry. So Holocaust Remembrance Day. Yes, ma'am. January 21st, 2027 under presentations and what have you. Is anybody going on October 13th to the Tampa Bay chapter of Tuskegee Airmen? Great. Okay. So are you doing the commendation? I don't know if that's good. Okay. Well, out of an abundance of caution just to cover you, you give it. Obviously, if I may, I move to do a council commendation to the Tuskegee chapter of airmen, Tampa Bay chapter of airmen and Madame, you may present it. That's a motion from Councilman Vieira for an offsite accommodation. A second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. um i i received this we received the same email i'm i denied i i actually canceled that um meeting request i think it'd be more appropriate in fact this would be i would say a formal invitation to ask the mayor if she wanted to come and speak to us on the 15th about those recommendations i think it would be a great opportunity for the mayor to come to us um so i'll make a motion to invite the mayor to on the two and i can't second because i'm chairing come to council if she'd like to talk to council about the uh um the charter review commission recommend or charter recommendations so you're saying that she should come instead of us meeting with her that is your request that would be my that would be okay so i have a i have a motion from chair and i have a second from council member carlson and if i may 15th the 15th october yes uh councilman vera thank you and i i would um how can i say this i wasn't planning on talking about this whatsoever i'm going to be frank if if we have the mayor here it's going to turn into a political circus i'm not i'm not going to uh support an invitation on on a back and forth what have you i just don't you know it's it's i know what i'm going to do with the charter amendments i did it right whatever but i just i just that's just my view maybe by the way maybe she comes and i'm wrong and i'm like you're you were wrong whatever but i just think that's whatever okay so i have a motion and a second yes mr shelby and would it be the chairman's office who would work out the logistics that's the time and what's best on the agenda affirmative okay so i have a motion and a second all in favor aye aye any opposed okay so i've got two nays vieira and three days oh sorry i'm sorry okay motion carried with viera minuscalco miranda voting no okay um i've got a few here um a motion for staff to bring back the language for the proposed debt and cit ordinances on 12 17 2026. i have a motion from chair clendenin a second from chair some from council member vieira all those in favor all right thank you i just inquire martin shelby forgive me but i know it's late um this is this going to be the 17th is a regular meeting yes did you want it as a draft or you want it on for first reading um you're supposed to come back with the proposed debt um ordinances so first the first reading of it thank you yes yeah sorry 12 17. yes she he has a sheet i'll hand this to you i'll hand this to winter done um okay i'd also like to make a motion to continue the uh the rescheduled noise items from uh did you did you have anything on that the noise does this go with you i did um but we actually spoke to the community and of tampa heights and they understood okay so i'd like to make a motion to continue the rescheduled noise items on the october 22nd 2026 workshop to the january 28th 2027 workshop so that the consultant can attend so i have to both both items so both noise items so i have a motion from chair clendenin a second from council member miranda all those in favor all right okay i'd like also um i don't know if anybody's been paying attention uh commissioner harry cohen made a motion at county commission on micro mobility or micro mobility ordinance so i'd like to make a motion for city staff to coordinate with the hillsborough county staff on the proposed micro mobility ordinance that is based on the orange county's ordinance and to report back on the possibility of city opting into the hillsborough county's ordinance and return on january 21st 2027 under staff reports yeah yeah exactly good um uh so my only request on that is could you have that sent to all of us so we know what it is yep well i mean right now it's it's what's happening in hillsborough is just a proposal that in other words harry just made the sure but could you just get the orlando one sent to us i have it and i will make sure that it gets distributed to you awesome that would be great so i have a motion from chair clendenin i'm sorry who was the second me um second from council member maniscalco yes mr chairman i just in terms i'm not a mr but thank you martin shelby city council attorney mr chairman i'm just concerned in terms of your timing because this came up recently with regard to i believe it was the um uh convocation rentals and by the time city by the time the county commission acts upon it the ordinance has already been baked and it already said at least in that situation literally the the commissioner commissioner cohen literally just last week asked their staff to start working on this so i think this is timely that we ask our staff to coordinate with them and he made he made the motion at hillsborough county commission meeting to to have it open so that other the temple terrace and plant city and city of tampa can be adopted into that ordinance thank you okay very good okay so i have a motion and a second all in favor aye any that's it okay i have a motion received and followed from councilman maniscalco second from councilman moranda all those in favor say aye aye opposed eyes have it we're adjourned