Tampa City Council PM - 07/23/26

Guido Maniscalco: present · Naya Young: present · Luis Viera: present · Bill Carlson: present · Alan Clendenin: present

A motion to close to Councilman Vera, Secondary Councilman, Maniscalco. Second. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hertek, Secondary Councilman Miranda.

Charlie Miranda: yes · Guido Maniscalco: yes · Luis Viera: no · Bill Carlson: yes · Alan Clendenin: no

Outcome: Motion carried with Young, Vieira, and Clendenin voting no.

Everybody, welcome to Tampa City Council. It is 5.06, so we're ready for the 5.01 hearing. Ms. LaShawn, would you like to clear our agenda? Oh, roll call first. Miranda. I guess we can do that.

Meniscalco.

Hertek. Here. Young. Here. Vieira. Here. Carlson. Here. Clendenin. Here. We have a fiscal quorum.

We have a quorum. Now would you like to clear the agenda?

Yes. Thank you so much.

I'll do that after we do this. Okay.

Thank you so much, Chairman and Council LaShawn. On Dock Development Coordination, I want to declare, there are four items to clear on this evening's agenda. The first is item number six, is REZ 2623. The applicant has requested a continuance to September 10th.

Oh, now we have to, now we have to, I was thinking we were going to remove things from the agenda, but yeah, you're right. Okay. I have a motion to open the public hearing from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Always listen to my clerk, yes. Okay. So we have a, I have a motion to continue item number six from Councilman. What?

This is the first, this is the first continuance?

Correct.

And is the applicant here, or they've communicated by email? Yes.

Pardon? The applicant should be here.

The applicant's here if you wish to speak, but that's okay. If you wish to continue, that's fine.

We can just continue it. We have a motion to continue from Councilman Maniscalco, a second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Herjie.

Well, so my, my question is, will this be re-noticed? What's the date? Yeah. What is the date that it's being moved to and will this be re-noticed?

So this is a request to continue to September 20th, to September 10th.

Okay.

The answer is normally no.

Okay. So I'm going to ask the applicant, will this be re-noticed? Come on up, state your name and let us know.

Good evening, Council. Clay Matthews, 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 850, Tampa, Florida, 33602. I guess we weren't planning on re-noticing it, but we're happy to re-notice it if that pleases the Council.

So I would like to add to the motion that this be re-noticed.

We've already made a motion to continue, so this will be a new motion. I would like to add a new motion that this be re-noticed for the public.

Second. For September 10th, 2026 at 5.01 p.m. 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Mr. Shelby, give me some illegal advice. You've previously told me not to speak. Well, now I'm reopening that chest. So the box is back open. So we have a motion that is passed to continue. Is it proper for Council to make a motion to request this to be re-noticed? Or do we need to reconsider the motion to continue and then do it?

For purposes of clarity, why don't you move to rescind and start from the beginning? No, sir, rescind. Second.

Is that a proper notice?

Well, if you want to do a motion to reconsider, but then we've already piled on top of each other. The answer is this. Applicant, do you have any objection to re-noticing this? That's why I made the motion.

Do you have any objection to re-noticing? No, sir. Hearing no objection from the applicant, I'll accept the motion from Councilwoman Hurtek with the date, time, and place. And who was the second? Vira. Councilman Vira seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. As we have an agreeable applicant. Okay, very good.

Thank you. And the next item to clear on the agenda is item number 10, which is REZ 2647. The applicant is requested to continue this item to August 20th.

I have a motion from Councilman Vira to continue the item. And who was the second?

Here. August. You made the motion.

You made the motion. Who was the second?

Second.

Second from Councilman Carlson. Thank you. The Councilwoman Hurtek.

Is the applicant here?

Dean Tyler Hudson, 400 North Ashley Drive.

Are you willing to re-notice?

It's next month. I don't think we can.

Oh, okay. Yeah, it's only a couple weeks.

Because it's 820.

Okay.

Yeah. Everyone in the community is all aware of the August continuance.

So, thanks. Yeah, it's a pretty quick one. Okay, so we have a motion to continue. Councilman Vira seconded. Councilman Carlson. Did we hear the date? Yeah, we actually didn't on this. Motion to continue to August 20th, 5.01 p.m., 3.15. East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 3-3602. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you. Next.

Thank you, Councilor LaShawn, Dock Development Coordination. The next item to clear is item number 13. It is REZ 2604. The applicant requests the continuance to November 12th.

Okay, I'm going to anticipate. Councilwoman Hurtek's question. Is the applicant here? Okay. And so this is November?

Yes.

Tyler Hudson, 400 North Ashley Drive. This is going to have to go through another DRC cycle, so we'd like to do in November, and we're more than happy to re-notice.

Okay. So can I get a motion to continue this November 12th with notice? I have a motion from Councilman Vira. Second from Councilman Miranda. Councilwoman Hurtek.

November 12th, 2026, 5.01 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 3-3602.

Okay. With a re-notice. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I have a notice to remove item 14 from the agenda from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Vira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Move to approve.

Hold on. One second.

And if I may, Chairman, I just would like to read the items that are moving forward of the rezoning cases. Please do. That is item number three, number four, number five, number seven, eight, nine, 11, and 12. All of those items are moving forward this evening.

I concur.

Thank you.

Okay. I motion to approve the agenda. Councilwoman Hurtek. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Here we go.

Sure. Go ahead. No, I just wanted to let Councilman that I may have to step out for one minute, for a couple minutes, and then I'll be back.

I would like to also recognize Abby Feely, please.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Council. Sorry. Good something. It's been a long day. At least it's good. Good afternoon. Abby Feely, Administrator of Development and Economic Opportunity. And thank you, Chairman, for a moment of personal privilege. I would like to take the opportunity to introduce to you Robert Scott. Robert Scott is our new Director of Housing and Community Development. He comes to us via Columbus, Georgia, where he spent six years as the Director of Community Reinvestment. They just recently won the John Sasso Award from NCDA there. And I just, Robert is full of passion for housing and also homelessness, community redevelopment, and just has a huge personality. And we're super excited to have him with us. And I'll just let Robert just say a quick introduction.

Good evening. How we start here is we always start with your name. Okay. My name is Robert Scott.

I'm currently serving as the Housing and Community Development Director. I'm honored to have this opportunity to be here, and I'm looking forward to continue the

amazing work that's already being done. Welcome on board, Mr. Scott. Councilwoman Hurtick.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Scott at our Affordable Housing Advisory Committee meeting last week and just full of energy. So not only does he love all of those issues, he's also passionate about community gardens. So I got him immediately introduced to Kitty Wallace. So we're going to do a tour of gardens and all sorts of wonderful things. So we're really happy to have you. I love your energy. Really looking forward to working with you. Thank you.

Welcome on board, Mr. Scott. I apologize for all of the abuse that you'll get from city council. So we'll give that apology in advance. Very good. Welcome to Tampa.

Thank you, council. And we'll move on to item number one, which is related to our action plan. And Michelle Boone's going to take us there. Thank you.

I'm shooting for 830 tonight, for those of you. So we're going to keep this going, 830 p.m.

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

Thank you. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to item one? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to close? A motion to close. Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Can I get a motion to move the resolution? A motion to move the resolution for item number one, a seconded by Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay. Item number two. Good evening.

Good evening. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This is a transmittal hearing for TACPA 2603. It's located at 4002 Northdale Mabry Highway and Associated Parcels. I would like to clarify that the City of Tampa is not initiating the amendment. The site is publicly owned by the Florida Board of Trustees of Hillsborough College. We received a letter from the City of Tampa Legal Department for the amendment to run out of cycle. The amendment is publicly initiated, but it is regular scale. It's approximately 121.73 acres. And the request is to go from public semi-public to urban mixed use 60 and regional mixed use 100. The subject site is in the West Shore Planning District, the West Shore Business Center, the Drew Park Neighborhood, and the Drew Park CRA. This is an aerial of the subject site. The site is bound by Northdale Mabry Highway to the east, West Tampa Bay Boulevard to the south, North Lois Avenue to the west, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard to the north. The subject site currently has the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough College, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Hillsborough Tax Collector's Office, as well as other government facilities. To the south of the site is Tampa International Airport and parking for Raymond James. To the east, along Northdale Mabry Highway, is primarily commercial uses, including Raymond James Stadium, located here, and Al Lopez Park, located here. To the north is Steinbrenner Field, located here, and west, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard is a mix of commercial and industrial uses. To the west is a single-family detached neighborhood and some multifamily uses to the southwest. The multifamily is here, and the residential single-family neighborhood runs approximately here. This is looking north on Northdale Mabry Highway. The subject site is to the left. This is looking south on North Lois Avenue at the subject site is the tax collector. This is looking east on West Lois Avenue at the subject site. This is the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. This is looking south on West Tampa Bay Boulevard, and the subject site is behind the photographer. This is looking east from North Lois Avenue towards West Kentucky Avenue at the single-family detached neighborhood. The subject site is in the rear. And this is looking east on West Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The subject site is off to the right.

And this is looking south on North Thale Mabry Highway. The subject site is in the far rear of this. This is Steinbrenner Field to the right. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is outlined in black and recognized under the public-semi-public future land use designation. This designation is to the north, east, south, and west of the subject site, partially west to the subject site. The R20 designation is located here with that single-family detached neighborhood to the west. To the north is a mix of the light industrial in the gray and the community commercial 35 in the red. This is the proposed future land use map. The subject site is primarily regional mixed-use 100, which is the dark magenta color. And this strip of land right here is approximately 6.18 acres. And it is under the UMU designation. These are the potential impacts of the site. Under the current public-semi-public designation, the maximum residential density and non-residential intensity are not defined. Instead, the maximum development potential is determined by the compatibility of the proposed project with the context of the surrounding area. Under the proposed UMU 60 and RMU 100 designations, the site can be considered for a maximum of just over 11,900 dwelling units or approximately 18.4 million square feet. Of residential or non-residential uses and mixed uses. This amendment would define residential and non-residential maximums and promote a mixture of uses. It would also remove the requirement for public-semi-public uses to be on the site. The Planning Commission found the amendment consistent with multiple aspects of the comprehensive plan, especially promoting mixed-use development by providing an opportunity to support the current and future transit investments along these corridors. And additional opportunities to support residential and employment growth in the West Shore Business Center. It also supports compatibility and neighborhood character, is aimed at protecting existing residential areas, while ensuring new development is compatible with the neighborhood. And additionally, new housing is encouraged by the comprehensive plan to ensure an adequate supply of housing, is available to meet the needs of Tampa's growing population. The Planning Commission recommends that the proposed MAP amendment be found consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. That concludes my presentation, if you have any questions.

Councilwoman Hurtay.

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

So I am going to defer to city staff on that one, because I do not know that answer.

Is there anybody in the audience that I don't see any?

Ms. Dock is coming up.

Hillsborough County Aviation Authorities or FAA.

Yes, LaShawn Dock Development Coordination. So within this area, with this requested future land use, this would fall under the West Shore overlay.

Okay.

The height is controlled by the Aviation Authority.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. You're welcome. Anything else?

Okay. Okay. Applicant? No digital court. Okay. I'm sorry. Councilman Miranda, this is for staff. Yes, ma'am.

If I may, there are certain cycles that these things are handled by this chamber on and off throughout the years. Am I correct?

We have four cycles a year. We have four cycles a year. February. Is this fall in one of the four cycles? No, this is out of cycle.

So usually, I've been here a little while. I'm not saying I'm, it usually comes before this board, before it goes anywhere, and I don't know about the other six members, but I've never seen this until it came to our thoughts on July 17th. I think the clerk's office received it on July 15th, I'm not sure of that, and we first saw it on July the 17th, I think. So usually, it comes before us, it takes it, then it goes to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission sends it to Tallahassee, and maybe I'm wrong somewhere, but I don't know, and it comes back to us, yay or nay. Am I correct or not?

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

The Planning Commission, was any member of this council notified of it, or just somewhere else in the other part of the administration of the City of Tampa?

Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. So the City Council has adopted a procedures manual for comprehensive plan amendments, so within that manual, it does break out four cycles throughout the year for an applicant to apply for a plan amendment. It also allows publicly initiated amendments to run out of cycle, and this request, and Susan, I don't know if you want to help me, the legal department has sent a letter to us asking it for this amendment to run out of cycle publicly. I didn't ask that.

I asked, was this body ever notified that this was going on at that time? Can I?

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let's let them talk. No, I was trying to explain. I mean, I could too, but I'd rather, I mean, I could explain it to you, but I'd rather the folks do it from the podium. All I'm asking is some questions. Maybe, y'all, why don't we start from, so we can tell, somebody explain to Councilman Miranda the process of these publicly initiated, and how this is compliant with the process.

Sure. Again, the procedures manual kind of outlines the process for initiating a plan amendment, both publicly and privately.

So what you're saying is, to me and to the rest of the six members, that the administration did this?

No. No. No, no, no. Okay, you want to do it or do you want me to?

I think the simple thing he's asking is that usually these come before us first, and then they go to the Planning Commission. So why did it go to the Planning Commission first?

Not on these. So this is a publicly initiated Planning Commission. I'm sorry, a future land use change. It went to the Planning Commission. Now they're coming to us for transmittal to send to Tallahassee. It's going to come back to us, and that's when we normally hear these things. Usually the other way around, if I remember. No, not for these. In fact, usually these transmittal things usually are just so administrative, we don't even pay attention to them. They're just cursory, just administrative kind of functions. That's why I think this is standing out, because usually they're non-controversial. We just transmit, and then we actually hear them. Well, this is non-controversial also. Okay. Somebody want to summarize it?

So the adopted procedures manual doesn't require a publicly initiated amendment to go to council before it goes to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. That's what it's been. I'd probably recall.

So his other question was, who initiated this? Hillsborough College.

Hillsborough College Board of Trustees.

Well, back in, if I may, regarding this, back on 317 of 26, there was a quick claim deed, number 42214, which is in essence what this is all about, and it's signed by the governor, by the attorney general, and by the agriculture commissioner. It is not signed by the chief financial officer, and the copy that I have does not have a date on it when it was notarized.

What does this reference? This is the future land use?

It's the quick claim deed of the property.

Well, what does this have to do with the future land use?

Well, if this is not correct, then how can you apply for it? How can you get it what you want? If it's not, I'm just questioning. Okay. I think the applicant will answer that question when I get to the applicant.

Can you wait and hold that question to the applicant?

No problem.

Okay. Is there any other questions for staff? Hearing no other questions, thank you very much. Okay. Applicant. So you can do your presentation. You also can hold that question and answer that question. Yes, sir.

Good evening, Council. My name is Jim Schimberg, Shubin Law Group, 1001 Water Street.

I'm really here on behalf of Hillsborough College and the Rays. So let me just answer Councilman Miranda's question first. The document that he's talking about had to do with the state governor and cabinet conveying 22 acres of this property back to Hillsborough College, and then I think that's only required to be signed by three out of the four members of the governor and cabinet. But that's not exactly why we're here today. We're here today for the project that you're all very much aware of, and we're not here to talk about the substance of that today. We're really just here to see if you're willing to transmit this up to Tallahassee to allow them to review it for their 30 days and then come back to the board. I believe that would be, I think we talked about September 24th, that it would come back for a public hearing, Mr. Chairman. But what happened was for several months that we started working on this, our office, we took the position that we thought that the PSP category, because it really doesn't have a maximum, that we thought that we could basically do this project under that category. And really from day one of that argument on our behalf, the city legal department and the city staff was telling us they did not agree with that. They thought that the comp plan on this property needed to be changed. We were very concerned about time, as you well know, and so we were trying to continue to move the deal forward. Finally, in the beginning of April, we agreed that they really said, you've really got to change the comp plan here. So that's why they sent the letter to the Planning Commission, and they said, please initiate this. It was a couple of weeks out of cycle, I believe, but it's gone through every proper process. We've posted signs. We went to the Planning Commission staff, reviewed it. We went to the Planning Commission board. We got a unanimous recommendation. Now we're here to ask you, as you said, to transmit it to the state, to allow the state land planning group and their other agencies to have a chance to comment on this. Then it will come back to city council for a public hearing at the end of September. I think you require two hearings. And then at that point, we can talk about the substance of it. But we're here, as they said, I mean, usually these things are relatively standard. You transmit it up to the state. You see what they say. Then your board makes the final decision. So in my experience, and I've been doing this for a long time, this is really not out of order, and this is the way that these things work. And we would respectfully ask you to transmit it up to the state, and then we'll have a full discussion in September.

Okay. Does that conclude your presentation?

Yes, sir. I'm here to answer any questions.

Here we go. Councilwoman Hersey.

Does staff have a map? Ms. Phelan, do you have the map you could put up again for me of the... Which one would you like, the adopted or the proposed?

The proposed, please.

Can you talk about what has been developed south of Columbus Drive?

This area within the RME 100. It does encompass the international plaza and the mall, as well as other commercial uses. What would you say is the average height of those buildings? I would not be able to answer that one, because when we did our analysis and we looked at this in the field, we did primarily stick to what was currently existing around the proposed site. So I wouldn't be able to tell you what the height is.

So my concern with this is that the property south of Columbus has not been developed as a regional mixed-use 100 property. It's been a lot. It is not that dense. So my concern and my question is why you aren't going for UMU 60. So can you tell me what the difference is with the... So you stated that with this RMU 100, they can do basically 12,000 units and 8,500,000 square feet of retail residential. So what would the difference be for UMU 60?

Can I do that math real quick? Sure. So at the site, if the entire site was urban mixed-use 60, the maximum number of dwelling units would be a little over 7,300. And with the FAR being a 3.25 would be the maximum of the site, it would be just about 17.2 million square feet. Okay.

So it's kind of, I mean, other than the housing units, it's pretty negligible. So I just thank you. So I'm going to ask Mr. Schoenberg, is there a reason that they're going for RMU 100 instead of UMU 60, which is more appropriate for that location?

Again, Jim Schoenberg, a couple of quick points to that. I know you were asking about height earlier. I mean, in the West Shore Overlay District, they lay out different comp plan categories, and both of those would be under this criteria. And it would basically, with respect to height, it's determined by FAA. So you can get approved by FAA and the Aviation Authority. So I don't think that would necessarily affect the height. And also, just let me say one more thing. In every meeting that we've had with city and county to try to talk about this project, it seemed like, and, again, we're not talking about money or anything. We're just talking about everybody seemed to be, look, the more you can develop there, the more tax revenue you're going to generate, the better deal it's going to be. So we really haven't faced that question. And I would have to go back and talk to my clients before I agree to a change. But, again, both of those are very intense categories, and most of the public comment on this has been for slightly less than either one of those two. But, again, this is a comp plan. This is not, you know, this is just a setting of the overall parameters. So I hear what you're saying, and there's not a huge difference between the two.

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

Just remember what, I just, remember we're here just for the transmittal, not really, we're not really here, we're not really here weighing. But I'm not transmitting something that I don't think is possible. I hear, I hear what you're saying, and I, you're making a good point. We'll have that opportunity to weigh the good, the bad, and the ugly on this when it comes back from Tallahassee. But tonight, we're just talking about, and I hear your point, we're just talking about whether we transmit or don't transmit, not necessarily the good, the bad, the ugly of the plan. This is not. Councilman Brown.

If I may, thank you very much. And this is from your law firm, Stubin Law Group, and signed by you, sir, on page 67 of page 2 of 2. Specifically, the amendment will facilitate the redevelopment of the property to a mixed-use entertainment district that may include a major league ball field, baseball field. Not shall, shall include. And I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge either. So I don't know what this means. Is it?

Well, we, I mean, again, there's other negotiations going on that will determine that. Well, I've got to vote on something here today.

I've got to do something.

Well, I think my answer to that, Mr. Miranda, would be that I think when this comes back in September, you'll have a better sense as to whether everything is moving forward or not. Again, we're transmitting to the state for their comments, and then you guys will make a decision when it comes back in the public hearing. I hear what you're saying, and the reason I think we put that is because nothing is certain, and the Rays are negotiating right now with the city and county.

And let me just clarify one thing. It'll come back in September if this council passes it.

Yes, sir. All right.

I want to make that clear.

Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing no other questions, we're going to move to public comment. As it may the public, the wish to speak to item number two. Start with your name, please. Come on up.

Good evening, council members. Thanks for hearing from me. The phrase, we are privatizing the profits. Start with your name. Oh, sorry. Laura Lawson. I'm sorry. That's okay. No, it's a part about your name. Thank you for having me. It's good. The phrase, we are privatizing the profits and socializing the losses, was first coined in 1974 to refer to corporate bailouts. In the 1990s, it also became associated with stadium subsidies. But this situation with this comp plan amendment and this plan is a particularly extreme case of privatizing profits and socializing losses. For one thing, we're giving up the most used tax collector's office. Residents get their driver's license there. And it will likely end up being demolished just as the governor's new voter suppression legislation takes effect. It will be gone when people need it most. First, privatizing the profits, socializing the losses. The county's planning to take sales tax revenue that we all pay. The city of Tampa, we pay it just as much as the unincorporated residents do to build a tax-free stadium for a billionaire. That's why in this plan amendment, that's the only part that remains public, semi-public, to protect his profits from property taxes that he would otherwise pay. The comp plan proposal takes public community college land and creates a residential development giveaway any billionaire developer would crave, 11,924 dwelling units. The land was supposed to be set aside for college purposes forever. That's what the deed says. But the billionaire owner is friends with the governor who, along with his cabinet, decided that we needed land for his friend to make piles of money more than our students need buildings and classrooms and labs to get a degree. Privatizing the profits for Mr. Zalupski and socializing the losses for our community college students. We should not do this deal. But if we're going to do this, we should not put the cart before the horse tonight. The minute we change this from public to semi-public, we fundamentally alter the value and the potential of that land and the restrictions on that land, shifting from a public and educational purpose permanently to a profit-making purpose. We should not do that before we have a solid public benefits agreement that truly benefits the public and protects the college and the tax collector's office. truly improves these facilities and programs rather than shrinking and demolishing them. We need more balance to this plan, and we need you all to bring the pressure to create that. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lawson. Anybody else in the public wish to speak to this item? Just for clarification, I just want to make sure everybody in the public is listening, and Ms. Lawson. For tonight, again, this is not a decision-making hearing on the substance of this plan. It's just whether we transmit it to Tallahassee to get their comments. It will come back to council in September for us to actually weigh the good and the bad, and that's when a lot of those items that you just discussed, and, of course, if the negotiations finish, our community benefits agreement will have that opportunity to weigh all those things in. Tonight, this is funny because this is my third year on council. These things usually just go through without even blinking an eye because it's just a transmittal hearing to ask Tallahassee to comment on the plan. So that's what we're doing tonight. Not the meet. This is not the meet. It's just a technical procedure. Okay. Applicant, did you have anything else to say? Okay. Okay. Anybody else? Can I get a motion to close? A motion to close to Councilman Vera, Secondary Councilman, Maniscalco. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Councilwoman Hertek?

You heard what I think. I'm not even transmitting this because I don't believe it's the correct – I just – I don't think it's the right thing to do. So, I mean, I think it's a waste of time to send it to the state if I'm just going to vote against it. So I just – I move to not transmit to the state.

Second. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hertek, Secondary Councilman Miranda. Roll call vote, please.

Miranda? Yes. Maniscalco? Yes. Hertek? Yes. Young? Vieira? No. Carlson? Yes. Clendenin? No. Motion carried with Young, Vieira, and Clendenin voting no.

Mr. Schimmer. Could I just – could I just ask a question as to what that means?

Does that mean – That means it doesn't get transmitted. We have – first time probably in history we have not transmitted a conflantum. Future ladders will not. Okay. All right. Thank you. I mean, from staff, have we ever not transmitted? Answer. And a hush fell over the room. Okay. All the rest of the hearings are quasi-judicial procedures. They require anybody that is here to testify on any issue that's coming up before Council this evening. You have to be sworn in. Please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. Good evening. Good evening. How are you?

I'm well. How are you?

Good. I'm anxious to hear item number three.

Brea Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item number three is REZ 2610. Request to rezone 2111 East Bush Boulevard from CG Commercial General to CI Commercial Intensive. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Good evening. This site is within the University Planning District, the Sulphur Springs neighborhood, and it is not located within an evacuation zone. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial, with commercial uses along East Bush Boulevard and North 22nd Street, churches to the south and west, and single-family homes located to the southwest across East Skagway Avenue. This map shows the site designated as Community Commercial 35. CMU 35 and CC35 are primarily concentrated along Bush Boulevard, which is a transit emphasis corridor. To the south is R10 in that orange color. To the northeast is R35. And then public-semi-public to the southeast. The request is to rezone from CG to CI. The CI zoning district is consistent with the CC35 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding commercial development pattern. Future redevelopment should incorporate the mixed-use corridor design policies, including building orientation, pedestrian connections, and appropriate referring to adjacent residential uses. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Councilor, have any questions? Councilor, Miranda? No, sir. I'm sorry. Okay, very good. Okay. Next.

Brea Dixon, Development Coordinator. We'll start with an aerial view. You can see that the subject parcel is here, outlined in red. To the north, we have East Bush Boulevard. To the east, we have North 22nd. And to the south, we have East Skagway Avenue. The subject site is located on the southwest corner of East Bush Boulevard and North 22nd Avenue. Properties to the immediate south are zoned RS-50. And properties to the east, the north, and the west are all zoned commercial general CG. The subject site is currently developed with a large vacant building, which was previously a Walgreens pharmacy. Here, we have a look at the survey.

It's upside down.

Thank you. And again, we have East Bush Boulevard, North 22nd, and Skagway. I have photos of the subject parcels. Subject property at Bush Boulevard, North 22nd Street, East Skagway Avenue, North, immediately east. Place of assembly to the south. Residences to the south. And a local charity to the west.

The subject parcel is approximately 1.4 acres, given that the surrounding uses primarily consists of commercial uses and the site's location along a major third fare. The request to CI zoning is consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Development coordination and compliance staff review the application and find a request to be consistent with the City of Tampa regulations, land development, land development regulations. I'm available for any questions.

Councilor, have any questions? Councilwoman Young.

Can you put the picture back where it shows the subject site?

Which one? There are three.

The, the, was it the first picture? That's it there? Yes. The old wall. Okay. Oh, okay. Gotcha. All right. Thank you.

Thank you so much. You're welcome. Applicant. Good evening.

Good evening, council members. Eileen Rosario, 2504 West Crest Avenue, Tampa, Florida. My client is requesting to rezone through Euclidean on this property from a CG to a CI. He does have some really great ideas as to what he would like to do with this property. We're not made, doing any kind of major changes. It will not be, will not hurt the neighborhood. It actually will probably beautify the neighborhood. Um, I did get a phone call from the church, um, asking me what it is he was going to do. I explained to him, asked me why he got a rezone, because the use that he's intending to do it, he has to be CI. He wants to keep things legal and do things the right way and not have something illegal on that property. And he is here, my client is here, if there is any other questions.

Does council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the public that wish to speak for this item? Hearing none. Councilwoman Hurtek.

Um, Ms. Rosario, uh, can you share what the, your client plans to do?

He's thinking of having an exotic car dealership, private, privately owned, you have to come in with appointments. Um, most, all the cars will be indoors, will not be, they're not going to, everything is privately. So it'll be private owned, private people coming in and it's going to be just exotic cars.

Okay. That you had, you had a bit of a pause after the word exotic.

All of our minds went in the same. I wanted to get a little excited. But then again, then again, I was not expecting the word cars to come nuts. This is not Drew Park.

Perhaps not after you say exotic, don't pause. So that was like, what's coming after this? So, no, thank you. Appreciate that. You had my vote before that.

You had it at exotic. Then you had to fill in the blank. Okay. Can I get a motion to close? We have a motion to close. Councilman Iscowco second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. I oppose. The ayes have it. Thank you. Councilman Carlson, would you like to read item number three? I move file number REZ 26-10, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration of ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 2111 East Bush Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly, ascribed in section one from zoning district classification CG commercial general to CI commercial intensive, providing effective data. I have a motion from Councilman Carlson, a second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Thank you.

Okay. Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Thank you. Item number four.

Brea Dixon Development Coordination. Agenda item number four is REZ 26-12, request to rezone 1704 West North B Street, 202, 210, 220 North Rome Avenue, 1701, and 1711 West North A Street, from IG in Just Your General to CI Commercial Intensive. Now turning over to Planning Commission.

Thank you. Hello there.

All right. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the West Tampa Urban Village, and the North Hyde Park neighborhood. It's also within evacuation zone C. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is a mix of industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant properties. Industrial and commercial uses are concentrated along North Rome Avenue and West Kennedy Boulevard here. There are single-family homes immediately west and multifamily development to the northeast. This map shows the site designated as General Mixed Use 24, which surrounds the site to the northeast and south. R35 and R20 are located immediately west. UMU 60 is concentrated along Kennedy Boulevard, which is a transit-emphasis corridor, and then CMU 35 is further north. The request is rezoned from IG to CI. The CI zoning district is consistent with the General Mixed Use 24 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. This rezoning will provide infill development of a vacant parcel within the West Tampa Urban Village. Any future redevelopment will be required to provide appropriate buffering and screening from adjacent residential uses. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'm available for any questions.

Any questions for Planning Commission? Hearing none, staff?

Hello again. Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with an aerial photo of the subject parcels. As you can see here, four parcels are outlined here in red. We have North Rome Avenue, and it's located north of West North A Street and south of West North B Street. There is approximately 253 feet of frontage along West North A Street, as well as 352 feet of frontage along North Rome Avenue, and then another 204 feet of frontage along West North B Street. Given the scope of the request, I have a lot of pictures, where I would ask if you would like to see them all or see some.

Not a lot of pictures. Enough pictures.

Enough pictures. Okay. Here's a slightly reduced, and I do have more if you would like more. This is the subject property located at West North B Street. Subject property, again, at 220 North Rome Avenue, as well as, I believe this is 210 North Rome. This is the alley. This is the subject property at 1701 West North A Street, as well as the subject property at 1711 West North A Street. This is immediately to the north, to the east. This is a Walmart supercenter to the east, the south, to the south. This is adjacent commercial parking in the C and zoning designation to the west. And this is another owned parcel to the west. Given the size and scope of, oh sorry, together the adjacent parcels create approximately 0.71 acres. Given that the surrounding uses consist primarily of commercial uses, the proposal implements transitional zoning between industrial and commercial neighborhood uses, and the property is located on a major third fair. The requested CI zoning is consistent with the surrounding development pattern. 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 for any questions.

Councilwoman Hercheck.

So, I mean, the pictures kind of answer my question, which is, we just rezoned this not that long ago. So, why the difference?

We're down zoning.

That would be a question for the applicant.

Okay. Well then, that will be my question for the applicant. Okay. Thank you.

Any further questions? Hearing none. Applicant. Okay. Very good.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Can you start with your name and where you sworn in?

Yes. Good evening. Council members, my name is Stacey Wellnitz. Hold on a second. We're working on the technology.

We have a new program, so there's a little delay.

Can you turn your camera on?

I'm, yes, tell me I'm sharing it. My light is on here.

It's a brand new program for us as well. So, can you see the requests that our technology department sent you?

Yeah, it keeps saying that I'm sharing my camera, but it won't take it. It's not allowing it. Let's never try it again.

Okay, hold on one second. We're still working on our end. Sorry about that. You're helping us work out the kinks. You should be getting a phone call here shortly. I want to hold on this guy. We could sing. Our karaoke champion could sing. A former karaoke champion. I'll say if I may. No, you cannot sing. No, not about singing. And then literally in every sense of the word, you cannot sing.

What I suggest, and Bev Keeney is. Oh, here we go. I'll tell you.

Okay, we can see you now. Can you, have you been sworn in? And now we can't hear you. Unmute yourself.

Here we go. I have not been sworn in.

Okay, can you raise your, yeah, turn the music off as much as we love your music. Okay, you got, there we go.

Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you.

So question, what was the secret? How did you get it working?

It was all on your end. I don't know.

Okay, very good. Okay. Very good. So tag, you're it. Anything you have to say for the, we did have a question from Councilwoman Hurtick as to why the request for the change. And start with your name, please. Start with your name. Councilmembers, my name is Stacey Wellnitz.

I am the architect and the architect for the Now Massage Boutique and the applicant for this project. I'm going to explain and then I'll answer your question. So I'm here to support the proposed zoning from IG to CI. This request was initiated to allow my client, the Now Massage, to become a tenant in this new commercial development.

Can you state that again?

We're having a hard time hearing you.

Okay. So I am here to support the proposed rezoning from IG to CI. This request was initiated to allow my client, the Now Massage, to become a tenant in this new commercial development. So when this project was originally rezoned, we are not the project architects for the building. We're the project architects for a tenant that wants to be a tenant in the building. So the zoning from or to IG, we were not involved in that. But when our client went to go secure a suite, we need to be a CI. We need a commercial zoning. So we were unaware that there was a zoning rezoned prior to this.

I understand. Okay, I think that answered the question. Thank you very much. Anything else that you'd like to add for the case?

No, I'm just here to answer any additional questions that you might have.

Any other questions? Hearing none. Is there anything in the public that wishes to speak to item number four? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Vieira, would you please read it? Yes, sir.

My pleasure, Mr. Chairman. I hereby move an ordinance presented for first reading and consideration. Ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1704 West North B Street to 210 North Rome Avenue, 1701 and 1711 West North A Street. In the city of Tampa, Florida, more particularly described in Section 1 from Zoning District Classification, IG Industrial General to CI Commercial Intensive, providing an effective date.

I have a motion for Councilman Vieira. Second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

Okay, motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you.

LaShawn?

Thank you so much, Council LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. Item number five is REZ 2614. It's for the property at 1732 West St. Louis Street. The request is to rezone the property from RS50 Residential Single Family to PD Plan Development for Residential Single Family Semi-Detached Use. So I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her report.

Hello again.

Quinn Steele Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the West Tampa Urban Village, and the Old West Tampa Neighborhood. It's also within Evacuation Zone C. The subject site is Allen and Purple. The surrounding area contains a mixture of uses, including single-family homes to the west, with commercial uses to the east along Rome Avenue. East of Rome Avenue are multifamily uses in the Rome Yard Redevelopment Project. There are additional commercial uses two blocks north along West Columbus Drive, which is a transit emphasis corridor. This map shows the site designated as Residential 35, which surrounds the site to the northwest and south. Community Commercial 35 is located directly east, with the NMU 35 on the east side of Rome Avenue, approaching the Hillsborough River. The request is rezoned from RS50 to PD to allow two single-family semi-detached dwelling units. The proposal is consistent with the density anticipated under the R35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal provides front-door orientation to West St. Louis Street, sidewalk connections, and alley access, consistent with the comprehensive plan. Between first and second reading, staff is requesting that the site data table be corrected to reflect the R35 future land use designation and that all front doors be clearly labeled on the site plan. Overall, the proposal provides compatible infill within the West Tampa Urban Village and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Now, I'm available for any questions.

Any questions? Here is none. Ms. Dock.

Thank you again, Chairman and Councilor LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. And this is an aerial of the subject property. So, the property is identified in red. This is West St. Louis. This is North Rome Avenue. And you can see that the site is surrounded with RS50 residential single-family zoning as well as the single-family uses. On the east side of Rome Avenue is the Rome Yard Project. That is the PD. That is the mixed-use development that is coming online currently that has that mixture of commercial and residential uses. To the northeast of the site is an existing PD. It is an older approval. That is for residential multifamily uses. Further north of the site, along Columbus Drive, you have your commercial intensive zoning. And you have those uses that are consistent with that commercial intensive zoning designation. And there is a site plan that was submitted with the request. So, I'll just zoom in on that. I just did a blow-up of that site plan. So, the request would allow for two dwelling units. The setbacks are to the north 20 feet, to the south 15 feet, to the east and west are five feet setbacks. So, the lot area is 4,879 square feet. A total of four parking spaces are required and four spaces are provided. So, on the site plan, you can see that this is the property boundary. This is the one building that would contain the two units. And access is proposed from the 14-foot alley. And so, this is within the overlay district, the West Tampa overlay. So, it does meet that standard, providing the enclosed garage parking spaces, as well as room to park outside of the actual garage. And then you can see the front door entry, which orients St. Louis Street. And then there is a pedestrian sidewalk in front of the property. And you have a walkway that makes that connection to the sidewalk. And I have elevations of the site to show. So, on the top, that is the north elevation. You can see the front doors. And then this is the rear elevation, which is the south elevation. And then the top one is the west elevation. And then this is the east elevation. And then I have a few pictures to show of the property. So, this is the subject property. This is residence to the north. This is to the south. This is the commercial to the east. This is to the west, the residential that exists. And then this is looking east on St. Louis. And then this is the alley, just to give you a picture to show it is open and used. And so, there are no waivers with this request. And there are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. And with that, the DRC staff finds the request consistent. I'm available if you have any questions. Any questions? Hearing none, applicants. Thank you.

Any questions? I don't think so. Is that your name? I'm Shitha Sherard. I'm the owner of the property. And I just hope to get the rezoning done. Thank you. Councilwoman Herta.

I just want to say I really like the architecture. The facade is just different than what we've seen. Very interesting.

You're very good. Okay. Hearing no other questions. Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Hearing none. I have a motion closed. Councilman Escalco. Second, Councilman Miranda. All does in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Councilwoman Young.

File number REZ-26-14. I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. And ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 1732 West St. Louis Street in the city of Tampa, Florida. And more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification RS-50 residential single family to PD planned development residential single family semi-detached providing an effective date.

I have a motion from Councilwoman Young. Second, Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you.

Okay. Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall. Located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Item number seven.

Thank you so much, Chairman and Council LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. Item number seven is REZ-2631. This request consists of 11 parcels, so I just wanted to show you on the map the area contained within this request. This is West Kennedy Boulevard. Into the north is West North A Street. This is Albany. And then this is Westland. So the area encompasses this block in that area. And the request is to rezone the property from PD planned development. This was approved in 2022 for residential multiple family use, retail sales, restaurant, and personal services. And the request is for a PD for storefront residential, residential multiple family, and all CG uses. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff to get there.

All right. Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the central Tampa Planning District, the North Hyde Park neighborhood, and evacuation zone C. The subject site is outlined in purple. The surrounding area contains a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses are concentrated along West Kennedy Boulevard and North Howard Avenue, which are transit emphasis corridors. Single-family detached uses are to the north, along with scattered multifamily and duplex developments. This map shows the site designated as urban mixed-use 60, which supports high-intensity mixed-use development and is concentrated along Kennedy Boulevard. CMU 35 is located to the north and west, with CMU 35, or sorry, R35 to the east. The request is for storefront residential multifamily and commercial uses at just over 283,000 square feet. The PD proposes a 3.25 FAR through a BPA with the city. Planning Commission staff reviewed the proposal and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The project provides walk-up units, commercial entrances oriented to Kennedy Boulevard, six-foot sidewalks, bicycle parking, and a bus shelter, consistent with the comprehensive plan's mixed-use corridor policies. Overall, the proposal provides mixed-use infill development along a transit emphasis and mixed-use corridor, and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. And I'm available for any questions.

Council, have any questions? Very, no. Next.

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

Do we have any photos?

I'm sorry?

Do we have any photos?

Oh, we do. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm trying brevity. Brevity's good. I apologize. Geez, I forgot the pictures. Okay, so this is the subject property on Kennedy. That's another view. And that's another view. It's encompassing that entire block, so we've got a few just to show. Albany. And this is West North A. So this is Westland.

This is on North A in Albany.

This is looking northwest. This is north to the north that's on North A. This is south of the subject property. Kennedy. This is east of the subject property. And this is east, another view east of the subject property on Albany.

And with that, I'm available for questions. Go ahead.

So my first question is, again, could you please repeat the old square footage for retail and the new square footage for retail?

Absolutely. Absolutely. Let's see. So the current approval would allow for 4,986 square feet of retail and restaurant. And the current is proposing on the current plan, they're increasing by 57 residential units and 1,629 square feet of commercial.

Okay. Yeah, that would be 6,600 square feet. So my question is, I remember this in 2022, this, if I remember correctly, had a stair step that led to the street behind it, North A, correct?

Correct.

So we're doing away with the stair step.

Correct. On the elevations, it kind of shows that for the most part, yes, it's not going to have the same elevation. Okay. I remember that being a huge portion of the community concern.

Okay. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Would you like to see the elevations again?

Oh, no.

Oh, you're good. Okay. I just wanted to make sure on the record.

Okay. You're welcome. Is there an applicant? Are they online here? David. Yeah, I see him approaching Mr. Singer.

So good to see you in Council Chambers again. Good evening, Council. David Singer on behalf of the applicant for the second time, this time 2026, as opposed to 2022. As David Singer from Mulder-Lundy, 1000 West Cass Street, I've been sworn. Again, this is the modification to a PD that was approved in 2022. We're here to add some additional units. Half the new units will be affordable based on the bonus agreement with the city. This really is to unify the block, and I'm going to talk about some of you may remember that cutout on the southwest side that had the Jersey Mikes, and we had kind of a staggered site plan that we had to deal with, and we're fixing that basically with the addition of that piece. It increases the storefront retail. And importantly, with the addition of that piece, and I'll show you this into Councilwoman Hertek's point, this actually allows us to lower the height. And so one of the residents' main concerns last time was they didn't want, like, major shadows coming onto North A Street, and that was the purpose of the stair step. But now that we're lowering the height by two stories, we think we've achieved the same goal with a different design. I want to thank staff for their attention and assistance through this process and remind Council the applicant has earned a consistent finding across the board in the staff report. So here's what we're doing. Agreed to the bonus agreement, 10% of the overall units will be affordable, as you'll see dramatically more efficient design of the structure, further activation of Kennedy, and unifying that site, which results in the building height reduction. Again, here's the location, so you're oriented right on Kennedy, a couple blocks off of Howard. Again, on the transit corridor, and there'll be a bus stop added, a hard bus stop with a shelter right in front. So this site is bounded here in red. It's an assemblage of 11 parcels, all of which are owned currently by the applicant. The internal alleyways have already been vacated. We've shaded in that southwest section in green. This is really what we're talking about, is that southwest section. 2022 wasn't possible. Couldn't come to an agreement with that piece of things. It was a single-story commercial structure. It was built in 1979. You just saw the photos, and you're probably familiar with it, and so now we can unify that site. Here are updated improvement and statistics regarding the overall build. So we're still on the UMU 60. We're still doing the PD. It's still mixed use. It's still two acres. The FAR, because we can expand into that shaded green area in Jersey Mike's, expands to 3.25, but it requires a bonus agreement. And so we entered into that with the city attorney's office. Part of the bonus agreement means that there will be 10% affordable housing. 292 units. That retail increases to 6,600 or so. Again, the parking is 392, even though 319 are required, and that building height goes down to six stories. It was eight previously. I've put here the difference between the approved site plan in 2022 and what we're proposing. And so if you look down here, this is really what we're talking about. This was that Jersey Mike's assemblage down here, and there were three different access points on that corner. Now there's one access point. It makes things a lot safer, allows us to extend sidewalks, and importantly, it allows us to add additional walk-up units here. That wasn't allowed before. It also allows for some more landscape buffering. This here is the same site from above, a little more detail. Again, these are the walk-up units that can be added, and the unified commercial down here with the unified sidewalk that travels around the corner as well. Two fewer stories, 30 affordable housing units. We're increasing the neighborhood retail to 6,600 or so. I want to show you what the height difference looks like. So again, on this side is what was approved before, and on this side is what is proposed, the proposed elevation comes down two stories. We have had extensive communication with the neighborhood, in-person, Zoom, telephone calls, emails. I think you will find there is not very significant community opposition to this. I think they are generally happy with what the applicant is proposing. There will be 61 new trees on site, and each, just for your council's reference, each unit is going to come with a bike parking space, and we think that's pretty important. I'm here to answer your questions. We think this was a good project in 2022, and it's a better project now. Thanks.

Councilwoman Hertek, Maniscalco, then Young.

I am going to be the naysayer here that says 120% is not affordable housing, just period. It isn't. And so to me, that's not acceptable. Like, that's not worth it. But my bigger concern is I remember this case, and the reason we had to go from four loading berths to zero was because of that Jersey Mike's. Now the Jersey Mike's is gone, yet we still have no loading berths, and now we have more retail. So we're going to be blocking streets. I'm incredibly disappointed that you did not think about adding a loading berth now that you have the space to do so. That's a no for me, just straight off the top. I'm just really surprised. And if I remember correctly, the stair step went to four stories at North A.

I don't remember that, but you might be right. I can't tell you for sure.

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

Councilman Mascocco.

Thank you very much. I like the changes from what we have proved before, and I'll tell you why. First, the front-facing Kennedy is going to be all retail, so you're going to close off that ingress and egress into the Jersey Mikes. I like that on Westland, now you have one entranceway instead of multiple. I like that you have the walk-up units. I like that you've reduced it. Although it doesn't go down to four stories, it's going to be an overall from eight to six level. So I see a lot of positives in this project, and I just want to make those comments. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Young.

My comments were also going to be for the affordable housing. I mean, we have UT that's not far from this development. You have graduating students from UT who may have jobs in downtown who maybe want to live close to where they work. And, you know, we just had a conversation earlier about, you know, wanting to have more affordable housing. And, I mean, while 120 is on the chart, it's just it's really not. It's really it's not affordable for people. So, I don't know, I mean, did you all, you know, consider, you know, out of, because, I mean, you're going to have, if I'm understanding correctly, out of 292 units, 30 of them are going to be at 120. That's a lot of units, like the 292, not the 30. So, I'm just, you know, I'm just saying, like, I get it, but, yes, it's in the chart. But if we're really thinking about, like, what people can actually afford, if we're doing a bonus provision, is there a, like, can we consider, you know, out of that 30, maybe some are 80? Like, or is that something that you all, you know, thought about?

Yeah, I can tell you the applicant did a very deep dive into how to make this project economically feasible for them. And they absolutely considered if they could divide the percentage. And they determined that they could not. And I think that, you know, the 120 is as good as they can get at this point. I don't know what else to tell you. I'm not disagreeing with you in terms of your analysis. You know, currently, if the project stands as approved, there's zero that are even at 120. And, you know, I think they're doing the best they can in a pretty tough market and a pretty tough economy. And that's the best answer I can give you. Again, not disagreeing with you.

I appreciate your honesty. Thank you.

Can we get staff?

Thank you so much, Council of Shondock Development Coordination. I just want to state on the record regarding the height. The current PD is approved at a maximum height of 85 feet. And the request that is before you has a maximum height of 85 feet. So I just want to just state for the record.

Can you repeat that?

The 22 PD, the plan development that was approved, that is currently on the property, is approved at a maximum height of 85 feet. And the request before you is a request at a maximum height of 85 feet.

It's the same?

Yes.

Okay. I just, that's what I wanted to hear again. So can you explain that?

Stories versus feet. Yeah.

The issue is, can you come to the microphone?

Excuse me, David Singer for the applicant. Exactly as Councilman Clendenna just said, it's six stories versus eight stories. And the top of the design feature, the parapets, get to that 85, but the actual residential roof does not.

Plus I plan as 85 feet, period.

I'm just trying to figure out how a parapet is 20 feet tall.

So you've got what's approved and you've got what's proposed. This here gets you to the 85. These two little design features here. And I'm not the architect, so it's hard for me to give you a good design reading of this.

But that's not 85 feet versus 85 feet. They're both, the height for both of these was 85 feet. That's not what I'm seeing here.

I think if Council would condition this to six stories, we certainly would make that change between first and second reading.

So my question was, and this is just Stephanie, I think I already have this for staff. I think I already know this answer. This concern about affordable housing, what they've asked for has been negotiated as part of our code and plan. And so, I mean, that's, that's, that's, I mean, that question has kind of been asked and answered. If we don't like that, we change the plan. We don't, yeah. Well, we don't have to approve the resolution.

Right, yeah.

Okay, Councilman Carlson.

David, the rendering that you just showed, I recall this case, but I don't remember what the renderings look like. You said earlier that it stepped down toward the neighborhood in the previous one, and now you've come down to two stories. Do you have a side view rendering of what it looked like stepping down?

I don't have, Councilman Carlson, David Singer, I don't have what it used to look like. This is an elevation rendering looking, this is North A, and this is Westland. So you can see the design now.

So one of the things you talked about also was the shadow, and you said with the, whatever, about the 85 feet, but as it is right now, the rendering shows a shadow. I don't know what time of day this is, but it shows a shadow in the streets. I don't know if it goes beyond that, but do you, are the residents satisfied that the shadows are sufficiently not hitting?

It's a good question. In the community meetings that we've had, everybody seemed pretty happy with this design. We did not get pushback from lowering to six stories. And again, if we don't move forward with this today, you know, they could build it to what it was approved in 2022. And I don't think anybody wants to do that. And I'll tell you, Mitch Cortay from the development team is here. If you do have a specific question about the design, he might be better equipped to answer it than I am, and I'm happy to bring him up to the podium.

If there's no, if there's no any further questions, we can speak here for the public. If there's any further questions. Hearing none. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item?

Jonathan Scott. Jonathan Scott bounces to the podium. I wanted to help him out a little bit. The, they do have like a previously approved loading birth waiver. Now, talking with their development team, like they're going to share like a loading dock with the solid waste. So they'll have like a move in and move outs. And they're also proposing to have like some on-street parking spaces on that northern street, which is good for moving in and move out. So, you know, staff did support this.

Can, can you show us where that would be on a site plan? Did you get the site plan there? Because I'm telling you now, street parking is not going to exist. It will be snapped up. There will be no place to park on the street.

Yeah. So they have like a solid waste loading area here, which they could share for the loading. And then they're proposing like some on-street parking spaces in the right of way, which will be, they can use that for loading kind of too. That's the, I thought I would just help them out a little bit and point some of that stuff out.

I appreciate that, but I have never known a delivery driver to park, to park any further than they have to park. They're going to park in the street. And there's just no, and if they're going to go to the compactor, they're blocking the sideway.

Sure.

Or the sideway, sidewalk, which is a pedestrian issue. So this is why I just cannot believe that you would bring a plan that didn't include at least one loading berth. So if your architect is here and is willing to speak to that, I would love to hear it. Because I appreciate you, Mr. Scott, but I just, I don't see that happening in the real world.

Mr. Singer is the architect here. So we have a member of the development team here. He's not the architect, but Mitch Quarte. Come on forward and start with your name, please.

Yeah, Mitch Quarte. Do you want me to say my address or anything else? No. Okay. So with the loading, we do have some loading here in this area that has direct access to the retail. And this is what we talked through with staff, and we all came to an agreement that this was sufficient in conjunction with all the others on-street parking that we're providing. I can tell you we build multifamily projects across the country, and we almost never include loading. Just because with these infill projects, everyone is used to loading on the street, and we've had more retail in this in plenty of projects and have had no issues. So I think that's how we get comfortable with it, just based on experience.

So, again, my issue is finding a dedicated space to do loading. So whether that be dedicated, if it's dedicated on-street parking for delivery, or however you want to do it, and work with Mr. Scott and the parking team to figure that out. Because I don't disagree that we need to find a solution for urban living, but if that's just simply blocking a space for delivery, that's fine. But I am just to not – to have an answer to park around the block is just never going to happen.

Understood. Yeah, I mean, we can try to work to block off a few spaces, potentially. I think a lot of the loading is also happening not in the middle of the day, like very early in the morning when those spaces are available and, you know, there's not a ton of cars on the streets, which is also what we see at other projects. So, again, that's how we've gotten comfortable with the design.

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

Does anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Is somebody online to wish to speak? Okay. Who is that person? Carlos Ramirez.

Yes, sir. I'm here.

Hello, Carlos. Have you been sworn in?

I'm going to ask you my screen, please.

Were you sworn in? I have been sworn in, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. I guess he probably was listening when you did it. Okay. Well, let's do it again, then. Raise your right hand, please.

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.

Okay. Start with your name again, please.

Carlos Ramirez, North High Park. Go ahead. And one second. My screen is...

We can see you.

Can you guys see my presentation?

We did a moment ago, yeah.

Can you guys see it now?

Yep.

Yep, we're here.

Okay. All right. Carlos Ramirez, North High Park. Evening, Chairman and Council have a lot to cover, so let's go ahead and get started. We've been working with the developer and appreciate their engagement with us. Two critical issues still remain that we have not been able to resolve, and therefore, we can't support disapproval. It just has to do with parking and shade trees. On parking, we are asking the developer to maximize on-site parking used by their tenants. This issue is not the number of spaces available, but rather the residents actually using what is provided. We've seen repeated saturation of nearby residential streets as apartment tenants park off-site due to reduced parking allocations or parking spaces not being included in the lease. This overflow affects neighborhood quality of life and creates unsafe conditions for fire and rescue vehicles that must be able to pass through these streets without obstruction. Just some examples that we have here around the neighborhood, people parking on that little bulb out for the trees. Over here, as we were talking about, we have U-Hauls at the beginning and end of every semester. We see them blocking the streets. In this street here, we have a lot of cars that park on both sides, which make it really hard for emergency vehicles to get through, creating unsafe conditions. And then it bleeds over to the residential streets, creating damage to the shoulder and eroding it. Also, because there's not a lot of parking available, people start parking closer to the corners, creating sight distance issues. And, of course, safety. Here's one here. Here's another one here. So, we just want to bring this to the attention. We understand that minimizing parking is great, but it only works when there's reliable alternatives. Unfortunately, in Tampa, every step forward in public transit seems to come with two steps back. And we remain far behind other cities where the developer has built their units. This slide illustrates the challenge. Long transit wait times and significantly hotter temperatures both push the residents towards choosing a car. In this environment, reduced parking supply doesn't change behavior. It simply shifts the burden onto surrounding neighborhood streets. For the tree planning, our goal is to maximize type 1 canopy trees. The decorative ones are nice. The ornamentals are nice. But we're looking for shade, especially the areas abutting the residential areas. These streets provide essential shade and help transition from higher density, taller buildings, 85 feet, to lower density residential uses across the street, creating a more comfortable and visually balanced edge. In this corridor, the emphasis applies primarily along North A Street and the north half of Albany and Westland Avenues. Given the extreme heat events we've experienced, expanding type 1 canopy coverage is not optional. It's critical for livability and resilience.

Thank you, Carlos. Okay. Ms. Dock?

Yes, Councilor LaShawn, Dock Development Coordination. There is, I've heard discussion regarding six stories and an agreement to provide six stories from the applicant, except that is not a maximum height. So, if the direction from Council is to possibly add a loading berth, and then maybe if the applicant is revising the plan to a max of six stories, we would like direction as to a maximum height.

85 feet, six stories.

That is, and currently they have a maximum height of 85 feet, just to remind Council. They're doing 85 feet with eight stories.

Six stories, they need to come down.

I mean, I think that would be subject to discussion of Council, but I don't have a problem with 85 feet as Kennedy Boulevard. Is there anybody else in the public who wish to speak to this item? Mr. Shelby.

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

Ms. Correct, LaShawn, Doc Development Coordination, I do have a revised revision sheet. I've added the condition regarding the six stories, and once I get the confirmation of the max height, I'll add that if it is the pleasure of Council to vote on this. If they are, if the applicant is agreeing to add a loading space, that cannot be added between first and second reading. We need to see what would be shifted in order to provide that loading space. There may not be major changes, or it could be a shift, so it would be up to the applicant to, one, agree to these changes, and then, two, determine if they agree to add a loading space. Let me speak to what my observations on some of this.

One, it's very urban, a very urban-style development. I'm empathetic with the argument from the public comment about the shade tree coverage, and that is something that I have some concerns. So, before we close this, I want to hear some feedback on the shade tree coverage, because of everything that I've heard, that's the thing that strikes me.

That's something that people have to deal with 365 days out of the year. I'm not as concerned, again, the loading thing, because this is a real city now. I mean, we're not building suburbia. This is like real city. You move to cities, and you have those types of momentary inconveniences in this type of an environment. The height, I honestly don't think 85 feet is a problem, and they've already got approval to build 85 feet. Whether that is six or eight stories, I don't know. And if you look at that property, the property behind it is not developed, right? The property on A Street, is it developed? Staff, is that property developed? So, it's not like there's single-family houses sitting back there.

LaShawn, dock development, coordination, it is vacant. I have the bonus. So, I mean, all this area is being redeveloped into very intensive, more intensive than we've seen in the past in this area.

And, again, when we start thinking about Kennedy Boulevard as a transit corridor, we've got to have that density along Kennedy Boulevard to be able to support transit if we're ever going to get there.

So, applicant, can you please come up and discuss the tree situation?

David Singer for the applicant. We worked with Natural Resources to provide as many trees as we possibly could. Part of the issue is the utilities that are there and finding space for all the shade trees that we can possibly put. But we want as many shade trees as can be there as well. It makes for a better project. It makes for a better design. It makes for a safer project because pedestrian capabilities of walking, especially with those walk-up units on A Street. There is discussion about moving some of those utilities and hopefully moving them underground. It's not currently required. But as we get to the building permit phase, if it's possible to underground them, we would absolutely put more shade trees and work with Natural Resources to do that.

So, let me ask you this. If they're with the bonus provisions and everything else, I mean, I would want to see those utilities. I mean, I would be really happy with this project if you had come for us with an underground utility plan to be able to accommodate shade trees and then all the other things that that comes with with underground utilities. Natural Resources, is there any – what do you see in this project of the expansion of – if these utilities were undergrounded, what kind of increase in shade trees would we be able to provide in this important corridor?

Good evening. Joseph Cermak, Forester Examiner. So, this site is governed by the Kennedy Corridor overlay. Two of the three trees on the list are type 1 trees. That would be an oak and an elm. The remaining tree is a type 2, a holly, also still more of a canopy tree. So, if it was undergrounded, the requirement would be to provide shade trees.

Okay. Hold on. Did you want to add something to this from the development team? I saw you bounce up. I'll give you an opportunity.

David Singer for the applicant. We've been in extensive discussions with TECO about doing exactly this. We just don't have an answer from them, and we don't have their requirements. And so, I can't tell you at this point whether they're going to have us do it, not do it, where it would go. It is our intent that we would absolutely like to do it. It's a better project. It's a much better project when that happens. I haven't heard from Councilor Miranda yet, so let's go to Mayor.

Well, I've just been listening and observing. But thank you very much for the opportunity. And I'm going back to the parking. You have 292 units, and I would imagine that a lot percent has a car. I know people want to walk and want to ride bikes, but I ain't seen too many people that don't have a car that do have a bike. And I'm being sincere with you. And you're a great guy. You do a great presentation. But then the question that I ask myself is, if these are young people, especially from the University of Tampa, which is growing every day, it's over 11,000 going there now. And what percent is going to have visitors that need a parking space? Not only the tenants that are there, but the visitors that are associated with 292 units. It may be 1%, 5%, no percent, 10%. I don't know. But I'm sure there's some scale of economy that it's gone by countrywide what that is. I don't know what that is. And I'm afraid that that's the one that's going to tip the iceberg to where they're going to park anywhere.

David Singer for the applicant. I appreciate that comment very much. And it's part of the reason why we have exceeded the parking requirement by 73 spaces. There's only 319 that are required. We're providing 393. And so we've taken that very much into account and drawn on the experience that the local team has had across the country to provide those extra 73 spaces.

That being said, I believe, Mr. Chairman and council members, that the university, when they built a building, they're built for parking also. And they have ample parking. That doesn't mean that when they leave, they go somewhere else. Wherever they're going may not have ample parking.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the ones that haven't spoken at the end of that. Okay, and then I'll come back to you. Councilman, did you want to speak? Did you change your mind? That was my question. My question was going to be how many parking spaces were they provided? Councilman Viera, then back to Councilman Viera.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I, you know, in reading council members, I think there's a collaborative way to yes on this. But question to Mr. Singer, sir, if I may, on the TECO issue, is that something that you can inquire on between first and second reading? Or if that is of some, you know, conditional relevancy to council members?

Yeah, Mitch Cordy. Yes, I think it is. Name again. Yeah, Mitch Cordy. Sorry. Yes, I think we can. And we've been in constant discussions with them. I think what we've seen with utility companies, sometimes things just change. And like David said, it is our intent, 100%, to underground those utilities. But we just, I don't have, like, an undergrounding plan or utility plan or anything fleshed out with TECO. I will say, like, we're going to push as hard as we can. And I don't know why they wouldn't let us. And we can try, between first and second reading, we can try to get some kind of response that, yes, that is feasible. And from there, I think it's just where the location is, what other utilities are kind of in that area, and can we fit the trees we want. But, again, like David said, we want the shade trees. Like, we want that great resident experience and pedestrian experience. And so we're going to push for that as much as we can.

Thank you. And I just inquired because, you know, given the proximity, the UT issues, et cetera, the need for housing there, especially for students and so forth, just something that I think many of us want to get to yes on. But if that's an issue, just a potential consideration. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's, I mean, I think we could forgive an awful lot of stuff on this stuff if we could get that big bonus of being underground these utilities.

I think that's what I'm saying. It gets you trees. It gets you a lot of things.

Councilman, I'm going to say. Finally, to my question, which is simply, bonus provision, one of the things is undergrounding. Is it not? One of the provisions is undergrounding. I would rather you spend your bonus provision on undergrounding the utilities than 120% affordable housing, which is not affordable. I'm just saying. That might be something to look at because it sounds like trees are a big issue to the neighborhood. Undergrounding is something you want to do. Undergrounding is something we want to do. I mean, so because that's a part of the bonus provision, I'm still really stuck on this 85 feet. So if someone could talk to me about what you actually need for six stories, because it clearly isn't 85 feet if you showed correct renderings. So can you please tell me what you actually need for six stories?

75 feet.

Okay.

The 85 feet was, again, overruns, other things on top of the building. I think we're 71 feet to the top of the top floor, essentially, or to the top of the sixth floor.

So what would it take, Ms. Dock, to change? I mean, changing the bonus provision, we can't do that between first and second reading, can we?

There will be a question, I believe, for Ms. Wells.

Good evening. Kate Wells with the legal department. It is possible to amend the bonus provision agreement if they're willing to. I would just have to file a substitute agreement with council in advance of second reading.

I was saying we can't do both affordable housing and underground.

I chose to do that, but how this works is they have a kind of a Chinese menu of things that they can pick to be able to give us this and we give you that. So it's a negotiated.

That would be my recommendation is to inquire our staff as to what you're requesting, whether it's possible, and then it's up to, again, the negotiation with the applicant.

Because, I mean, in my mind, we need both. I mean, it's still next to a university. We still need affordable housing. We just talked about that a few hours ago.

Ms. Wells.

Thank you, Kate Wells.

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

Okay. No, I appreciate that. I mean, I just, obviously, we need both things. I would say in, you know, responding to, we did get public comment, and it was with the tree, so I understand that point as well. But, I mean, we need a lot of things in the city, and I would rather be able to do as much as we can than have to pick either or because they're both important. So, thank you.

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

I mean, I'm shocked that no one else cares. If you saw the photos of the neighborhood, I mean, you clearly don't drive in this neighborhood.

I live in this neighborhood. You don't live in that neighborhood. I do. It's right down the street from me. I've been here all the time. I think having one, if we can, can you look into having one, at least one designated, like, Councilwoman.

Well, they just talked about blocking, but then that blocks off space for parking.

That's fine. People should not be parking on the street to who live in that development.

Okay. Well, but I'm not hearing a sentiment from council, but that's a burning issue. Councilman Carlson, go ahead.

Yeah, I think there's, David, there's a whole bunch of things that we talked about. I would be okay voting for this at first now. And then the most important thing to me would be, I mean, listen to the different feedback, talk to Carlos and the Neighborhood Association, and figure out what would, I mean, they're the ones that have to live with it every day. And sure, there are people coming in and out of the neighborhood, but this is a traditional grid system in this neighborhood. And so if you can't turn right one place, you can turn in another place. So I would talk to them and try to figure out, of those things, I mean, talk to them tomorrow, and of those things, figure out with staff what's the best course of action and put as much of this stuff in. While I saw the floor, Councilmember Hertek talked about the height. And your colleague said you could go to 75 feet, knowing that there might be some infrastructure in there above. I don't know. You could work this out with staff. But if there's a way to say we're going down to 75 feet, but give the ability to put antennas or whatever has to go up on top. I'm just throwing out ideas. There's a whole bunch of things on the table. You probably can't do all of them. But I would check with the people who live around it to make sure that you're proposing the things that they want the most, and they come back to us. That would help me.

So for staff, with the height of 75 feet, there are opportunities for certain types of things to exceed that level, right? There's 75, and then if you have accessory things and can pop through that. Still roll accessibility and things like that. Yes.

LaShawn Dock Development Coordination. Correct. And that could be a note that's added to the site plan.

Okay. So this is what I'm hearing. I'm hearing the undergrounding and type 1 trees, 75 feet as a height restriction added to the site plan with the additional information that Ms. Dock just said referenced the accessory structures. And is that all I'm hearing? Let's get a census. So the applicant has clear direction.

May I? Yes. Yes, sir. So, I mean, yeah, on some of these, I'm looking for good faith efforts coming forth and then for further consideration and evaluation. For me, there's not a line in the sand on some of these issues, but just best faith efforts, which, of course, you guys are going to do.

And I do find that Carlos, the person who spoke on public, is generally very amenable to, like, urban type of development. And also, I think he's not one that's normally the naysay or kind of a person. Councilman Hurtick.

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

Councilman Carlson, did you have anything else to add?

One last thing I want to say. I agree with Chair Clendenin also about the urbanization. I remember as far back as 20 years ago, so Linda Salsena led an effort to reimagine Kennedy. And we have to have street-facing density to help with transportation, and we also need retail, which is when. So that's why I really want to support this. But we need to consider everything the council said, and most importantly, the people who live around it. Thank you.

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

Yes, thank you, Councilor LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. So the three additional conditions are adding a loading space on the site plan in front of the property and also amending the site plan data table and elevations to a maximum height of six stories or 75 feet with some allowances for that additional height. And then the applicant is confirming with TECO if they are able to underground the utilities. And this would allow for a type one. The street loading space that you're re-referring to.

Yes. Okay, very good.

And I would like to mention, Council, if I may, the typical time frame between first and second reading is two to three weeks. And the applicant has already mentioned they have a hard time reaching out to TECO or getting an answer. They are supposed to confirm if they can underground. That just may not be enough time to allow it. So I did speak with the applicant and stated they may want to ask for additional time between first and second reading. I don't think they can – I can't say they can't, but it will be tough to get that confirmation.

Hold on.

Mr. Shelby, you wanted to add something.

Just a question with regard to the – there was discussion regarding the bonus provision agreement, and you had conversations regarding that.

Is that remaining the same, and will that appear unchanged at the second reading?

That's up to the applicant.

Well, that involves underground – well, there was some discussion as to whether that involves undergrounding utilities or not.

Well, I think for the bonus – I think where we're at is with the bonus agreement and the affordable housing was what they chose to do. These underground utilities is something to be able to get the PD through if they – I mean – On top. Yeah, so that's on top. It's apples and oranges for the bonus agreement on this particular project. So Councilman Hurd, did you get something to add? Yes.

So North – I want to be more specific in the site plan of where the delivery parking. So I wanted that to be on Northwestland. Did you have that? Yeah. I mean, you already have. On the utility side. Yes, it's the perfect space for it because it's easy to load into. It's a great place to stop. So to me, it makes the best sense. If you lose a couple of parking spaces, you lose a couple of parking spaces. That's what we'll anticipate then.

Okay, so we're good with this direction. Okay, so everybody good? Yeah.

Applicants good?

My idea's already been canned, but I guess –

No, actually, it's kind of not. We're still alive.

Can I just ask – you didn't nod, so are you okay with the general direction of this? And then the second thing is when do you want to come back for a second reading?

Thank you. David Singer for the applicant. We are – we have heard everything you said. We are okay with the direction this is heading. We would like to discuss with Ms. Wells in between first and second reading the renegotiation of some of the provisions of the bonus agreement. If someone is so inclined to move this for approval today, we're fine with you adding the provision that it's 75 feet capped. We would ask that you give us three weeks for second reading. Can we get a date from staff?

We only do regular meetings every other week.

August 27th?

But yes, Councilman. Okay, can I get a motion to close?

We're okay with the 27th. We just said August 27th. We are okay.

Okay, I have a motion to close to Councilman Vieira, a second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Yeah, I have it. Councilwoman Hertik, you have the privilege of reading this one.

Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I have received and provided to the clerk the amended revision sheet.

Okay, so I could just say amended revision sheet?

Yes.

You know, I don't like to legislate from the dais – or I don't like to change projects from the dais. It's just not something I like to do. Um, but I think that ultimately this – the changes are so minute. Um, so file number REZ 26-31, uh, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration and ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 106, 108, 110, 112, North Albany Avenue, 108, North Albany Avenue, Unit 2, 2101, 2117, and 2121, West Kennedy Boulevard, 105, and 107, North Westland Avenue, and 2110 West North A Street in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in Section 1 from Zoning District Classification Plan Development to Plan Development Storefront, Residential, Residential Multiple Family, and all CG uses, providing an effective date. Second.

With the revised revision sheet.

With the revised revision – with the amended revised revision sheet. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtek, a second from Councilwoman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it unanimously.

Okay, motion – okay, you already said it. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27th – sorry, August 27th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

And, Council, if I may – I need to – there was something in my district I need to call Chief Burke on, some stuff, so I was messaging with him on it, but so I have five, ten minutes hopefully. Okay, we should be – if anything, just –

We should be – we should be good on this one. Thank you. Okay, item number eight. What time do you have to leave?

Brea Dixon Development Coordination Agenda. Item number eight is REZ 2643. Request to rezone 5024 North 30th Street from RS50 Residential Single Family to IG Industrial General. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

I'm still planning commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the East Tampa Urban Village, and the East Tampa 1 Neighborhood. It's also within evacuation zone E. The subject site is outlined in purple. Surrounding area contains a mixture of industrial, commercial, residential, and vacant properties. Parcels zoned IG are located to the north, south, and west, while single-family homes are primarily east of North 30th Street. This map shows the site designated as TU24, which supports a range of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses. R10 is located immediately east across North 30th Street, and then further north is the CC35 designation. The request is to rezone from RS50 to IG. The IG zoning district is consistent with the TU24 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The request will continue to recognize industrial lands for their support as key economic engines, excuse me, within the city. Additionally, the proposal directs growth within the East Tampa Urban Village through infill development of a vacant parcel in an area characterized by industrial and commercial development. Any future development will be required to provide an appropriate buffering and screening adjacent to nearby residential uses. Overall, Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezone and consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I am available for any questions.

Council have any questions? Hearing none.

Yes, ma'am. Brian Dixon, development coordination. We'll start with an area of view of the subject property. Here you can see the subject property outlined in red. It is located at the northwest corner of North 30th, as well as East Wilder Avenue. The subject site is currently vacant and undeveloped. Here we have a survey that shows, again, North 30th and East Wilder Avenue. I also have photos. The subject property, same subject property from East Wilder Avenue to the north, east, south, and several properties to the west. The subject property is approximately 0.14 acres and is presently, again, undeveloped. Given that the surrounding uses primarily consist of industrial uses and a few single-family detached residences, the request that IG zoning is consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood located within the West Tampa overlay. Future development must comply with overlay standards at the time of permitting. Development coordination and compliance staff review the application and find the request to be consistent with the City of Tampa and development regulations. I'm available for any questions.

Councilman, any questions? Councilwoman Herta.

Can you put the map up again of the current zoning?

So, the majority of that is what? Industrial general IG. So, you have the IG pretty much everything else in this area.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

We've got this. We need to... I guess that's up to the applicant, right? So, why don't we just pause a moment until we get another council person back? Well, I'll actually ask the applicant. We have four persons here, which is a quorum. We can wait for the fifth. Are you ready to present? Who is the applicant here? Who is the applicant? Here we go. This room. Go ahead. We're good. We're good. I'm actually the agent for the applicant. Start with your name, please. Maurice Jones. Okay, great. Do you have anything to add? Not necessarily, but I'm here for questions. Does council have any questions? No. Hearing none. Does anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? We have a motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from?

Second. Councilman Carlson. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you, Councilman Maniscalco.

Would you read it?

I have an ordinance rezoning the property in the general vicinity of 5024 North 30th Street in the city of Tampa, Florida. Am I particularly described in section one from zoning district classification RS 50, residential single family to IG, industrial general, providing an effective date? Was there anything else? Anything?

Okay. We have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Item number, oh, I'm sorry, go ahead, clerk. Motion carried with Young and Vieira absent at vote.

Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you.

Ms. Dock?

Thank you, Council LaShawn, Dock Development Coordination. Item number nine is REZ 2645. It's for the property at 2404 and 2408 Stewart Street. The request is to rezone the property from PD Plan Development. This is a PD approved in 2008 under Z0858 for a place of religious assembly. To PD Plan Development for place of religious assembly and RS 50, residential single family. And I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her report.

Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. We are submitting revised staff reports. To the record, the only revision corrects the description of the request. There are no changes to the analysis or our consistency finding. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Palmetto Beach neighborhood, and it's located within evacuation zone A in the coastal high hazard area. The property is outlined in purple. The surrounding area is primarily developed with single family detached homes, with some two-family residences and public-semi-public uses. Commercial uses are located one block west along South 22nd Street. This map shows the site designated as Residential 10, which surrounds the property on all sides. R20 is located approximately two blocks north. DeSoto Park is one block east, shown in green, which is that recreation open space designation. And CMU 35 is one block west along South 22nd Street. The request is for a place of religious assembly within the PD zoning district on the west and a single-family detached home within the RS50 zoning district on the east. The proposal allows the existing church to remain while creating one single-family residential lot consistent with the density anticipated under the R10 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Between first and second reading, staff is requesting revisions to the site data table, correction of the FAR, and labeling of all front entrances on the site plan as outlined in our staff report. Overall Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with the comprehensive plan, and I am available for any questions.

Does Council have any questions? Hearing none. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you again, Council LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. This is an aerial of the subject property. So the property is identified in red. It is located on Stewart Street, which is located here. This is Harper to the north. This is South 24th Street. You can see that the property is surrounded with RS50 zoning and the use of residential single-family in that surrounding area. And this request would allow the applicant through this PD to take the existing property boundary and split it and create a lot along the east boundary in this location for a single-family residence. So this would create the RS50 lot here within this boundary with the proposed two-story residence located there, and then the church would remain, and no changes are proposed to the church building on the west side of the property. Once the lot is split, the PD, this would be zoned PD, the church parcel, and this would be the RS50. And the PD parcel would have 18,704 square feet. The RS50 site would have 5,035 square feet. The parking required for the place of religious assembly is 36 spaces, and 23 spaces are provided. And you can see this is the outline of the church building. Vehicular access to the site is from either South 24th Street for the surface parking located here on the west side of the building or from Stewart Street. And then there's surface parking that's located here on this lot. And I have pictures of the subject property. So this is the picture of the property, the church property, the vacant area that shows the rear of it. This is east. This is looking south on 24th Street. This is located south. This is if you turn around and look west. This is on Stewart Street, and this is west of the property. And this is to the north. So there are waivers requested, and they are generally just due to the fact that this exists, the site exists. But there are five waivers requested. One is 27-283.7. It's to reduce the required parking spaces from 36 to 23. The next waiver is to 27-284, and it's to reduce the required 10-foot use landscape buffer to 5 feet along the east. And then the next is 27-132, the special use criteria. This is to reduce the minimum lot size for a place of religious assembly from the required 20,000 square feet to the proposed 18,704 square feet. The next is a waiver to 27-284. It's to reduce the 10-foot landscape buffer to zero. This is on the north boundary. And then the last waiver is 27-284, and it's to omit planting of six required VUA trees interior of the VUA and to pay into the tree trust fund for trees not planted. And so with that, the DRC staff reviewed the request, find the request inconsistent, and there are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. The inconsistent finding was from transportation and natural resources due to the waivers requested. And I'm available if you have any questions.

Councilor, I have any questions. Hearing none. Thank you. I see it's Juan Vasquez is online. Juan, stand by if you can hear us. We're working to get you up. Yes, very good afternoon. Hey, we can hear you, but we've got to get you on camera. Is your camera on? Yes, I do. There you go. Okay, can you raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk, please?

Okay, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth and nothing but the truth?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Start with your name, please.

Juan Vasquez. Okay, do you have anything to add to the case? Yeah, so good afternoon. Juan Vasquez is an engineer record and applicant for this rezoning. So as she explained, this property currently has a church on it, and it used to have a smaller building where we're putting the house. All that we're asking for is for the lot to be split so that we can have that single-family home standalone in its own lot. That's RS-50, which requires a 50-foot width on the lot. So we're keeping the church in the PD, in the original PD, and we're splitting out the house in the RS-50 zoning. We are meeting the impervious error ratios and other zoning codes that are required. There are some waivers, as she explained as well, that we're requesting. Most of these waivers were already part of the original PD.

We understand.

So simply that, like I said again, there was a smaller building on the right side where we're putting the house. That got torn down, and we're putting a new construction home there, and it's being split out. That is why we're doing this PD re-zone, to PD and also to RS-50. Okay.

Thank you very much. Anything else to add? Okay. Does the council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there any of the public who wishes to speak at the side? I'm seeing none. Can I get a motion to close? Motion to close. Councilman Miranda, second for Councilman Mattiscock. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. Councilman Hertec.

All I want to say is that I just adore this church. It's a beautiful, beautiful church, and if you've never been by it, I bike by it on Sundays sometimes. It's a really nice part of the community. Thank you.

Councilman.

Okay, here we go.

Go ahead.

That's the chair matter number nine, file number REZ 26-45. The order is being presented for first reading consideration. An ordinance reads only property in general vicinity of 24-04-2408. Stewart Street in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly scribe in section one from Sony District Classification, PD Plan Development to PD Plan Development, Place of Religious Assembly, and RS-50, Residential Single Family, Providing an Effective Date.

Second.

I have a motion to Councilman Miranda, second for Councilman Mattiscock. And that's with the revision sheet between first and second. With all the revision sheet, first and second, and any other things that are needed. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Thank you. Next. Okay. More. Motion carried with Young and Vieira. Yeah, go ahead, sir.

Motion carried with Young and Vieira absent at vote. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall. Located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you. Ms. Dock?

Thank you, Council LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. Item number 11 is REZ 2656. It's for the property at 1715 West Overpar Drive. The request is to rezone the property from RS100 Residential Single Family to RS50 Residential Single Family. And I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her a report.

Quinn Steele, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the University Planning District in the Forest Hills neighborhood. It is not located within an evacuation zone. The subject site is at London Purple, and the surrounding area is developed almost entirely with single-family homes. This map shows the site designated as a Residential 10, which surrounds the property on all sides. R6 and ROS are to the southeast. The request is to rezone from RS100 to RS50. The proposed zoning would allow consideration for two dwelling units, which is consistent with the density anticipated under the R10 future land use designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. While RS100 is the predominant zoning along this portion of West Overpar Drive, the proposed RS50 zoning remains consistent with the adopted future land use designation and provides for more efficient use of an underutilized site. The overall Planning Commission staff finds the proposed rezone inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, and I am available for any questions.

Councilor, have any questions? Standing none. Ms. Cox. Thank you again, Councilor Sean Dock, Development Coordination. And this is an aerial of the subject property. The property is outlined in red. This is Overpar, and just for orientation, this is North Armenia Avenue that's located here. So I will provide an analysis of this area, as is usually provided whenever there's a request to reduce the zoning designation and the lot frontage required in that designation. So you'll see that surrounding this subject property to the north, west, south, and east, the zoning is RS100. And you would have to move two blocks south. You get to the RS60 zoning that's located here. And then you've got the golf course that has that and some of the parcels that have the RS75 zoning. That's to the southeast and east of the subject property. But an analysis is included in the report. But I also want to show you and talk to the conforming map that was provided. So I'm going to read into the record, the analysis. I'm going to start, this is the subject property, which is hatched, and this is Overpar. This is North Armenia. So the first analysis I have is of this block frontage. The second part that I will read into the record is for the frontage on the south side of Overpar. And then the next I will read is along the east side of Rome. I provided in the report the west side of Rome, but we'll talk about the overall, and then I'll also give a further analysis of the frontages. So the subject property is a part of the Carroll Heights subdivision. It was originally platted in 1955. It's lot 9, and the east 25 feet of lot 8. The area of analysis includes 165 parcels. 97% or 160 parcels have been developed with widths ranging from 50 feet to over 100 feet. 3% or 5 parcels have a width of 34.99 feet or less. These parcels are remnant parcels, so they are unbuildable parcels, just to put on the record. So the subject block face on the north side of West Overpar Drive between North Armenia Avenue and North Rome Avenue contains 10 parcels, including the subject parcel, with widths ranging from 0 to greater than 100 feet. Excluding the subject parcel, one remnant parcel measures 0 to 34.99 feet in width, four parcels measure 75 to 79.99 feet in width, two parcels measure 80 feet to 99.99 feet in width, and four parcels measure over 100 feet in width. There are currently no parcels with frontages less than 75 feet. The block face located on the south side of West Overpar Drive between North Oakleaf Avenue and North Rome Avenue contain nine parcels. One parcel measures 50 to 54.99 feet in width, five parcels measure 70 to 74.99 feet in width, and three parcels measure 80 to 99.99 feet in width. On the east of the subject parcel on the block face on the east side of North Rome Avenue between West 4 Drive and West Country Club Drive contains a total of 11 parcels, with two parcels ranging in width from 50 feet to 54.99 feet, and three parcels ranging in width from 75 to 79.99 feet, and one parcel ranging in width from 80 to 99.99 feet in width. Five parcels ranging in width of 100 feet or greater. So in the overall study area, what I've done is also provided for you the widths, the percentages that have 70 foot lots are wider, and also 80 foot wide or larger. You'll see the majority of the lots have at least a 70 foot width. But the overall study area has identified 97% of parcels over 50 feet in width. 3% of the parcels at a width of 49.99 feet or less. In the study area, 88% of the parcels are greater than 70 feet in width, and 56% of the parcels are greater than 80 feet in width. While there are a variety of lot sizes in the vicinity, the majority of parcels in the overall study area are developed at a width greater than 70 feet. With only three parcels measuring at widths ranging from 50 to 54.99 feet, staff finds the proposed request to be patently inconsistent with the existing development pattern of the overall study area. And with that, I am available if there are any questions. I have pictures of the site. I am so sorry. Go ahead. I've forgotten the pictures twice. So, okay. So, this is the subject property on Overpar. This is the east end of the property. It is pretty wide because it has 100 feet of frontage. So, I just wanted to show a couple of pictures, the east side of that property. And then we'll go to the surrounding uses. So, this is south of the subject property. This is across the street. This is another view south. And south, you see the residential single-family detached west of the subject property, the wider frontages. This is north of the property, and this is on Veronica. If you went north to the end of the cul-de-sac, this is northeast on Veronica, looking east. And then this is northwest of the subject property. Thank you very much. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any questions. Very nice.

Good evening, City Council. So, I leave Rosario, 2504 West Crest Avenue, and I've been sworn. My client is requesting to rezone this property to do an Euclidean from an RS100 to an RS50. Understandably, that there are a lot of the lots within this neighborhood. They are 75 feet wide. Some of them are 70 feet. But the zoning, when you look at the zoning page on the property page, it says RS100. But the majority of these properties are not 100 feet wide. They're 70, 75, 80. So, they don't match their zoning. Right directly across the street from my clients, there's a lot that's 50 by 130. My client's lot, yes, it's 100 by 224 feet long. So, the only thing he wants to do is to be able to make it an RS50 for two single-family homes and who had the buyer enjoy a really nice, pretty lot with a lot of mature trees. We're not trying to get rid of the trees. The trees have to stay. We did have to take a tree out because it was dangerous. And when the tree person went out to do the inspection, they said we had to take it out dangerous because it was literally falling out of the car, on the houses. So, it was done in a matter of, like, three days. We got the permit, and we had someone out there, and they took it down. And everything was cleaned up, and we're just waiting. That's all he wants to do is to be able to do two single-family homes so two families can have some beautiful, beautiful piece of land because it goes from the front all the way to the other side. You can't build on the other side. There's not enough width to build. So, whoever does purchase this property will have a 50-foot by 220-feet property in length, which is nice for the neighborhood. I did speak with a couple of people from the neighborhood. They gave me some phone calls, and I also explained to them what the zoning is, that an RS50 is a single-family, one house, one family, one kitchen. Unless the property owner is homestead, then they can apply for the ADU. But there cannot be multifamilies when it's an RS50. And they were okay and satisfied with those answers. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item?

Anybody in the public? Come on. Hello. I didn't see you sitting back there.

And I do want to say that I did receive, both Council Member Vieira and I received, a letter from the Forest Hills Neighborhood Association. So, I made a copy for Mr. Rosario, and then I'm just going to let you all see it, and then we'll give it to the clerk. I just wanted to put that in the record.

Okay. And I suspect we'll have somebody standing at the podium here momentarily with her name.

But I just, I felt it was important to say that we got this letter.

Come on forward and start with your name, please.

Hello, I'm Bev Keeney, and I do live in Forest Hills, a beautiful area. And many of you have come and helped us celebrate our 100th anniversary. It is an established neighborhood, and it is a larger park-like setting. And I'm here representing people that maybe Ms. Rosario did not speak to. We also sent letters to you, Councilman Hertak, from the Beebe family, and I was hoping you would read that in, just how long they have lived there and expected it to be the same. The neighbors on each side of her, they are unable to come. They are in their senior years, you know, and I told them I would speak for them. I've only come to you to speak one time before, and that was to thank you for helping us with the flooding in our area and to getting monies to get those people back on their feet. So we have a large area that is prone to flooding. We see that this is at the top of the hill. They have not changed it for a long time. As you put two homes in this area, you're going to have less permeable area for the water to run down the street. I can tell you that I often talk about that, you know, once you've changed something. I have never been here before to speak to you guys about multiple bigger density. And I did attend a meeting in our community center talking about a plan in the future for going down to the smaller amount. The homes on each side, as she told you, they are larger lots. We would prefer that there would just be one single home that matches the characteristics of the neighborhood there. And it would assure a lot of people that they had planned to, the one lady right behind them, to pass down their property for multi-generational purposes. They do not plan to leave. These are their forever homes. And to put a single, two single houses with less than 10 feet between them and next to their own property, it's going to be, yes, it's a nice place for them to live, but it's an eyesore. It's like a slap in their face a little bit. So I'd like a little bit more time for our neighborhood to talk about this because, as the person told you, RS-60 is down where I live, closer to the golf course. But we have a lot of green space, a lot of trees, and we'd like to retain that if possible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in the public wish to speak to this item?

Start with your name, please. Louis Vasquez. I live on that street. I guess my concern is I want to put two family dwellings, and there's currently two on there now, so would that make it three? There's an apartment in the back that was built years ago. I'm not even sure if it showed up or even got permits for it, but there's an apartment that's in the back and then the house. So, of course, we would like to keep the neighborhood looking the way it does. I live two houses down, and I have a big lot. There are long lots and great for kids to be raised and so forth. But to have change like that and to kind of squeeze two houses in there, it just will take away from what I think is what the neighborhood has been for years. I've been there 32 years now. So that's my concern is, like I said, there's currently two dwellings on there now. What are they going to do with the other one if they do get approved, which it will make it three.

Thank you.

That's my concern. Thank you.

Anybody else in the public wish to speak to this item? Yes, ma'am.

Clint Steele, Planning Commission staff. I just wanted to make a correction. In our presentation, we said that the site could be considered for a maximum of two dwelling units. The correct number is a maximum of five dwelling units. So this site has frontage on both sides of West Overpar and this cul-de-sac here. I will defer to city staff on what the zoning district would allow if they could split it up. But the maximum density for the site in the residential 10 designation is five units.

Thank you for the correction. Thank you. Applicant, would you like a rebuttal?

Yes, sir. So, yes. On the property at this moment in time, there is a single-family home, and there's an ADU that was built, I can't even tell you how long ago, at least 40, 50 years ago. So, yes, like this young lady said just now, if they were able to leave that house like that and they wanted to actually take the future land use and do that five dwelling units, then I can see that being major problems for the neighborhood because it outright allows it, right? But we're going to want to do two houses, single families, that AD, that building in the back, that's going away.

Address. Oh, I'm sorry.

The accessory structure that's in the back, that would go away because when you're going to build a house, you're going to make it look pretty. You're not going to leave a 50-year-old building that nobody even lives in there. It's dilapidated. You're not going to leave that there. You're going to have one single-family home with a really pretty lot and then one extra home. My understanding from what I've done in the research, the property that's directly across the street, which is an RS-50, the property owner on there from the neighbors that called me has said they have done illegal homes, illegal rooms, and they are renting out to other people. So, of course, that particular house has a lot of cars because they're doing something illegal. But what we only want to do is just do two single-pretty-family homes and let somebody enjoy the neighborhood also that would like to be able to have their family be there for the next 30, 40, 50 years, just like they have now. But people can't afford 100-foot lots right now. But they could probably afford a 50-foot lot and be able to enjoy the same beautiful neighborhood that they have now. That's all. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a motion to close to Councilman Hertek, second to Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. I will say that this is exactly one of those things that I ran on about preservations of neighborhoods. This clearly is not – this neighborhood has developed in a certain way, and neighbors have expectations. And, I mean, as you heard from our city staff on the development, and she gave a very detailed description of how these lots are laid out, and that is that expectation of that neighborhood. And if we were to start carving up these, it would completely change the character and the feel of this cherished neighborhood. I mean, this is a historic neighborhood in the city of Tampa that I think we should protect. Councilwoman Hertek.

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

Thank you. I have a motion from Councilwoman Hertek. I have a motion from Councilwoman Vieira.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The eyes have it unanimously.

Motion to deny carried unanimously. Oh, I'm sorry. Motion to deny carried with young absent at vote.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Item number 12.

Thank you, Council. LaShawn, Dock, Development Coordination. The last item is item.

Hold on, LaShawn. Hold on, LaShawn. Let's see.

So we don't read.

Okay, I'm confused.

There's a substitute ordinance.

There are two substitutes. The substitute ordinance, the substitute resolution, but that's not to be adopted until the second reading. Second reading.

Oh, I hear what you're saying.

Read the substitute ordinance. Okay. Now, yes, I understand that part. I'm going, why are we reading the resolution in person? Okay, I understand. Yes, thank you. Thank you.

LaShawn, Dock, Development Coordination. Thank you. Item 12 is REZ 25116. This is for the property at 3101 North Florida Avenue. The request is to rezone the property from CI Commercial Intensive to PD Plan Development for storefront residential commercial with all CN uses. And I'll turn it over to Quinn to give her a report.

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

Any questions? Okay.

Thank you, Councilor LaShondock. Development Coordination will provide the aerial map of the subject property. So, the property is outlined in red. This is Florida Avenue, and you'll see that along Florida Avenue, the CI zoning exists along with those commercial uses. As you head further west, you have the RS-50 zoning in the majority of this area with the residential single-family development. To the east is the same RS-50 zoning. So, you have that commercial corridor that runs along Florida Avenue. And I have the site plan submitted by the applicant, but I did want to state on the record that the application was continued at the City Council evening hearing on May 14th. The applicant wanted to redesign the site. I know that a couple of versions of this actual site plan have been submitted over time, and the applicant was working on the redesign, including the location of the solid waste. But what is before you within the staff report in the data table is provided. The updated square footage is provided. So, the commercial development is comprised of 700 square feet. You can see that this is the site that is submitted into the record. This is Adelaide. This is Florida Avenue. You can see the commercial that is located here, which would front Florida Avenue. The retail spaces. These are the entrances for the pedestrians to enter the actual property. And vehicular traffic would enter the site along the south. And there are parking spaces that are located internally on the site. Also, there is a sidewalk that is proposed. And for each entry point, there is a walkway that would provide connection to the sidewalk that's proposed. So, the lot with itself has 50 feet of frontage. The lot contains 6,098 square feet. The maximum building height proposed is 69 feet. There are a total of 6 parking spaces required, and 6 spaces are provided. 2 bicycle parking spaces are required, and 2 spaces are provided. So, the plan depicts a 4-story structure. It contains a total of the 700 square feet of retail space, as mentioned. There are 6 dwelling units that are located on floors 2 through 4 within the structure. And what I'd like to do is show you the elevations that are submitted by the applicant. So, this is the south elevation. This is the north elevation. And then on the left, on my left, this is the west elevation. And then this is the east elevation. Then I have a few pictures of the subject property. So, this is the property. This is the south boundary of this property that's located here. And that's Florida. This is east of the property. This is to the south. This is to the west of the property. So, the DRC staff reviewed the request. There is one waiver requested. It's the 27-284. And the request is to reduce the 15-foot landscape buffer and 6-foot masonry wall to a 5-foot landscape buffer with a 6-foot wooden fence. And DRC staff found the request consistent. And there are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. I'm available if you have any questions. Thank you. Council, I have any questions. Hearing none.

Good evening.

Good evening. I'm Bryce Pinson with HAP Associates, 1000 North Ashley Drive, Tampa, Florida. She did a great job covering most of the location and everything. So, I'm going to skip over that.

Thank you. We appreciate that.

So, again, the request is just to rezone from CI to a PD for storefront residential for all CN uses. This is from our landscaping plan just to show you a little bit with more color. So, the development is requested to have a 2.0 FAR, which requires a bonus provision agreement, and the BPA agreement that had been worked out was offering an affordable housing unit. There's currently six dwelling units proposed, so one of them would be affordable. The site is only required to have six parking spaces, and with the size of the site, that's all we could provide. And I do want to clarify, she mentioned the dumpster location for the reason we continued to this hearing was because we were originally proposing a dumpster over here. And even with cutting the upper stories of the building back to allow for space for the dumpster to pick up, there was no auto-turn exhibit. We could physically have the truck turn into the site to be able to front load and pick up the dumpster. So, what we worked out with solid waste was being able to roll out the dumpster to this location here, pick it up, and then roll it back on trash collection days. We are exceeding the green space requirements, only 39 square feet of green space is required. We're providing over 500 square feet. Two new trees are required, which we are providing up here. And this goes over the waiver of the use-to-use buffer. Oops. And the reason for having a wooden fence instead of masonry wall is because that's what is allowed within the Tampa Heights Local Historic District. So, that's why we were complying with the ARC requirements. We received a letter of support, which I can submit into the record, from the Tampa Heights Civic Association. I don't know why I switched it over. But, so we did receive a letter of support, and I will submit that to the clerk. That's all I have, unless you guys have any questions.

Councilwoman Hurtek.

I will say that this is exactly the kind of development that I wanted to see on a 50-foot wide parcel. Like, I know that you, and, I mean, your only waiver is something for the Historic District. You have more green space. This is, I can't wait to see this, like, be developed and built. Because in this area, this is exactly what we were hoping to see, and I hope this is a model going forward for others. So, I'm just amazed. It's beautiful. I'm just, I'm very excited to see it. You chose a good place to do it. Tampa Heights is all about density and maximizing, but fitting in with the neighborhood.

So, congratulations for doing a very good job with that. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none. Okay, I have a motion to close to Councilman Miranda. Second from Councilman Miranda. Scalco, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it. Good project. Okay. We left off with, is this Councilman Carlson, I think?

No, she read it.

Yeah, yeah. I think we're back to Carlson. And remember the substitute ordinance.

Sorry, I just read substitute. Substitute ordinance, yeah. Uh, move, file number REZ 25-116, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Substitute ordinance. I just left out the word substitute. I'm supposed to say substitute. Okay. Substitute ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Is that the right place? Uh, yes. And ordinance is re-zoning property in the general vicinity of 3101 North Florida Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in Section 1 from zoning district classification. CI commercial intends it to PD, plan development, storefront, residential, commercial, all CN uses, providing an effective date.

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion for Councilman Carlson, seconded for Councilwoman Hurtek. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Okay. Motion carried with Young absent at vote. Second reading and adoption will be held on August 27th, 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.

The substitute resolution?

No, that'll be on the second one. Yeah, that'll be next time around, next round. Okay, I'm trying to jump in. Okay, that concludes our regularly scheduled program.

New business, Councilman Carlson. Yep, thanks. Councilman Vieira. I just have a brief one, if I may. I was asked, obviously we're all friends with the Smith family, Walter Smith. They're having a birthday party for their son. And I was asked to do a commendation for, it would be in the name of the Smith family, posthumously for Dr. Walter Smith. I actually can't be there. I don't know. I think they're speaking to Councilman Young on it, but just making the motion.

Okay, we have a motion from Councilman Vieira, second from Councilman Maniscalco for a commendation for the Walter Smith family. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Off-site. Off-site. Yeah, off-site. Anything else? No. Okay, Councilwoman Hurtek. Councilman Maniscalco.

Yes, remember this morning I had mentioned that I wanted to make a motion. It's to give it a commendation off-site to the Sons of the American Revolution in conjunction with the City of Tampa. They're going to be having a Liberty Tree dedication at Julian B. Lane Park, August 29th at 10 a.m. And this is, of course, in conjunction with the 250th birthday of our country. So I just want to present that commendation off-site.

I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Thank you. Councilman Miranda.

Yes, sir. One, it's come to my attention that Laura DiRiccio, Executive Aid to HR Director Kelly Austin, is retiring after 30 years of service with the City of Tampa in celebration of her time at the City. I would like to make a motion to present her with a commendation for her retirement celebration on September the 11th.

Is that in council?

I think it might be off-site.

Okay. Off-site. Okay. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye's have it. Anything else, Councilman Miranda? That's it, sir. I do.

Okay.

Okay, thank you. Share. Yes. I'm making a motion. For those of you that don't know, I am traveling to Columbia again next week to represent the City of Tampa for LEED. We're going to start in Bogota and then go to Barranquilla and we're going to award Barranquilla a plaque on their LEED gold certification, which is similar to what the City of Tampa has. I would like to make a motion to provide an off-site commendation to our sister city, Barranquilla, Columbia, in recognition of obtaining LEED City's gold certification.

So I have a motion from Chair Clemdenin, a second from Councilman Vieira. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. I can go in for translation if you need me.

Those surveys, say por favor.

That's all I need to know. Okay. Any opposed? Okay.

Thank you. Very good. Okay. Can I get a motion to receive and file? I have a motion to receive and file for Councilman Maniscalco, for Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. We beat our timeline by 26 minutes.

Oh, yeah.

Peace.