TAMPA CITY COUNCIL
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2026, 5:01 P.M.
DISCLAIMER:
THIS FILE REPRESENTS AN UNEDITED VERSION OF REALTIME
CAPTIONING WHICH SHOULD NEITHER BE RELIED UPON FOR COMPLETE
ACCURACY NOR USED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
ANY PERSON WHO NEEDS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY NEED TO HIRE A COURT REPORTER.
5:07:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.
WELCOME TO A CROWDED TAMPA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER THIS
EVENING.
IT'S GOOD TO SHARE THE PAIN AND HAVE YOU ALL WITH US THIS
EVENING.
I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND ASK THE CLERK
TO CALL THE ROLL.
5:08:05PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
HERE.
5:08:06PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
HERE.
5:08:07PM >> HURTAK?
5:08:08PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
HERE VIRTUALLY.
5:08:11PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
HERE.
5:08:11PM >>LUIS VIERA:
HERE.
5:08:13PM >>BILL CARLSON:
HERE.
5:08:14PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HERE.
5:08:15PM >>THE CLERK:
WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM.
5:08:17PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK IS PARTICIPATING
VIRTUALLY THIS MORNING.
CAN I GET A MOTION?
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON, SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN
MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
5:08:26PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AND CHAIR CLENDENIN, I JUST WANTED TO SAY
THAT I'M PARTICIPATING VIRTUALLY TODAY BECAUSE I'M NOT
FEELING WELL.
BUT I AM HERE AND I AM LISTENING.
5:08:39PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU ARE AND YOU ARE ALWAYS.
5:08:40PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY, IF I
MAY FOLLOW UP, BECAUSE WE HAVE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS
TONIGHT, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THE OFFICIAL VOTE AS A ROLL
CALL VOTE.
COUNCILWOMAN, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARE NOT VISIBLE ON
SCREEN, PEOPLE MAY NOT KNOW WHETHER YOU ARE OR NOT
PARTICIPATING.
TO THE DEGREE YOU CAN BE ON THE SCREEN, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
5:09:07PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
I DON'T ANTICIPATE BEING OFF THE SCREEN.
5:09:09PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WONDERFUL.
PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'RE HEARD TO BE RECOGNIZED IF THERE'S
SOMETHING YOU WISH TO HAVE THE CHAIR RECOGNIZE, AND WE'LL DO
THE ROLL CALL VOTE SO WE CAN RECORD YOUR VOTE SEPARATELY.
THANK YOU.
5:09:21PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
GREAT.
THANK YOU.
5:09:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I'LL KICK OFF THE AGENDA REVIEW.
CAN I GET A MOTION TO REMOVE ITEMS 11 AND 12 SINCE BOTH OF
THEM WERE MISNOTICED?
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
5:09:36PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
5:09:37PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT IS OUR SIMPLE VOTE.
EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF REQUESTS FOR CONTINUATIONS.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THOSE?
5:09:48PM >>BRIA DIXON:
BRIA DIXON, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
SINCE WE REMOVED TWO ITEMS, YOU ONLY HAVE TWO MORE ITEMS TO
CLEAR FROM THE AGENDA.
ITEM 7, REZ 26-76, REQUESTING CONTINUANCE AND WAIVER OF 180
DAYS.
IF GRANTED, ITEM CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 12, 2026 HEARING.
THE APPLICANT SENT AN E-MAIL REQUEST TODAY.
STAFF CONFIRMS BASED ON THE AGENDA, WHICH WOULD BE THE
PLEASURE OF COUNCIL.
5:10:12PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
DO YOU KNOW IF THIS IS THE FIRST
CONTINUANCE ON THIS ITEM?
5:10:16PM >>BRIA DIXON:
IT IS THE FIRST CONTINUANCE.
5:10:18PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION TO WAIVE THE 180 DAYS AND THE
MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NOVEMBER 12.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA,
33602, AND THAT IS AT 5:01 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 12, 2027.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
5:10:44PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
HERE.
5:10:46PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
5:10:47PM >> HURTAK?
5:10:48PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
5:10:49PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
5:10:50PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
5:10:51PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
5:10:52PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
5:10:53PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE ITEM 7.
5:10:58PM >>BRIA DIXON:
NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 10, FILE REZ 26-63.
APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE AND WAIVER OF 180
DAYS.
IF GRANTED, CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 12, 2026 HEARING.
THE REQUEST --
5:11:14PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ITEM NUMBER 10, I NEED A MOTION TO WAIVE
THE 180 DAYS AND THEN A CONTINUATION TO NOVEMBER 12, 2026.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
5:11:28PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
QUESTION.
IS THIS ALSO THE FIRST CONTINUANCE ON THIS ITEM?
5:11:32PM >>BRIA DIXON:
FIRST CONTINUANCE.
5:11:33PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO
NOVEMBER 12 WITH THE WAIVER TO NOVEMBER 12, 2026 AT
5:01 P.M., 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA,
FLORIDA, 33606.
I'M SORRY.
33602.
I JUST GAVE MY OWN ZIP CODE.
5:11:51PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
5:11:51PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
5:11:54PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
5:11:54PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
5:11:55PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
5:11:57PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
5:11:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
5:11:58PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO CONTINUE ITEM 10.
5:12:01PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT CONCLUDES YOUR AGENDA?
5:12:04PM >>BRIA DIXON:
YES.
5:12:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA?
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
5:12:14PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
5:12:14PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MR. SHELBY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ YOUR --
5:12:19PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THIS EVENING, IT WAS ASKED THAT I BRING TO COUNCIL AND THE
PUBLIC'S ATTENTION JUST A FEW RULES REGARDING QUASI-JUDICIAL
HEARINGS.
RULE 6 G STATES AS FOLLOWS, ALL PERSONS WHO PROVIDE
TESTIMONY, INFORMATION OR OPINION REGARDING A PETITION IN A
QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER PENDING BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MUST
DISCLOSE ANY DIRECT OR INDIRECT BUSINESS OR PERSONAL
INTERESTS BETWEEN THEMSELVES AND THE PETITIONER OR APPLICANT
WHICH IS REQUESTING ACTION.
THE INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE USED TO DENY THE PETITION OR
THE MATTER BUT GOES TO THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE,
INFORMATION, OR OPINION PROVIDED.
ALSO, ONE OTHER THING -- ACTUALLY, TWO OTHER THINGS.
RULE 6-J-3 STATES AS FOLLOWS: NO REQUESTS FOR A CONTINUANCE
BY THE APPLICANT OR PETITIONER SHALL BE GRANTED AT THE
QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AFTER THE APPLICANT PETITIONER
HAS COMPLETED ITS INITIAL PRESENTATION UNLESS UPON
DETERMINATION BY CITY COUNCIL THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR
PURPOSES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
THE LAST THING THAT I'VE BEEN ASKED TO REMIND THE PUBLIC OF
IS PLEASE DO NOT DISPLAY ANY SIGNS OR GRAPHICS OR ANYTHING
THAT WOULD BE DISTRACTING DURING THE MEETING.
IF YOU DO WISH TO SHOW ANYTHING TO THE COUNCIL, IT WOULD BE
DURING YOUR TIME AT THE LECTERN.
IF YOU HAVE ANY PRODUCT OR EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY THAT YOU
WISH TO GIVE AT THAT TIME, THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE
TIME TO DISPLAY IT.
THANK YOU.
5:13:49PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SINCE WE HAVE A LOT OF NEW PEOPLE THIS EVENING IN THE
AUDIENCE, AT EACH ONE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS YOU'LL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
IF YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE, YOU ARE ADDRESSING CITY
COUNCIL AND FACING THIS WAY.
JUST LIKE SHE IS FACING THERE.
THE MICROPHONE IS EMBEDDED INTO THE PODIUM.
WHEN YOU START WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY, START WITH YOUR
NAME.
ALWAYS START WITH YOUR NAME.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A LIGHT ON THE PODIUM.
IT WILL TURN GREEN.
AT THAT POINT YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO COMPLETE YOUR
STATEMENT.
AT TWO AND A HALF MINUTES IT WILL TURN YELLOW.
THAT'S TELLING YOU YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS TO WRAP.
ONCE IT TURNS RED YOU ARE DONE.
YOU NEED TO STOP AND GO BACK AND TAKE YOUR SEAT.
MR. SHELBY.
5:14:33PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME COUNCIL.
IF YOU HAVE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM, WHICH IS AVAILABLE
OUTSIDE, THEN WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE WHO ARE
PRESENT IN THE ROOM TO WAIVE THEIR THREE MINUTES TO GRANT
THE SPEAKER AN ADDITIONAL MINUTE.
SEVEN PEOPLE CAN SIGN THAT FORM GIVING UP THEIR THREE
MINUTES TO ALLOW THE SPEAKER TO HAVE A TOTAL OF TEN MINUTES.
THAT'S PER COUNCIL'S RULES.
AT THE TIME, IF YOU DO HAVE A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM, PLEASE
APPROACH AND GIVE ME THE FORM SO I CAN CALL THE NAMES OF THE
PEOPLE ON THE LIST TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE HERE AND PRESENT AND
YOU WAIVE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU.
5:15:09PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN
MANISCALCO.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
5:15:15PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
5:15:16PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE OPEN.
KICK US OFF.
5:15:18PM >>BRIA DIXON:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 IS REZ 26-20, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE
4701, 4708, 4710 WEST MCELROY AVENUE FROM RS-75 RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND SEMI-DETACHED.
I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
5:15:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
LET'S PAUSE HERE FOR ONE SECOND AND SWEAR
EVERYBODY IN.
IF YOU ARE HERE THIS EVENING TO PROVIDE PUBLIC TESTIMONY TO
ANY OF THE CASES TONIGHT, BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL
QUASI-JUDICIAL, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE
SWORN IN BY OUR CLERK.
IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR
RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN BY THE CLERK.
EVEN IF YOU DON'T THINK SO, GO AHEAD AND DO IT JUST IN CASE.
[OATH ADMINISTERED]
5:16:08PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
5:16:25PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, SWORN IN, WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
26-20 LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT AND
THE GANDY SUN BAY SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD.
SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE A AS WELL AS THE
COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.
SURROUNDING AREA CONTAINS A MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL USES.
THERE ARE COMMERCIAL USES TO THE NORTH ALONG WEST GANDY
BOULEVARD WHICH IS A TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR.
ALONG SOUTH WEST SHORE BOULEVARD ARE MULTIFAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL USES.
DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH IS MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX
WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 DESIGNATION.
TO THE EAST IS ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 10 FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION.
TO THE WEST OF THE SITE ALONG SOUTH WEST SHORE BOULEVARD IS
WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE CMU 35 FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION.
TO THE NORTH ARE RESIDENTIAL 20 DESIGNATED LANDS DEVELOPED
AS A MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FIND THE PROPOSED PD WOULD PROVIDE
AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
TO THE WEST AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH AND THE
ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH AND
EAST.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORIENTS THE FRONT ENTRANCES OF ALL
UNITS TOWARDS WEST McELROY AVENUE WITH PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALKS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DIRECTION.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST WILL PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN PROXIMITY TO LOCAL TRANSIT
EMPHASIS CORRIDORS AND TRANSIT OPPORTUNITIES AND SUPPORTS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY TO DIRECT RESIDENTIAL GROWTH TO AN
AREA WITH EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES AND EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
5:18:06PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
5:18:16PM >>BRIA DIXON:
BRIA DIXON, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
START WITH AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE ARE THREE PARCELS.
EACH ARE OUTLINED HERE IN RED.
SUBJECT PARCELS ARE FRONTING WEST McELROY AVENUE AND THEY
ARE JUST EAST OF SOUTH WEST SHORE BOULEVARD.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
DWELLINGS, RS 75 ZONING TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS TO THE EAST.
THERE IS A WAREHOUSE OVER HERE ON THE LEFT AS A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT.
TO THE NORTH ANOTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR WALGREENS
PHARMACY AND IMMEDIATELY NORTH THERE IS ALSO RM 16 ZONING
DESIGNATION FOR SINGLE STORY ATTACHED UNITS.
HERE ARE SITE PLANS AS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THOSE ARE THE SEMI DETACHED UNITS.
UNITS 1, 2, 3, 4.
UNITS 5, 6, 7 ARE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO TWO-STORY SEMI-DETACHED DWELLINGS
TOTALING FOUR DWELLINGS AND ONE SINGLE STORY AND TWO
TWO-STORY DETACHED DWELLINGS FOR TOTAL OF SEVEN DWELLINGS.
SEMI DETACHED UNITS WILL PROVIDE SINGLE CAR GARAGES AND ONE
SINGLE CAR DRIVEWAY WHILE EACH SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
RESIDENCE WOULD PROPOSE A TWO CAR GARAGE AND TWO CAR
DRIVEWAY.
ACCESS FOR EACH UNIT AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IS ON McELROY
AVENUE.
THE PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35 FEET.
HERE ARE ELEVATIONS.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS OF UNITS 1 AND 4 FROM THE NORTH.
THE SOUTH.
THE EAST, AND THE WEST.
5 AND 6 UNITS, TWO STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, THIS IS
NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
LASTLY, HERE IS THE SINGLE STORY FROM THE NORTH, THE SOUTH,
THE EAST, AND THE WEST.
I ALSO HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, IT IS THREE PROPERTIES -- SORRY, THREE PARCELS.
THERE ARE QUITE A FEW PHOTOS.
THIS IS SUBJECT PROPERTY ONE.
PARCEL ONE.
PARCEL TWO.
PARCEL THREE.
DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.
DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH.
THESE ARE THE MULTIFAMILY -- SORRY, THE SEMI -- SORRY THE
ATTACHED DWELLINGS TO THE NORTH.
AND THEN THIS IS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TO THE EAST AS WELL
AS THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST.
THERE ARE NO REQUESTED WAIVERS.
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION AND FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE
APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS
APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE
COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING
AS STATED ON THE REVISION SHEET.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
5:21:39PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, THANK YOU.
APPLICANT.
5:22:15PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
ALEX RIOS WITH RIOS ARCHITECTURE.
I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO REZONE THESE THREE PARCELS FROM
RS 75 TO PD TO ALLOW FOR SEVEN UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS SURROUNDED BY MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL
AND MULTIFAMILY ZONING TO THE WEST AND NORTH.
AND THIS DESIGN INTENTIONALLY RESPONDS TO THAT TRANSITION IN
INTENSITY.
THE MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT IS CONCENTRATED TOWARDS THE
WEST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT GRADUALLY TRANSITIONING TO LARGER
LOTS AND LOWER SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TOWARDS THE
EAST.
THE TWO WESTERN LOTS CONTAIN SEMI DETACHED TOWNHOMES THAT
ARE COMPATIBLE IN LOT WIDTH, SETBACKS, AND HEIGHT
REGULATIONS FOR RM ZONING STANDARDS.
WHILE THE REMAINING LOTS TRANSITION TO TWO STORY AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING
RS ZONING DISTRICTS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT TRANSITION HERE WITH THE TWO SEMI DETACHED
STRUCTURES.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TWO STORY AND ONE SINGLE STORY
DETACHED HOME.
HERE IS A DIAGRAMMATIC, SCHEMATIC RENDERING OF THE
TRANSITION.
WITH THE MORE -- WITH THE TOWNHOMES, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND
A PART OF THE SINGLE STORY SHOWN IN THIS IMAGE.
FROM A NATURAL RESOURCES STANDPOINT, THE WIDER EASTERN LOT
ALSO HELPS PRESERVE SEVERAL EXISTING ON AND OFF-SITE TREES
THAT ARE LOCATED THERE.
FOLLOWING A CONVERSATION WITH A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER
TO THE SOUTH, WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO LOCATE REQUIRED TREE
MITIGATION ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE PRIVACY.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT STORMWATER IS A CRITICAL -- IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT TO SOUTH TAMPA.
WE WORK WITH STAFF TO ESTABLISH A SCHEMATIC STORMWATER
APPROACH THAT BEGAN WITH LIMITING TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA PER
LOT TO NO GREATER THAN 55%.
WE ALSO PERFORMED A PERCOLATION TEST AND ESTABLISHED
EXISTING WATER TABLE TO DESIGN A LARGE, SHALLOW RETENTION
AREA THAT DEMONSTRATES SCHEMATIC COMPLIANCE WITH THE
APPLICABLE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS.
THAT IS LOCATED IN THE BACK RIGHT HERE.
THIS APPLICATION PROPOSES NO WAIVERS, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO
SEE STAFF'S CONSISTENT FINDING.
WE RESPECTFULLY SEEK YOUR APPROVAL.
THANK YOU.
5:24:47PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK TO ITEM NUMBER 1?
5:25:07PM >> GOOD EVENING, STEPHANIE POYNOR.
I NEVER TALKED TO MR. RIOS.
NEVER HEARD FROM HIM.
HE NEVER CALLED ME.
I CHECKED MY PHONE.
UNLESS I'M TOTALLY WRONG.
DID I TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT THESE LOTS A LONG TIME AGO AND
IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ACTUAL DEVELOPER.
I DON'T KNOW.
BUT BOTTOM LINE IS, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANYBODY IN THE LAST
60 DAYS ABOUT THIS.
NOW, HERE'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT.
OVERALL, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT.
BUT WHEN EVERYBODY STARTS SCREAMING AND HOLLERING ABOUT
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT YOU CALL IN THE
REAL WORLD A DUPLEX, LET'S JUST A CALL IT WHAT IT IS.
IT'S A DUPLEX.
THIS RIGHT HERE IS EXACTLY WHY PEOPLE DON'T LIKE DUPLEXES
BECAUSE THEY GO IN AND THEY BUILD OVER 50% IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE.
SO ALL THE DUPLEXES, THE TWO DUPLEXES, ARE OVER 50%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
WHY DON'T THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME -- THEY ARE
SINGLE-FAMILY.
WHY DON'T THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME STORMWATER
REQUIREMENTS AS A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, ONE OF THE BIG REASONS WHY I DON'T
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT IS THESE PROPERTIES ARE ALL OWNED BY
THE SAME FOLKS AND THEY TOOK ON A HELL OF A LOT OF WATER
DURING THE HURRICANES.
SO THESE PEOPLE LOST ALL THEIR HOMES, THEIR RENTALS AND THE
ONE THEY LIVED IN, AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS CONTINUING TO MAKE THE PROBLEM
WORSE BY YOU'RE BUILDING THIS ALL UP, SO WHERE WILL THE
WATER GO?
GO TO THE PEOPLE TO THE SOUTH OF THEM, TO THE EAST OF THEM.
AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WE'RE NOT EVEN BUILDING IT LESS
THAN 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
HOW'S THAT WORK?
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH BUILDING SEVEN HOUSES BECAUSE
THE LOTS ARE HUGE.
I TOOK A LOOK AT IT.
I KNEW THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE PLACE.
BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, IT JUST MAKES ME SICK.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE SAME STORMWATER STANDARDS, IF YOU'RE
GOING TO CALL IT SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, DETACHED, SEMI
DETACHED, IT SHOULD STILL BE 50%, NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT
IT.
I DON'T CARE HOW BIG A VAULT THEY BUILD, NOT GOING TO HOLD
THREE FEET OF WATER.
THANK YOU.
5:27:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ONLINE WE HAVE LINDA ERICKSON.
LINDA, ARE YOU THERE?
5:27:27PM >> I'M HERE, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
5:27:29PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I CAN.
WE NEED TO HAVE YOU SWORN IN.
I CAN'T SEE YOU.
5:27:34PM >> I CAN'T SEEM TO GET THE CAMERA TO WORK.
5:27:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS A KILOWATTS
JUDICIAL HEARING AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU TO TAKE
YOUR TESTIMONY.
5:27:43PM >> HOW DO I GET THE CAMERA TO WORK?
5:27:46PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CLERK, DO YOU SEE AN ISSUE ON OUR END?
5:27:52PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
5:27:54PM >> IT SAYS GO TO CAN'T ACCESS MY CAMERA AND I DON'T KNOW
WHY.
I HIT ACTIVATE CAMERA.
5:28:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CLICK THE CAMERA ICON.
5:28:08PM >> WHICH ONE?
DOWN BELOW?
5:28:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE COMPUTER THAT
YOU'RE ON.
5:28:13PM >> IT WON'T CLICK.
THE MIC WILL CLICK, BUT THE CAMERA WON'T.
5:28:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DO YOU SEE AN ICON ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF
YOUR SCREEN?
5:28:22PM >> YES, IT SAYS CAMERA, CLICK TO VIEW, AND IT'S NOT DOING
IT.
ACTIVATE CAMERA.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
ACTIVATE CAMERAS.
CAN YOU SEE ME NOW?
5:28:40PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO.
5:28:42PM >> I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM.
I NEED TO TALK.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
5:28:47PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF I CAN, THESE ARE COUNCIL'S RULES WITH
REGARD TO THAT.
I'LL CUT TO THE PERTINENT SECTION.
PEOPLE NEEDING ASSISTANCE SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE
CITY CLERK.
AFTER THAT, PARTICIPANTS APPEARING VIRTUALLY ASSUME THE RISK
OF ANY TECHNOLOGY ISSUES THAT MAY BE RELATED TO THE
INCOMPATIBILITY OR FAILURE OF THEIR EQUIPMENT WHICH PREVENTS
THEM FROM BEING SEEN AND HEARD OR TO SEE AND HEAR OTHERS.
IF DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING AN APPLICANT OR PROPERTY
OWNER DETERMINES THAT THE USE OF COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA
TECHNOLOGY PRESENTS AN ISSUE THAT MAY IMPACT THEIR DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THEM TO RAISE AN
OBJECTION DURING THE HEARING.
SO SHOULD THEY FAIL TO DO SO, ANY SUCH CLAIM IS WAIVED.
I HEARD THE SPEAKER SAY THAT SHE LIVES DIRECTLY BEHIND.
DID SHE STATE HER NAME FOR THE RECORD?
5:29:46PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT YET.
5:29:48PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF SHE COULD STATE HER NAME FOR THE RECORD
PLEASE.
5:29:51PM >> YES, I LIVE DIRECTLY BEHIND THEM.
AND THAT PROPERTY FLOODS AND FLOODS MY BACKYARD AND MY
PRIVACY WILL BE GONE.
I AM A WIDOW --
5:29:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE?
5:30:01PM >> MY NAME IS LINDA ERICKSON.
E-R-I-C-K-S-O-N.
5:30:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
STOP RIGHT THERE.
I'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN A SECOND.
MR. SHELBY.
5:30:12PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MS. ERICKSON --
5:30:14PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MY RULE IS UNLESS THEIR CAMERA WORKS --
5:30:17PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THAT IS USUALLY THE STANDING RULE HERE.
5:30:20PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU CAN STATE YOUR OBJECTION BECAUSE OF
THE TECHNOLOGY ISSUE, MS. ERICKSON.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF OUR RULES IN THIS PROCEDURE TO BE
EQUITABLE, WE HAVE TO ENFORCE OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE.
WE CANNOT TAKE YOUR TESTIMONY UNLESS ATTORNEY GIVES ME
ADVICE.
ANY ADVICE FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE?
5:30:45PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
JUST A REMINDER, COUNCIL, AND THIS WOULD
ALSO BE TO MS. ERICKSON, THAT SHOULD THIS CASE CONTINUE TO
GO FORWARD AND PASS FIRST READING AT THIS HEARING TODAY, IT
WILL COME BACK DURING THE DAYTIME AT 10 A.M. ON OCTOBER
1st FOR YOU TO HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THIS.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SUGGESTING?
IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT TODAY TO GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY, THEN YOU
COULD COME BACK, ASSUMING THIS DOES MOVE FORWARD, ON OCTOBER
1st AT 10 A.M. AT THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS
ANOTHER FULL PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU THAT
OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOUR TESTIMONY.
DO YOU FOLLOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
5:31:29PM >> YES, I FOLLOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
5:31:32PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT
THE CLERK'S OFFICE AT THE CITY OF TAMPA TO ASSIST YOU.
MAYBE THEY CAN PUT YOU IN CONTACT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN WITH
MEMBERS OF THE CTTV THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP YOU WORK
THROUGH YOUR PROBLEM.
UNLESS, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU WISH TO HOLD THIS FOR A LITTLE BIT
AND PERHAPS THAT CAN BE DONE.
5:31:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO, I DON'T, ACTUALLY.
MS. WELLS, DOES THE CITY CONCUR WITH THAT DECISION?
VERY GOOD.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN A DEFENSIBLE POSITION.
AGAIN, WE NOTED YOUR OBJECTION.
YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, IF THIS ITEM MOVES THIS
EVENING, YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AGAIN.
I APPRECIATE MS. ERICKSON AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
TAKE CARE.
5:32:15PM >> IF I GET IT WORKING, CAN I TALK THEN?
5:32:17PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ON OCTOBER 1st WHEN THE ISSUE COMES BACK
BEFORE US YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
THANK YOU.
SORRY YOU ARE HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.
APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE A REBUTTAL OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE
AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM BEFORE I CLOSE IT?
GO AHEAD.
5:32:42PM >> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT.
I THINK THE INITIAL CONCERN IS STORMWATER.
I DID PERFORM OUTREACH.
I HAVE E-MAILS FROM NOVEMBER 4 THROUGH THE 20th OF LAST
YEAR.
I'M GLAD TO ATTACH THOSE TO THE RECORD WITH STEPHANIE.
BUT AS FAR AS STORMWATER COMPLIANCE, WE ARE BEING REVIEWED
AS A TOTAL SITE COMPLIANCE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL LOT.
THE INTENT IS TO SUBDIVIDE THESE AS IF THEY WERE INDIVIDUAL
LOTS.
FROM OVERALL IMPERVIOUS AREA STANDPOINT, LINE ITEM 1,
IMPERVIOUS CHART DOES SHOW WE ARE BELOW 50%.
WE ARE ALLOWED TO BE OVER 50% SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ARE ALSO
ALLOWED TO BE OVER 50%.
EVEN TO THAT POINT, WE ARE BELOW 50% FROM AN OVERALL SITE
STANDPOINT.
THANK YOU.
5:33:31PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR REBUTTAL?
5:33:34PM >> YES.
5:33:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DOES COUNCIL HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE?
MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
5:33:53PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CLOSURE.
5:33:54PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC
HEARING, AYE.
5:33:56PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
5:33:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
MR. CARLSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THIS ONE?
MR. VIERA.
5:34:13PM >>LUIS VIERA:
MOVE AN ORDINANCE PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL
VICINITY OF 4706, 4708, AND 4710 WEST McELROY AVENUE IN
THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS 75,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND SEMI DETACHED,
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
5:34:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION BY COUNCILMAN VIERA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
5:34:44PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
5:34:46PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
5:34:48PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
5:34:49PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
5:34:49PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
5:34:53PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[INAUDIBLE]
5:34:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
5:34:54PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 1st,
2026 AT 10 A.M. AT OLD CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 315 EAST
KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602.
5:35:13PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
5:35:16PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION.
AGENDA ITEM 2 IS REZ 26-34, REQUEST TO REZONE 4400, 4410,
4488 WEST BOY SCOUT BOULEVARD FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR MIXED USE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE,
BANK, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT USES TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR
BANK WITH DRIVE-THROUGH, OFFICE, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE, HOTEL WITH ACCESSORY COMMERCIAL, RESTAURANT, AND BAR
LOUNGE USES.
I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
5:35:54PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, SWORN IN, WITH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS IS REZ 26-34 LOCATED IN THE WESTSHORE PLANNING
DISTRICT, WESTSHORE BUSINESS CENTER AND CARVER CITY LINCOLN
GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE E.
THE SURROUNDING AREA IS CHARACTERIZED BY HIGH DENSITY AND
INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
TO THE NORTH ACROSS WEST BOY SCOUT BOULEVARD IS THE
WESTSHORE INTERNATIONAL MALL.
WITH TAMPA INTERNATIONAL LOCATED FURTHER NORTH.
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDS THE SITE TO
THE SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST.
COMMERCIAL USES ARE PRIMARILY CONCENTRATED ALONG NORTH
WESTSHORE BOULEVARD, A DESIGNATED TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR
AND WEST BOY SCOUT BOULEVARD AND WEST SPRUCE STREET.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE REGIONAL MIXED USE 100
DESIGNATION.
FURTHER TO THE SOUTH IS JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL WITHIN THE
PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC DESIGNATION AND ESTABLISHED SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THE R-10 DESIGNATION TO THE SOUTHEAST.
WITHIN THE RMU 100 DESIGNATION, THE PROPOSED PD IS SUBJECT
TO APPLICABLE MIXED USE DESIGN POLICIES WITHIN THE TAMPA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION
AND FRONT DOOR ORIENTATION.
AS THREE BUILDINGS ARE EXISTING AND NO ADDITIONAL BUILDING
SQUARE FOOTAGE IS PROPOSED, THE APPLICABLE DESIGN POLICIES
ARE PRIMARILY CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING SITE
LAYOUT.
HOWEVER, THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION FOR STAFF TO FULLY EVALUATE THE SITE AGAINST THE
APPLICABLE DESIGN CRITERIA, INCLUDING IDENTIFICATION OF
FRONT DOOR ENTRANCES AND ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN
INFRASTRUCTURE.
CITY STAFF CONFIRMED THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO
REVISE THE SITE PLAN BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS TO
IDENTIFY THE BUILT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE EXISTING THREE
BUILDINGS WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED A 1.5 F.A.R. AND INCLUDING
NOTES STATING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE USES IDENTIFIED MAY BE
MODIFIED AS LONG AS THE COMBINATION OF ALL SQUARE FOOTAGES
ON THE PROPERTY DO NOT EXCEED 223,000 SQUARE FEET.
BASED ON THE CONFIRMED CHANGES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
READING, THE PROPOSED PD IS FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE TAMPA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED CG USES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE RMU 100
DESIGNATION, AND THE MAXIMUM F.A.R. OF 1.5 IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE ALLOWABLE INTENSITY.
WHILE THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO FULLY EVALUATE CERTAIN EXISTING SITE
CONDITIONS AGAINST THE APPLICABLE MIXED USE CENTER AND
CORRIDOR DESIGN POLICIES, THE REVIEW IS BASED ON THE
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IN
USE.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
5:38:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
5:38:50PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER
DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
BEFORE MOVING INTO MY PRESENTATION, I DO WANT TO ADD TO THE
RECORD, WE DO HAVE AN UPDATED REVISION SHEET.
WE ADDED ONE BULLETED ITEM UNDER DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE APPLICANT, WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER
SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD REMOVE THE HOURS OF OPERATION THAT
ARE CURRENTLY LISTED FOR WHAT IS PAD 2 ON THE SITE PLAN.
THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED BAR LOUNGE USE.
HOURS OF OPERATION ISSUE WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE
WHEN THE APPLICANT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE COUNCIL FOR AN AB
LICENSE.
I WANTED TO ADD THAT TO THE RECORD.
AND PASS OUT REVISION SHEET.
STARTING OFF HERE HAVING A LOOK AT THE AERIAL FOR THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED ON THE AERIAL BEFORE
YOU.
IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST BOY SCOUT BOULEVARD.
THE PROPERTY ALSO HAS STREET FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH MANHATTAN
AVENUE.
LOOKING AT EXISTING USES IN THE AREA, NORTH OF THE SUBJECT
SITE, WE DO HAVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE ZONING FOR
THE INTERNATIONAL PLAZA MALL.
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONING APPROVED FOR RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY
USES.
WE ALSO HAVE AN OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USE WHICH IS A UTILITY
SITE.
EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE HAVE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL
ZONING WHERE WE DO HAVE A FIRE STATION AS WELL AS VACANT
PARCELS AND IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE ALSO
HAVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING APPROVED FOR RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIPLE FAMILY.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS IMPROVED WITH THREE STRUCTURES.
THERE IS A FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
THERE IS A SIX-STORY PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURE, WHICH DOES
HAVE SPACE ON THE VERY FIRST FLOOR.
CURRENTLY, THE SAPPHIRE RESTAURANT IS LOCATED ON THE FIRST
FLOOR.
AND THEN IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER, THERE IS A ONE-STORY
RESTAURANT, WHICH IS THE EDDIE V'S LOCATION.
WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN TO SHOW YOU.
THE SUBJECT SITE HAS TOTAL OF 3.41 ACRES.
WITH THIS APPLICATION, THERE ARE NO PROPOSED STRUCTURAL OR
SITE LAYOUT CHANGES TO SHOW YOU.
THE APPLICANT THROUGH THIS PD REZONING IS PROPOSING THE
ABILITY TO ADD BAR/LOUNGE AS WELL AS ALL COMMERCIAL GENERAL
USES TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES ON THE PROPERTY.
JUST LOOKING AT THE OVERALL SITE AS IT EXISTS, THERE ARE TWO
ENTRANCES.
THERE'S ONE OFF OF BOY SCOUT AND THERE'S ALSO ONE OFF NORTH
MANHATTAN.
THERE ARE NO ELEVATIONS TO SHOW.
I WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME SITE PHOTOS TO SHOW YOU
EXISTING CONDITION.
THERE ARE TWO WAIVERS REQUESTED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
FIRST IS TO SECTION 27-283, THIS IS A WAIVER TO REDUCE THE
REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FROM 534 SPACES TO 453 SPACES. THIS
WOULD REPRESENT A 16% REDUCTION.
THE SECOND WAIVER IS TO SECTION 27-283.
THIS IS TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN AISLE WIDTH FROM 24 FEET TO
23 FEET.
NEXT I'LL SHOW PHOTOS.
THE FIRST PHOTO IS THE FOUR-STORY OFFICE BUILDING.
THIS WOULD BE IDENTIFIED AS PAD ONE FOR THE SITE.
NEXT WE HAVE WOULD BE PAD TWO.
THIS IS THE SIX STORY PARKING GARAGE AND, OF COURSE, THE
SAPPHIRE RESTAURANT DOES OPERATE ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR.
THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL LOOK AT THE SAME BUILDING.
THE BACK SIDE OF THAT BUILDING.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE, WE
DO HAVE THE EDDIE V'S RESTAURANT.
AND WE HAVE OUR ENTRANCE OFF OF NORTH MANHATTAN.
LOOKING NORTH, LOOKING TOWARDS THE MALL, SOUTH, WE HAVE THE
RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY.
EAST, WE HAVE TWO PHOTOS, ONE SHOWING THE VACANT PARCEL AND
THE OTHER SHOWING THE FIRE STATION.
WEST WE DO HAVE RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY THERE.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION.
WE DO FIND THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY
OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCONSISTENT FINDINGS
ARE FROM TRANSPORTATION AND STORMWATER, SHOULD IT BE THE
PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION,
FURTHER MODIFICATIONS WOULD NEED TO BE MADE BETWEEN FIRST
AND SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AS STATED ON THE
REVISION SHEET.
OF COURSE, THESE REVISIONS WILL NOT RESOLVE TRANSPORTATION'S
INCONSISTENT FINDING.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
5:44:06PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
JUST TO CONFIRM, THEY ARE NOT MAKING ANY
CHANGES TO THE BUILDING.
IT'S THE CURRENT STRUCTURE.
EVERYTHING IS THE SAME.
JUST THE USE.
5:44:12PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
JUST THE USE.
ADDING BASICALLY TWO USES TO THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
5:44:18PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
JUST MAKING SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT.
OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
APPLICANT?
5:44:34PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
BEN STRAND FOR THE APPLICANT SAPPHIRE.
THIS IS MATT BLYDENBURGH WITH MY OFFICE AS WELL.
WE'LL TRY TO BE QUICK.
WE KNOW THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WAITING HERE.
THESE ARE THE OWNERS OF THE SAPPHIRE.
AS CHRIS SAID, THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THE STRUCTURES.
THERE'S NO CHANGE TO ANY OF THE THREE STRUCTURES.
MY OFFICE IS IN ONE OF THEM.
THESE ARE EXISTING PLACES, EXISTING PARKING GARAGE, FIVE OR
SIX STORIES WITH THIS RESTAURANT ON THE BOTTOM.
WE ARE JUST TRYING TO ADD A USE FOR BAR/LOUNGE TO THE
SAPPHIRE CLUB SO WE CAN EVENTUALLY GET AN UPGRADED LICENSING
WITH THE STATE, WHICH IS OUR GOAL.
EDDIE V HAS BEEN OPERATING THERE.
WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THE STORMWATER DRAIN-OFF.
DIDN'T CHANGE IT IN ANY WAY.
THERE'S NO PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION TO THE OUTSIDE THAT'S
PLANNED.
NO OTHER CHANGES.
THE TWO INCONSISTENCIES WERE THE PARKING WAIVER FROM 534 TO
453.
AGAIN, THERE IS A LARGE PARKING GARAGE THERE, ALSO PARKING
WITHIN AND AROUND THE THREE STRUCTURES.
WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE COULD BE ANY KIND OF PARKING
ISSUES.
WE THINK THAT THE WAIVER IS REASONABLE AND NECESSARY FOR
THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.
THE STORMWATER ISSUE, AGAIN, WE MADE NO CHANGES TO THE
PROPERTY.
WE DON'T PLAN TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS HOW IT WAS EXISTING BEFORE THIS REQUEST.
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A VERY SIMPLE ADDING A USE TO IT.
WE'RE HOPING THAT COUNCIL CAN APPROVE.
WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WE DO APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DID TO HELP US WITH THIS PROJECT.
5:46:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
5:46:10PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I
FOUND YESTERDAY IN MY PREP MEETING.
SO YOU ARE FINE WITH TAKING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OFF OF
THE SITE PLAN.
5:46:26PM >> YES.
5:46:27PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AND COMING BACK WITH AB LICENSE.
5:46:30PM >> YES, WE HAVE AB LICENSE APPLICATION PENDING.
WE HAD ONE LAST YEAR AND WE GOT BUMPED OFF OF THE HEARING
FOR THE AB BECAUSE WE HAD TO ADD THIS USE ON THE ZONING.
WE WERE SET LAST YEAR --
5:46:39PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
OKAY.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU WERE OKAY WITH THAT.
THANK YOU.
5:46:43PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. SHELBY.
5:46:45PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
SIR, THE APPLICANT AGREES TO ABIDE BY THE
REVISION SHEET, AGREES TO THE REVISIONS BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING?
5:46:52PM >> YES, WE'RE AWARE.
SPOKE WITH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, AND AWARE OF THE
CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN REQUIRED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
READING.
5:46:58PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF THAT CAN BE PART OF THE MOTION.
5:47:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I HAVE A BIG NOTE NEXT TO THE MOTION.
THAT CONCLUDES YOUR PRESENTATION?
5:47:06PM >> YES, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE TO ANSWER.
5:47:09PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.
ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM?
HEARING NONE, ASSUMING -- ASSUMING YOU DON'T HAVE REBUTTAL
FOR NOTHING.
5:47:21PM >> YEAH, NO REBUTTAL.
5:47:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN
MANISCALCO.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
5:47:28PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
5:47:28PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
AYES HAVE IT.
MR. CARLSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ NUMBER 2 WITH THE
REVISION SHEET.
5:47:34PM >>BILL CARLSON:
MOVE ITEM 2, FILE REZ 26-34, ORDINANCE BEING
PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE
REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 4410, 4400, AND
4488 WEST BOY SCOUT BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA,
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, BAR/LOUNGE, BANK DRIVE-IN, HOTEL, OFFICE,
RESTAURANT, AND ALL COMMERCIAL GENERAL CG USES, PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE, INCLUDING THE REVISION SHE HAD.
5:48:04PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION FROM CARLSON.
SECOND FROM MANISCALCO.
5:48:07PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
5:48:08PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
5:48:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
5:48:10PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
5:48:11PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
5:48:13PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
5:48:15PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
5:48:16PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 1st,
2026, AT 10 A.M. AT OLD CITY HALL LOCATED AT 315 EAST
KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602.
5:48:30PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
ONE OF THESE DAYS I'LL MAKE IT OVER THERE AND CHECK OUT THE
RESTAURANT.
LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
5:48:35PM >> GREAT FOOD.
5:48:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT'S WHAT I HEAR.
VERY GOOD.
TAKE CARE.
BYE-BYE.
NEXT.
ITEM NUMBER 3.
5:48:41PM >>BRIA DIXON:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, AGENDA ITEM 3 IS REZ
26-61, REQUEST TO REZONE 205 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE FROM RM
RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND SINGLE-FAMILY SEMI DETACHED.
I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
5:49:09PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THIS IS REZ 26-61 LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING
DISTRICT AND THE SOUTH HOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE C.
THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CONSISTS OF A MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPES AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL USES WITH
COMMERCIAL USES PRIMARILY CONCENTRATED ALONG SOUTH ROME
AVENUE, WEST CLEVELAND STREET, WEST PLATT STREET AND KENNEDY
BOULEVARD.
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED EAST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE
SUBJECT SITE AND ONE BLOCK TO THE WEST ALONG SOUTH MELVILLE
AVENUE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 DESIGNATION.
SOUTH AND EAST ALONG WEST PLATT STREET AND SOUTH PACKWOOD
AVENUE ARE PARCELS DESIGNATED COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 WITH
THE RESIDENTIAL 35 AND RESIDENTIAL 50 DESIGNATIONS TO THE
SOUTH.
FURTHER NORTH AND EAST OF THE SITE ARE PARCELS DESIGNATED
URBAN MIXED USE 60 AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 35 DESIGNATIONS
ALONG WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH ROME AVENUE.
THE REQUEST PROPOSES THREE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
CONSISTENT WITH THE R-20 FLU CATEGORY THROUGH A BONUS
PROVISION AGREEMENT.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FIND THE PROPOSED PD WILL ALLOW
FOR APPROPRIATE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE SOUTH HOWARD
NEIGHBORHOOD AND WITHIN PROXIMITY TO EMPLOYMENT GENERATING
COMMERCIAL USES AND LOCAL TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDORS,
INCLUDING KENNEDY BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH.
THE PROPOSED ORIENTATION OF UNITS ONE AND TWO TOWARDS SOUTH
FREMONT AVENUE GENERALLY MEETS THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY, ALONG WITH UNIT 3 VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM THE ALLEYWAY
WHILE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE GUIDANCE ON
THE ORIENTATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES, ALTERNATIVE
DESIGN WITH ORIENTATION IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER RESIDENTIAL
UNITS IN THE AREA MAY BETTER SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD
COMPATIBILITY.
BASED ON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
5:51:01PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, NEXT.
5:51:11PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
BRIA DIXON, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
I WILL START WITH AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE IS OUTLINED IN RED.
IT IS FRONTING SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE AND IT IS ALSO SOUTH OF
WEST CLEVELAND STREET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL
USES WITH SINGLE-FAMILY SEMI DETACHED.
TO THE NORTH, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
FURTHER NORTHEAST ALONG THE WEST CLEVELAND STREET CORRIDOR,
MULTIPLE OFFICE USES, AND FURTHER SOUTH ALONG WEST PLATT
STREET, THERE ARE RESTAURANTS, OFFICES, AND OTHER COMMERCIAL
USES.
HERE IS A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
YOU CAN SEE THE SEMI DETACHED IS FRONTING SOUTH FREMONT
AVENUE AND THE DETACHED IS FRONTING THE ALLEY.
THERE IS A TWO CAR GARAGE FOR UNIT 3, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
AND THERE IS A ONE-CAR GARAGE WITH PARKING SPACES IN THE
FRONT FOR THE SEMI DETACHED RESIDENCES.
THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 38 FEET.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ENTERED INTO A BONUS AGREEMENT TO
ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD OR ADDITIONAL UNIT.
I ALSO HAVE HERE SOME ELEVATIONS.
THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR UNITS ONE AND TWO.
HERE WE HAVE EAST, WEST, SOUTH, AND NORTH.
AND FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED WE HAVE WEST, EAST,
SOUTH, AND NORTH.
IN ADDITION TO ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, I ALSO
HAVE SEVERAL PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING
USES.
HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTH DOWN SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE.
THIS IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TO THE EAST.
THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH DOWN SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE.
THIS IS TO THE SOUTH.
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED TO THE WEST.
AND THIS IS THE ALLEY LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS WEST CLEVELAND
AVENUE.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ONE WAIVER FROM SECTION 27-162
TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SEPARATION OF 15 FEET BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TO 10 FEET FOR 33% REDUCTION.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION AND FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE
CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS
APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE
COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING
AS STATED ON THE REVISION SHEET.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
5:53:48PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, APPLICANT.
MR. MICHELINI.
5:53:58PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
STEVE MICHELINI, REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER.
YES, I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
THIS PROJECT IS DESIGNED TO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
STRUCTURE ON A PORTION OF THE SITE, WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER
INTENDS TO LIVE IN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND THEN TWO
TOWNHOMES IN THE FRONT WITH TWO-CAR COVERED GARAGE IN THE
REAR, AND THOSE DIMENSIONS OF THE GARAGE -- AND I KNOW YOU
ARE SENSITIVE TO THAT -- ARE 22 BY 22.
THEN SINGLE CAR GARAGES WITH SPACE ON THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE
OTHER TWO UNITS AT 14 BY 22 FEET.
AS STAFF HAS POINTED OUT, THIS IS REZ 20, AND WE'RE
REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM RM 16 TO PD.
THE TWO TOWN HOUSES AND THE ONE SINGLE-FAMILY ARE ALL
ATTACHED.
THE WAIVER THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS A SEPARATION HERE
BETWEEN THE UNITS.
WE ARE ASKING FOR A BONUS PROVISION.
THE BONUS PROVISION WILL ALLOW THE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
WE ARE SURROUNDED BY MULTIFAMILY, COMMERCIAL, AND OFFICE
USES AS THE STAFF HAS POINTED OUT.
HERE IS A PICTURE OF WHAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE
PROPERTY.
THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THOSE ARE TOWN HOUSES OVER
THERE.
AND THAT'S LOOKING NORTH.
AND LOOKING SOUTH, YOU FIND A VERY SIMILAR TYPE OF
DEVELOPMENT.
HERE IS A CLOSE-UP VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE AND THE
TOWN HOUSES HERE.
SO WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING A NEW ELEMENT INTO THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED EXTENSIVELY AS TOWN HOUSES.
BOTH THE CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE FOUND
IT TO BE CONSISTENT.
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DETACHED STRUCTURE AND THE
RESIDENTIAL, SEMI DETACHED ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDING AREA.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ENCLOSED GARAGES WHICH WE HAVE
PROVIDED THAT.
IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, WE FOUND THAT ALL OF THE CITY
DEPARTMENTS, INCLUDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IT TO
BE CONSISTENT.
THE PURPOSE OF THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED TO MAKE
OPTIMAL USE OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND THE DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL SITE PLAN
OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE
THAT.
APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE
CONSISTENT.
MINIMUM OF ENCLOSED GARAGES, WE PROVIDED THAT.
PROMOTE THE EFFICIENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF LAND AND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNED AND CONSIDERS POTENTIAL, THERE ARE
NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE SITE ON NATURAL RESOURCES OR ON
THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.
THE GREENSPACE IS REQUIRED IS 350 PER UNIT OR 1,050 SQUARE
FEET.
WE'RE PROVIDING 1,600 SQUARE FEET.
PROMOTE, ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION
AND CHARACTER.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO MIX OF
RESIDENTIAL USES WITH SINGLE-FAMILY, SEMI DETACHED TO THE
NORTH, MULTIFAMILY TO THE EAST, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TO
THE SOUTH AND SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE WEST.
SO ALL OF THE USES SURROUNDING THERE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
WE'RE REQUESTING TO DEVELOP THREE UNITS AND AGAIN, AS I
SAID, WE ARE REQUESTING A BONUS AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE
ADDITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED.
THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ARE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING
AREA.
THE DESIGN IS PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT IS UNIQUE AND THEREFORE
MEETS THE NEEDS, HOWEVER, THERE IS THAT ONE WAIVER FOR THE
INTERIOR SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TOWN HOUSES AND THE
SINGLE-FAMILY.
THOSE ARE NOT EXTERNAL WAIVERS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED.
IT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS.
THIS IS COMPLETELY INTERNAL TO THE SITE, AND BECAUSE OF
THAT, IT IS COMPATIBLE.
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BE DONE BY ALLOWING FOR THE WAIVER.
I HAVE WITH ME LETTERS FROM 10 PROPERTY OWNERS SUPPORTING
THIS WHO WERE WITHIN THE NOTICE AREA.
I'D LIKE TO HAVE THOSE BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PHONE CALLS OR ANY ADVERSE
COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL, AND WE ARE
RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL.
BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
5:58:55PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
I DO.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.
OBVIOUSLY, IT IS A MORE DENSELY POPULATED.
BUT ACCOMMODATING THE VEHICLES.
THE GARAGE IS FINE, BUT THE DRIVEWAY IS ONLY 18 FEET, PLUS
INCHES.
SEEMS LIKE AN AWFUL LOT OF VEHICLES IN THE 19-FOOT RANGE.
DOESN'T THAT AUTOMATICALLY BUILD IN AN OVERHANG, WHICH IS
REALLY EPIDEMIC IN SOUTH TAMPA OF CARS OVERHANGING DRIVEWAYS
AND BLOCKING ACCESS TO OTHER FOLKS.
WHAT IS THE CONDITION OF THAT ALLEY THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO
IN THE BACK?
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?
HOW WIDE IS IT?
HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT THE ALLEY?
5:59:39PM >> THAT'S A TWO CAR GARAGE AND 22 FEET WIDE.
5:59:42PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
BACK SIDE IS TWO CAR GARAGE?
5:59:44PM >> YES.
5:59:44PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THE FRONT SIDE IS THE ONE NOT.
5:59:47PM >> BACK SIDE IS 22 BY 22.
5:59:49PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
FRONT SIDE -- DO YOU HAVE AN OVERHEAD
SHOWING -- IS IT A SIDEWALK THAT'S RIGHT THERE?
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU HAVE A 19-FOOT OR 20-FOOT VEHICLE,
ARE YOU GOING TO BE OVERHANGING ONTO A SIDEWALK?
6:00:08PM >> THERE'S MORE THAN 18 FEET THERE BEFORE YOU GET TO THE
EDGE OF THE CURB.
6:00:12PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WHERE IS FREMONT AND WHERE IS THE ALLEY?
6:00:16PM >> THIS IS THE ALLEY SIDE.
6:00:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
LET'S LOOK AT THE FREMONT SIDE.
SINGLE CAR GARAGE AND ACCOMMODATE ONE CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY,
CORRECT?
YOU HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO CARS PER UNIT.
6:00:32PM >> CORRECT.
6:00:32PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ONLY 18 FEET LONG.
WHERE IS THE SIDEWALK THERE?
IS IT 18 FEET TO THE SIDEWALK TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING?
6:00:40PM >> YES.
6:00:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I WISH YOU WOULD HAVE COME WITH A TRIPLEX.
ASK FOR A TRIPLEX AND AT LEAST HAVE THE ACCOMMODATION OF THE
VEHICLES.
AGAIN, ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WE HAVE THERE IS VEHICLES
OVERHANGING ONTO SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, WHATNOT
ARE ENCOUNTERING VEHICLE.
6:01:04PM >> 18 FEET MEETS THE TYPICAL STANDARD FOR TRANSPORTATION.
6:01:08PM >> THIS IS JONATHAN SCOTT, CITY OF TAMPA TRANSPORTATION.
18 FEET IS ADEQUATE AND THAT'S OUR STANDARD.
THAT'S PRETTY GOOD FOR A VEHICLE SIZE.
I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT THEM OVERHANGING IN THIS CASE.
6:01:18PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
GOOD THING YOU'RE NOT SITTING UP HERE
MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT WHAT TO WORRY ABOUT.
6:01:24PM >> NO, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S PLENTY OF SPACE.
6:01:27PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
18 FEET, WE HAVE A LOT OF VEHICLES OUT
THERE IN THE 19-FOOT RANGE, CORRECT?
6:01:32PM >> THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, DO WE MEET THE CODE OR
NOT?
6:01:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO, YOU ARE ASKING FOR A PD.
6:01:39PM >> I UNDERSTAND.
BUT WE MEET THE TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR THE
DIMENSIONS OF A PARKING SPACE.
6:01:45PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU'RE ASKING FOR A PD TO BUILD THREE
UNITS ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT IN AN AREA THAT WE HAVE REALLY
BIG PROBLEMS WITH VEHICLES AND PARKING.
PEOPLE PARKING AND BLOCKING DRIVEWAYS.
PEOPLE PARKING AND BLOCKING SIDEWALKS.
6:02:00PM >> IT'S A MULTIFAMILY ZONING LOT.
6:02:02PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CURRENTLY YOU'RE CONVERTING FROM
SINGLE-FAMILY -- YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT ON ONE LOT.
I COULD SEE WHERE THIS WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC WITH VEHICLES
HANGING OVER ON TO THE SIDEWALK.
6:02:20PM >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.
WE MEET THE CODE AND WE MEET THE TECHNICAL STANDARD.
6:02:25PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
-- YOU WOULDN'T BE HERE ASKING FOR A PD.
YOU WOULD BE ASKING FOR EUCLIDEAN ZONING.
6:02:31PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
COUNCIL, ALSO, DO PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT
THERE IS A REQUEST FOR A BONUS PROVISION ATTACHED TO THIS
APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL AT
SECOND READING.
6:02:42PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CORRECT.
AGAIN, IT'S A PD.
A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE EXCEPTIONS HERE.
YOU HIT IT RIGHT OFF THE HAT WHEN YOU FIRST CAME UP TALKING
ABOUT THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE PARKING BEEN A BIG ISSUE,
ESPECIALLY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
REAL PROBLEMATIC IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
PARKING IS PROBLEMATIC.
WE HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN THIS AREA.
6:03:10PM >> THIS IS JONATHAN.
YOU'RE CORRECT.
F-150, THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM 18 TO 20 FEET.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK IN OUR CODE.
6:03:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
FULL-SIZE SUV.
6:03:24PM >> SUV MIGHT BE LESS THAN THAT.
I TOOK LIKE AN F-150, THAT'S A BIGGER ONE.
THEY SAID IT'S TYPICALLY LIKE 18 TO 20 FEET, DEPENDING ON
HOW BIG THE CABS ARE AND ALL THAT STUFF.
IT'S HARD TO ACCOMMODATE THESE HUGE VEHICLES.
6:03:42PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE HAVE A 22-FOOT GARAGE.
THAT'S GOOD.
22 BY 22 -- GREAT SIZE GARAGE.
TIME AND TIME AGAIN, ESPECIALLY IN OUR WALK BIKE TAMPA FOLKS
COME IN SWINGING AND BATTING FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND
SIDEWALKS.
WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME.
I LIVE IN A PLACE THAT HAS A SHORT DRIVEWAY.
WE HAVE THE SAME ISSUES.
MY PLACE WAS BUILT IN 1980 AND IT'S PROBLEMATIC.
I LIVE WITH IT EVERY DAY.
GARAGE WIDTHS AND LENGTH OF DRIVEWAYS.
6:04:13PM >> ALSO A STATE STANDARD.
THEY CAN'T BLOCK A SIDEWALK.
6:04:17PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THEN THEY END UP PARKING ON THE STREET.
BINGO, THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM.
6:04:22PM >> MY WIFE CALLS IT A BIG BOAT, I CALL IT, THAT THING IS
LONG.
6:04:26PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
END UP PARKING ON THE STREET CREATING
STREET PARKING PROBLEMS.
6:04:31PM >> CAN'T BLOCK THE SIDEWALK.
OTHERWISE CALL TPD AND HAVE THEM TICKETED IN FIVE SECONDS.
6:04:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO
AVOID.
THAT'S WHY WE WORK WITH YOU, MR. MICHELINI IN TRYING TO
CREATE THE STANDARDS FOR THE DRIVEWAYS.
BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY VERSUS
BUILDING TWO CAR GARAGES.
PART OF THE COMPROMISE.
ACCOMMODATE THE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.
6:04:55PM >> JUST THINKING ABOUT THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO
UNITS.I GUESS YOU COULD REDUCE THAT OR YOU COULD CANTILEVER
THE SECOND LEVEL OUT AND PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE SPACE ON THE
FIRST LEVEL.
WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE KIND OF ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING.
6:05:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU'RE IN A MULTIFAMILY AREA.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WOULD BE RIPE FOR A TRIPLEX.
HELL, IF YOU GET YOU BIGGER UNITS, TOO.
6:05:21PM >> THE OWNER WANTS TO LIVE IN THE REAR UNIT AS A
SINGLE-FAMILY.
THIS AREA HERE IS WHERE THE WAIVER WAS BEING REQUESTED, THE
SEPARATION BETWEEN THESE UNITS.
WHEN WE START REDUCING GREENSPACE, WE RUN INTO OTHER ISSUES.
WE COULD CANTILEVER POTENTIALLY THE SECOND LEVEL AND REDUCE
THE FIRST LEVEL AND HAVE MORE SPACE FOR THE DRIVEWAY.
BUT WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THE CITY CODES AS WE GO THROUGH
THIS PROCESS AND WE SIT DOWN AND WE MEET THE TECHNICAL
STANDARDS, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO ANTICIPATE ANOTHER -- WE'RE
NOT ASKING FOR A WAIVER ON THE PARKING.
WE'RE ASKING FOR A WAIVER ON THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO
BUILDINGS.
6:06:13PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
STAFF, WOULD IT BE INAPPROPRIATE OR IS IT
APPROPRIATE THAT WE COULD CONDITIONALLY APPROVE BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING IF THEY GIVE US AN EXTRA TWO FEET
OF DRIVEWAY SPACE, IF THEY ARE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AND
MAKE THE AMENDMENT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
6:06:31PM >> WITHOUT GOING BACK TO DRC.
6:06:33PM >> COUNCIL, IN REVIEWING THIS REQUEST, THERE ARE MULTIPLE --
THERE ARE SIMILAR REQUESTS THROUGHOUT THE AREA, PDs THAT
ARE LOCATED TO THE EAST AND TO THE WEST THAT HAVE A VERY
SIMILAR DESIGN.
HOWEVER, THEY DO NOT PROPOSE TEN FEET OF SEPARATION BETWEEN
THEM.
THEY ARE EXACTLY CONNECTED AND JOINED AT THE REAR AND THE
SIDE.
IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO REDESIGN TO MOVE THE TEN FEET OF
SEPARATION, POTENTIALLY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPACE AND
GREENSPACE IN OTHER AREAS, THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.
6:07:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WHEN I SEE THIS, THAT'S WHAT I SEE.
IS THAT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT REVISION BETWEEN FIRST AND
SECOND READING WITHOUT GOING TO DRC?
6:07:08PM >>BRIA DIXON:
YES.
6:07:12PM >> IS THE OWNER HERE?
THEY WERE HERE EARLIER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY LEFT OR NOT.
I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO EXAMINING THAT AND COMING
BACK, WORKING WITH STAFF.
JUST KEEP IN MIND IT MAY FORCE US TO REQUEST A GREENSPACE
WAIVER.
6:07:46PM >> CLERK, HE HASN'T BEEN SWORN.
[OATH ADMINISTERED]
6:07:58PM >> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THEY ARE ASKING?
6:08:00PM >> YES.
6:08:01PM >> DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTION TO REDUCING THE SEPARATION
BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS?
6:08:05PM >> I DO NOT.
6:08:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IS COUNCIL OKAY WITH THAT?
YOU ALL WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH THE REVISION BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READING?
6:08:17PM >> HE HAS TO GIVE HIS NAME.
[INDISCERNIBLE]
RAMY NAGUIB.
R-A-M-Y-N-A-G-U-I-B.
6:08:33PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
SOUNDS GOOD.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO PRESENT OR MOVE FORWARD WITH
PUBLIC COMMENT?
YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL.
6:08:45PM >> I THINK WE'RE FINE.
6:08:46PM >> THE OWNER AGREED TO CONSIDER REDUCING THE SEPARATION.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT PERHAPS 20 FEET ON THE DRIVEWAY SIDE IS
THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT?
6:08:55PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I THINK THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE 95% OF THE
VEHICLES.
6:09:00PM >> DIMENSIONS SO I KNOW --
6:09:01PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SHOOTING FOR
WHEN TALKING ABOUT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION AND DRIVEWAYS.
6:09:07PM >> YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM COMMITTING TO THE 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY?
YOU GOT TO SAY IT LOUDER.
6:09:15PM >> YES, YES.
6:09:16PM >>BRIA DIXON:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
FOR CLARIFICATION, WE'RE NOT REDUCING THE SEPARATION.
WE'RE REMOVING IT, CORRECT?
6:09:23PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT WILL BE EITHER, WHICHEVER THE APPLICANT
COMES BACK TO US WITH, AS LONG AS HE DOES THE GREENSPACE
STUFF BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING, YES.
6:09:32PM >> IT COULD BE REDUCED BY TWO FEET TO PROVIDE --
6:09:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
OR TO CLOSE THE GAP.
BASICALLY BECOME A TRIPLEX.
6:09:39PM >> WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, WE MAY HAVE TO SEEK A GREENSPACE
WAIVER BECAUSE OF THAT.
6:09:45PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WHEN YOU MOVE THAT BACK, YOU'LL PICK SOME
SPACE UP.
6:09:48PM >> I DON'T KNOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CALCULATION IS GOING TO BE.
6:09:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I DON'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE IT FROM THE
DAIS.
6:09:57PM >>CATE WELLS:
CATE WELLS, LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
I WANT TO MENTION IN THE EVENT THEY CLOSE THE GAP AND NOW A
TRIPLEX, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO FIRST READING BECAUSE
THE ORDINANCE PRESENTED TO YOU DESCRIBES THE USES AS
CURRENTLY REQUESTED.
6:10:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
6:10:13PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AN EXTENSION OF TWO FEET OF THE DRIVEWAYS
WITH A TEN FOOT GREENSPACE BETWEEN THE TWO IS A PRESUMPTION
ON YOUR PART AS A COUNCIL THAT IT WOULD BE TWO FEET LESS
PERHAPS OF THE GREENSPACE WHICH MR. MICHELINI INDICATES
WOULD THEN REQUIRE A GREENSPACE WAIVER.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY?
6:10:31PM >> YES, WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE.
IF IT REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL WAIVER, WE PROBABLY HAVE TO GO
BACK TO FIRST READING AGAIN.
6:10:41PM >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
JOSEPH CERMAK, FORESTER EXAMINER WITH DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION.
REDUCING -- OR MOVING THE BUILDING BACK, EXCESS OF 213
SQUARE FEET OF GREENSPACE ON THE CURRENT PLANS THAT SHOULD
NOT REQUIRE A WAIVER TO REACH THAT POINT.
6:10:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
YOU COULD MOVE IT TWO FEET AND NOT REQUEST A WAIVER.
6:11:01PM >> THANK YOU.
6:11:01PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
THAT CONCLUDES YOUR PRESENTATION?
TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET THERE BUT WE GOT THERE.
6:11:06PM >> WE HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT NOW.
6:11:08PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
EXACTLY.
ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
6:11:17PM >> NO REBUTTAL.
6:11:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN
MANISCALCO.
SECOND FROM MIRANDA.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG, YOU GET THE PLEASURE OF READING WITH THE
PROPOSED REVISION BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
6:11:37PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THAT DOES NOT NEED TO BE REARTICULATED,
DOES THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS?
YES, INCLUDING WHAT IS HANDWRITTEN AT THE BOTTOM.
I BELIEVE IT IS THE DRIVEWAY ON FREMONT.
RATHER THAN READING IT, IF THE CLERK WILL ACCEPT, WHY DON'T
WE JUST SAY AND THE REVISED REVISION SHEET AND IT WILL BE IN
THE NOTES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
6:12:23PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
OKAY.
FILE NUMBER REZ-26-61, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST
READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE
GENERAL VICINITY OF 205 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE IN THE CITY OF
TAMPA, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1
FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RM 16, RESIDENTIAL,
MULTIFAMILY -- MULTIPLE FAMILY TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED AND SEMI DETACHED,
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ALSO INCLUDING THE REVISION SHEET.
THE REVISED REVISION SHEET.
SAY THAT THREE TIMES FAST.
6:12:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG.
I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
6:13:08PM >> HURTAK?
6:13:09PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
6:13:10PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
6:13:12PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
6:13:14PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
6:13:15PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
6:13:16PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
6:13:17PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
6:13:18PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 1, 2026,
10 A.M. AT OLD CITY HALL LOCATED AT 315 EAST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602.
6:13:32PM >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
6:13:37PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ITEM NUMBER 4.
6:13:38PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION, AGENDA ITEM 4 IS REZ 26-62.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 5600 MARINER STREET FROM OP 1
OFFICE PROFESSIONAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE FAMILY, OFFICE, BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE,
ALL CG USES AND ALL CN USES.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
6:14:14PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
THIS IS REZ 26-62 LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING
DISTRICT AND THE BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE EVACUATION ZONE A AS WELL AS
THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.
THE SURROUNDING AREA IS A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL USES.
COMMERCIAL USES ARE TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SITE.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED IS TO THE WEST AND SOUTH WITH
MULTIFAMILY TO THE NORTH.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE REGIONAL MIXED USE 100
DESIGNATION.
THE RMU 100 DESIGNATION IS TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST OF
THE SITE, AND THE RESIDENTIAL 6 DESIGNATION IS TO THE WEST
AND SOUTH OF THE SITE.
DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND FOUND
NO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WITHIN THE RMU 100 DESIGNATION, DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO
APPLICABLE MIXED USE POLICIES OF THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
THE PROPOSED PD SUPPORTS THESE PRINCIPLES BY PLACING THE
BUILDING CLOSE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONNECTING BUILDING
ENTRANCES TO INTERNAL SIDEWALKS WITH CONNECTIONS TO THE
SIDEWALK ALONG MARINER STREET.
ADDITIONALLY, BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED INTERNALLY AND SHADE
TREES PROPOSED ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THROUGHOUT THE
SITE.
THE PROPOSED HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 137 FEET IS COMPATIBLE
WITH THE HEIGHTS OF THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN
THE AREA APPROXIMATELY 8 TO 9 STORIES.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES ENCOURAGING RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND
WOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING NEAR EMPLOYMENT
CONCENTRATIONS WITHIN THE NEARBY WESTSHORE BUSINESS
DISTRICT.
OVERALL, THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ENVISIONED UNDER THE RMU 100
DESIGNATION.
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ALIGN WITH THE
CITY'S POLICIES FOR HOUSING AND MIXED USE CENTERS AND
CORRIDORS.
BASED ON THESE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
6:16:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
6:16:26PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER
DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
THIS ITEM -- FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM, WE DO HAVE AN UPDATED
REVISION SHEET.
IN SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT, WE ADDED ONE BULLETED ITEM
UNDER DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
THIS IS TO THE SITE DATA TABLE WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR
PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 137 FEET.
THERE WOULD BE AN EXTRA NOTE REFERENCING SUBJECT TO HCAA AND
F -- SO WANTED TO ADD THAT TO THE RECORD.
CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
STARTING OFF WITH REZ 26-62, WE'LL START WITH AN AERIAL OF
THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED.
IT IS LOCATED ALONG MARINER STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE,
SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE DO HAVE OFFICE
PROFESSIONAL 1, OP 1 ZONING.
TO THE NORTH, TO THE EAST, WE DO HAVE A MIX OF OFFICE USES
AS WELL AS MULTIPLE FAMILY.
WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE DO HAVE RM 50 ZONING WITH
RESIDENTIAL MULTIPLE FAMILY.
FURTHER WEST, WE DO HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS
AND SOUTH, TO SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS.
THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 2.34 ACRES.
WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN FROM THE APPLICANT.
THE PD BEFORE YOU DEPICTS A SINGLE STRUCTURE TOTALING 11
STORIES.
MAX HEIGHT OF 137 FEET.
PROPOSED FOR CONTAINING 4,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS AND
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES AS WELL AS 262 MULTIPLE FAMILY
UNITS.
THERE'S ALSO A THREE-LEVEL GARAGE PROPOSED INTERNALLY WITHIN
THE BUILDING.
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROPOSED ALONG THE WESTERN
SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THIS WOULD GIVE ACCESS TO THE PARKING GARAGE AS WELL AS
SOLID WASTE PICKUP AND A LOADING AREA.
THE PROPOSED PLAN ALSO DEPICTS A MAIN ENTRANCE ALONG MARINER
STREET AS WELL AS A PROPOSED SIX FOOT SIDEWALK WHICH WOULD
RUN EAST TO WEST ALONG THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY.
ADDITIONAL SIDEWALKS ARE DEPICTED ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE
SITE.
THEY MEASURE FIVE AND SIX FEET IN WIDTH.
DO HAVE SOME ELEVATIONS TO SHOW NEXT.
I'LL BREAK THESE UP.
THESE ARE THE NORTH-SOUTH ELEVATIONS PROPOSED.
NEXT WE HAVE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS PROPOSED.
PROPOSED AT 137 FEET.
THERE ARE FIVE WAIVERS PROPOSED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
THE FIRST IS SECTION 27-283.
REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FROM
484 SPACES DOWN TO 445 SPACES.
THIS REPRESENTS AN 8% REDUCTION.
THE SECOND WAIVER IS TO SECTION 27-283.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF LOADING
SPACES FROM 4 TO 1.
THE THIRD WAIVER IS SECTION 27-283, THIS IS A REQUEST TO
ALLOW A 12 BY 30 LOADING SPACE IN LIEU OF THE 12 BY 60
SPACE.
WAIVER 4 IS SECTION 27-284, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE
REQUIRED 15-FOOT USE-TO-USE BUFFER WITH 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL
TO A 10-FOOT USE-TO-USE BUFFER WITH NO WALL ALONG THE
WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY.
AND THE FIFTH AND FINAL WAIVER REQUESTED IS TO SECTION
27-284.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 8-FOOT VEHICLE USE
AREA LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO ZERO FEET AT THE WESTERN EDGE OF
THE EASTERN SURFACE PARKING LOT DUE TO THE ANGLED PROPERTY
BOUNDARY.
THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM MARINER.
I DO HAVE PHOTOS GOING AROUND THE ENTIRE BUILDING, BUT
UNLESS IT'S COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, I'LL KEEP IT SHORT AND SHOW
A COUPLE HERE.
6:21:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL'S PLEASURE TO KEEP IT SHORT.
6:21:13PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
LOOKING NORTH.
NORTHWEST.
SOUTH.
EAST.
AND WEST.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION AND DOES FIND THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE
APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THE FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY IS FROM TRANSPORTATION.
SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE
COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING
AS STATED ON THE REVISION SHEET.
THESE REVISIONS WILL NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF
TRANSPORTATION'S INCONSISTENT FINDING.
AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
6:21:55PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, APPLICANT?
I HAD RECEIVED A MEMO FROM THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR THE PRESENTATION,
ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES IN REBUTTAL DUE TO THE INCREASE IN
PUBLIC INTEREST.
I CONSULTED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY, HE BELIEVES IN
THE INTEREST OF DUE PROCESS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
MR. SHELBY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY?
6:22:21PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
JUST IF THE PETITIONER WOULD WISH TO HAVE
AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL, KNOW AT THE END OF
TIME WHETHER DUE PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE HIM TAKING THE FIVE
MINUTES.
AGAIN, HE DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE THE EXTRA TIME IF HE DOESN'T
NEED IT.
6:22:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ANY OBJECTION?
HEARING NO OBJECTION, UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
YOU CAN PLAN ON AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES FOR PRESENTATION,
IF REQUIRED FOR DUE PROCESS, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES EXTRA
FOR REBUTTAL.
IF HE NEEDS IT IN REBUTTAL, YES.
6:22:49PM >> MARK BENTLEY, 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE, TAMPA, 33602.
IS IT TOO LATE TO GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL?
6:23:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I MAKE THOSE COMMENTS PRETTY MUCH EVERY
DAY.
6:23:04PM >> THANKS A LOT, COUNCIL, FOR THE ADDITIONAL TIME.
I'LL TRY AND BE AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.
JUST, WHILE IT'S FRESH IN YOUR MIND, ADDRESS THE HEIGHT
ISSUE.
IT'S ACTUALLY 129 FEET.
WE STARTED OFF AT 150 AND OVER A SERIES OF REDESIGNS AND
MAYBE CHRIS DIDN'T PICK UP ON THAT.
IT'S 129.
11 STORIES.
LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DEVELOPER, NORTHWOOD
RAVIN OUT OF CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA.
THE NAME MIGHT NOT SOUND FAMILIAR, BUT SOME OF THE PROJECTS
MAY BE.
THEY ARE PRIMARILY IN WESTSHORE.
COUNCIL APPROVED THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CHASE SUITES ON
ROCKY POINT LAST YEAR FOR ABOUT 300 UNITS.
AND THEN THERE IS A SISTER PROJECT ON ROCKY POINT CALLED THE
EMERSON.
NORTHWOOD RAVIN HAS I THINK ABOUT 1500 UNITS.
HALF OF THOSE ARE ALREADY BUILT AND OTHERS ARE IN
PERMITTING.
THIS IS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE VARELA AT WESTSHORE.
NOVUS WESTSHORE.
THEY ARE ALL UPSCALE LUXURY APARTMENTS.
THESE PROJECTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT ONLY A
STRONG COMMITMENT TO TAMPA, BUT KNOWS HOW TO DEVELOP AN
URBAN INFILL PROJECT.
ONE THING UNIQUE ABOUT NORTHWOOD RAVIN, THEY DON'T SELL THE
PROPERTIES OFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEY DEVELOP THEM AND THEN MANAGE THEM AS WELL.
I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT FOR
NORTHWOOD RAVIN.
NAME IS MR. RONN STEWART.
RONN HAS COME DOWN AND HE WANTED TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON THE
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT HE WENT THROUGH OVER THE
LAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO, AND WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THAT
IS TO COUNCIL TO GET THE NEIGHBORS INVOLVED.
RONN?
6:25:06PM >> THANKS, MARK.
GOOD EVENING.
AND THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.
AS MARK SHARED, MY NAME IS RONN STEWART.
I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF DEVELOPMENT WITH NORTHWOOD RAVIN,
ALTHOUGH I'M BASED IN CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, I AM ALSO
THE MARKET LEAD FOR THE COMPANY OVERSEEING CENTRAL FLORIDA.
SO I SPEND ABOUT 30 TO 40% OF MY TIME IN FLORIDA WITH A
LARGE PORTION OF THAT HERE IN TAMPA WHERE OUR OFFICE IS
LOCATED.
IN REGARDS TO OUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH, WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT
EFFORTS TO ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS
PROCESS.
DURING THIS TIME FRAME, WE ACTUALLY SCHEDULED A TOTAL OF 8
MEETINGS WITH RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES.
SIX OF THOSE MEETINGS WERE ACTUALLY HELD.
TWO WERE ACTUALLY CANCELED BY THE HOAs.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WE ALSO SCHEDULED TIME WITH THEM AND
THEIR CONSULTANTS JUST TO ADDRESS ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THEY
HAD.
OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST, I WOULD SAY, YEAR AND A HALF,
AGAIN, WE'VE MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE WITH THE
RESIDENTS, EVEN BEFORE WE HAD THE SITE UNDER CONTRACT, WE
ACTUALLY HELD OUR INITIAL MEETING AT THE PLATT LIBRARY JUST
TO HEAR BACK FROM THE RESIDENTS.
THAT INITIAL MEETING WAS HELD FEBRUARY OF 2025.
AGAIN, GIVEN OUR COMMITMENT TO THE CITY OF TAMPA AND THE
SURROUNDING AREAS, WE KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO GET PUBLIC
INPUT.
SO WELL IN ADVANCE, OF EVEN PUTTING ANY PEN TO PAPER, WE
TRIED TO KIND OF COMMUNICATE WITH EVERYONE.
ONCE THOSE LAST TWO MEETINGS WERE CANCELED, OUR INTENT WAS
TO MEET WITH THEM IN ADVANCE OF SUBMITTING OUR INITIAL
APPLICATION FOR REZONING.
AGAIN, THOSE TWO MEETINGS WERE CANCELED, AT WHICH POINT
EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH US.
SO WE CONTINUED THROUGH THE PROCESS, STILL REQUESTED TIME
WITH THEM THROUGH MULTIPLE PHONE CALLS AS WELL AS E-MAILS.
SUBSEQUENT TO ALL THAT, A NEW ORGANIZATION CAME INTO THE
PICTURE, BEACH PARK PRESERVATION SOCIETY, WHICH WAS A NEW
ENTITY THAT WE WEREN'T FAMILIAR WITH.
APPARENTLY, IT WAS FORMED BACK IN MAY OF THIS YEAR.
NONETHELESS WE SCHEDULED A MEETING WITH THEM AS WELL,
ROUGHLY ABOUT A MONTH OR SO AGO.
HAD A PRELIMINARY MEETING WITH THEM.
AGREED TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS.
SCHEDULED A FOLLOW-UP MEETING WITH THAT ENTITY AND INVITED
ALL THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.
THAT MEETING WAS LAST WEEK.
UNFORTUNATELY, ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL SHOWED UP TO THAT
MEETING.
SO, AGAIN, OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF, WE'VE DONE I THINK
EVERYTHING WE FELT POSSIBLE TO ENGAGE AND ADDRESS THEIR
CONCERNS.
AS OUR TEAM WILL SHOW TONIGHT, WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT
ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROJECT IN RESPONSE TO THAT.
COMING OUT OF THE MEETING, WE'RE HOPING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE
FORWARD.
THANK YOU.
6:28:24PM >> THANK YOU, RONN.
COUNCIL, AS A RESULT OF THESE VARIOUS MEETINGS, THE CLIENT
MADE THESE CHANGES TO THE PROJECT.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS 300 UNITS, REDUCED TO 262.
THERE WERE 13 FLOORS, 13 STORIES, REDUCED TO 11 FLOORS.
THE HEIGHT WAS 150 FEET.
NOW IT'S 129.
THEY REDUCED THE COMMERCIAL AREA FROM 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO
4,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND UNDERTOOK MEASURES TO MITIGATE IMPACTS TO MARINER WEST,
WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU IS LOCATED DIRECTLY WEST OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
THEY AGREED TO CONSTRUCT A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG WITH
REBUILD THE SEAWALL, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T NECESSARY ON OUR
PROPERTY.
IN ANY EVENT, YOU GET THE PICTURE, THAT THERE'S SOME EFFORT
MADE THERE.
THIS IS A MASSING STUDY TO SCALE, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
IS RIGHT HERE.
IT'S 11 STORIES AND 129 FEET.
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
6:29:44PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
OKAY.
I KNOW A LOT OF YOU GUYS ARE NOT USED TO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL,
BUT THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT HIS
CASE.
YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS WHAT YOU WANT TO
EXPRESS DURING YOUR TIME DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE DON'T TALK, WE DON'T RESPOND BACK, DON'T
CLICK, CLAP, NOTHING.
LISTEN AND LEARN AND SILENCE IN THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE.
GO AHEAD, MR. BENTLEY.
6:30:10PM >> HERE AGAIN, HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE
WEST, WHAT THEY CALL MARINER WEST.
56-YEAR-OLD CONDO COMPLEX.
TO THE WEST OF THAT IS SINGLE-FAMILY.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND MARINER WEST IS
ABOUT 50 FEET.
THEY ARE ABOUT 80 FEET TALL MORE OR LESS AND WE'RE AT 129.
A LOT OF THIS DEBATE WHEN YOU REALLY WHITTLE IT DOWN IS OVER
THREE STORIES AND 45 FEET.
THE REASON I SAY THAT, WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU NOW, THIS IS A
RENDERING ON THIS NEW ENTITY THAT RONN HAD REFERENCED TAMPA
-- EXCUSE ME, BEACH PARK PRESERVATION SOCIETY.
THEY CREATED THESE RENDERINGS AND PUT THEM ON THEIR WEBSITE.
THAT'S NOT OUR PROJECT.
SO THIS CREATED I THINK A LOT OF THE CONSTERNATION AND
ANXIETY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT RONN HAD MENTIONED IN
HIS INTERACTION WITH PRESERVATION SOCIETY.
THEY WERE CREATED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO GET THIS
PROJECT DENIED.
CREATED BY A FAMILY WHO LIVES ON AZEELE.
THE CORPORATION DOES NOT OWN ANY PROPERTY IN BEACH PARK.
DOES NOT HAVE ANY MEMBERS.
THE HEIGHT, SCALE, AND DENSITY ON THEIR WEBSITE IS ALL
OVERSTATED AS WELL.
I THINK IF THE PROPER FACTS HAD BEEN OUT THERE, PERHAPS SOME
OF THESE PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT.
IN ANY EVENT, WE RECEIVED A LETTER ON JULY 15th, THIS IS
THE FIRST WE HEARD OF THE NEW ORGANIZATION.
IN THE LETTER, IT SAYS BASICALLY IF YOU WANT OUR SUPPORT,
YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD YOUR BUILDING EXACTLY LIKE MARINER
WEST TO YOUR WEST IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT AND THE SCALE.
AND THAT'S NOT COMPATIBLE.
THAT'S -- COMPATIBLE DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME.
THAT'S BEEN THE ONLY WRITTEN FEEDBACK WE EVER RECEIVED
THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
RONN IS A GREAT GUY AND HE REALLY WORKED HARD TO TRY AND GET
THE FEEDBACK.
ALSO IN THEIR LETTER, IN THE LETTER FROM THEIR LAWYER THAT I
THINK YOU ALL RECEIVED LAST WEEK, THEY SAID THAT BEACH PARK
PRESERVATION NOW REPRESENTS ALL THE ASSOCIATIONS, MARINER
NORTH, SOUTH, AND BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S
GOING ON IN TERMS OF WHO'S IN SUPPORT, WHO'S NOT.
ONE OTHER THING I WANT TO SHOW YOU AND THEN I'LL WRAP THIS
UP, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, AND THEN BEACH
PARK PRESERVATION SOCIETY .7 MILES AWAY.
THE HOUSE IS OWNED BY A FAMILY WHO ARE ALSO THE OFFICERS OF
THE CORPORATION.
SO THERE'S LIKE NO WAY ON EARTH IS THIS PROPERTY AFFECTED BY
THE DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE.
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
6:33:23PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COME ON GUYS, YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER.
IF IT IS AGAIN, I WILL ASK YOU TO LEAVE.
THAT IS THE WAY THIS WORKS.
YOU GOT TO GIVE HIM HIS DUE PROCESS AND ABILITY TO STATE HIS
CASE.
THEN YOU GUYS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AFTER THIS
IS DONE.
6:33:37PM >> SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, THIS IS A RENDERING CONCEPT --
6:33:42PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
LIFT IT UP A LITTLE BIT.
PERFECT.
THANK YOU.
6:33:50PM >> -- OF OUR PROJECT.
IT'S A PRELIMINARY RENDERING SHOWING THE 11 STORY BUILDING
AND THE AMENITIES.
AFTER RECEIVING THE FEEDBACK, WHAT WE DID, WE GOT OUR
ARCHITECTS TO COME UP WITH THREE ALTERNATIVES.
THE FIRST ONE WAS TO REDUCE THE BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 13 --
EXCUSE ME, FROM 11 STORIES TO 9 AND KIND OF COMPRESS THE
BUILDING.
BUT WHEN YOU DO THAT, IT FORCES THE BUILDING TO KIND OF
SPREAD OUT.
THERE'S 62-FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN MARINER WEST.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WATER.
I'M NORTH LOOKING SOUTH.
SO THERE'S 62 FEET BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS, THEN WHEN YOU
COMPRESS THE BUILDING BY REDUCING THE HEIGHT, IT TAKES IT
DOWN TO ABOUT 35, AND THAT WASN'T ACCEPTABLE TO MARINER
SOUTH.
SO THEN WE TOOK A LOOK AT OPTION 2, AND THAT WAS OR IS LIVE
LOCAL.
THIS SITE IS ELIGIBLE.
UNDER LIVE LOCAL, SUBJECT TO FAA APPROVAL, WE COULD HAVE A
200-FOOT BUILDING IN THE SAME 262 UNITS OR MORE.
SO THAT WASN'T ACCEPTABLE, OBVIOUSLY.
SO WHAT WE ARRIVED AT IS WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
WE STARTED OFF, FILED 150 FEET, GOT IT DOWN TO 129.
SO THERE IS A 45 DIFFERENCE -- 45-FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
MARINER SOUTH AND OUR PROJECT.
BACK TO THE LETTER FROM THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY THAT SAID
WE WANT YOU TO MIRROR MARINER SOUTH.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT MARINER SOUTH AS COMPARED TO THE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, IT'S 43 FEET TALLER THAN THE HOUSE.
SO IT'S OKAY FOR MARINER SOUTH TO BE -- TO TOWER OVER THE
HOUSE IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN OUR PROJECT AND MARINER SOUTH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO
THEM.
IT'S 45 FEET AND THREE STORIES.
NOW, WHEN YOU TALK TO YOUR PLANNERS, THEY SAY THAT'S A GOOD
TRANSITION.
MAKES SENSE.
THAT'S PLANNING 101 WHEN YOU STEP DOWN LIKE THAT.
THIS IS OUT OF YOUR COMP PLAN AND YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
IT IS THE DEFINITION OF COMPATIBILITY.
I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT, BUT THE IMPORTANT THING, I THINK
IN THE DEFINITION, WHICH IS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT, IS COMPATIBILITY DOES NOT MEAN THE SAME AS.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GETTING A LOT FROM -- INPUT FROM THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IS WE WANT TO YOU MIRROR THIS OTHER BUILDING
THAT WAS BUILT IN 1962 OR WHATEVER.
THE NEXT THING I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
RMU 100 IS THE MOST INTENSE DESIGNATION THE CITY HAS AT ALL.
IT'S USED AT MIDTOWN.
IT'S WATER STREET.
YOU NAME IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT RMU 100, IT SAYS TYPICALLY UP TO 24 STORIES.
WE'RE PROPOSING 11.
WHEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT LAND USE DESIGNATION UNDER REGIONAL
MIXED USE, IT'S CALLED URBAN MIXED USE AND THAT ONE SAYS 10
STORIES.
SO WE'RE BETWEEN URBAN MIXED USE AND REGIONAL MIXED USE AT
11 STORIES.
I'D LIKE TO NOTE, TOO, THAT OUR EXISTING ZONING, IF YOU WANT
TO BUILD AN OFFICE, ALLOWS A HEIGHT OF 200 FEET.
HERE AGAIN SUBJECT TO TAMPA INTERNATIONAL.
AND THE MARINER SOUTH PROPERTY, IF IT WAS REDEVELOPED COULD
BE REDEVELOPED AT 200 FEET SUBJECT TO FAA APPROVAL, JUST
LIKE US.
NOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY ON THIS
WEBSITE.
IT SAYS THIS PROPERTY IS IN BEACH PARK, AND IT'S NOT.
LET ME DEMONSTRATE THAT TO YOU.
WE RECEIVED THIS FROM THE CITY.
THIS IS THE MAP OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND BOUNDARIES THAT THEY
GAVE US.
AND YOU CAN SEE THAT BEACH PARK DOES NOT INCLUDE OUR
PROPERTY.
THIS IS OFFICIAL MAP FROM THE CITY.
WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT MAP, THERE'S ONE IN THE COMP
PLAN AND THE WESTSHORE ALLIANCE HAS CREATED ONE AS WELL.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
NEXT, WESTSHORE AREA-WIDE DRI BOUNDARY, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
IS IN THE DRI BOUNDARY AND SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF ALL THE
FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR TRANSPORTATION AND MARKETING.
FINALLY, THIS IS NOT AN ANOMALY THE REGIONAL MIXED USE 100
ON OUR PROPERTY.
THIS AREA OF TAMPA WAS PLATTED AS AN OFFICE PARK.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT, IT'S NOT SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS.
I THINK IT WAS FOR A PROPOSED KOGER CENTER.
MR. MIRANDA, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER.
6:39:13PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
ARE YOU CALLING ME OLD?
6:39:16PM >> NO, NO.
YOU JUST HAVE A GREAT MEMORY.
6:39:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
GOD IS DOING THAT.
6:39:22PM >> YOU CAN SEE THIS WHOLE AREA, HERE IS THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY, MY FINGER.
THIS ENTIRE AREA IS RMU 100, AND IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
PLAT.
THE POINT BEING WE ARE NOT IN BEACH PARK.
AND HERE'S FROM THE TAX COLLECTOR, WE'RE PAYING FEES,
BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WAIVERS AND HAVE RANDY COEN DO
HIS PLANNING ANALYSIS.
THERE ARE THREE WAIVERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOADING DOCK.
IF WE WERE IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY, WE WOULDN'T NEED THREE
LOADING DOCKS.
APARTMENTS DON'T NEED THREE LOADING DOCKS.
SO WE WANTED TO GO FROM THREE TO ONE.
A PARKING REDUCTION OF 8%, WE ALL KNOW THAT YOUR PARKING
CODE WAS DEVELOPED IN 1989.
IT'S ANTIQUATED.
IT NEVER CONTEMPLATED RIDE SHARE OR LYFT OR ANYTHING LIKE
THAT.
WE COULD ALSO GET A 10% REDUCTION ADMINISTRATIVELY IF WE
WANTED TO.
PLUS THERE ARE TEN SPACES POTENTIALLY ON MARINER THAT WE CAN
DEVELOP SUBJECT TO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT APPROVAL.
PARKING IS NOT AN ISSUE.
I KNOW MS. HURTAK IS ALWAYS REALLY BIG ON SECURE BIKE
STORAGE.
WE HAVE THAT.
IT'S ALL FULLY ENCLOSED FOR 30 BICYCLES.
PLENTY OF JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT AND ALSO FOR THE LOADING
DOCK.
RIGHT NOW I'M GOING TO PRESENT RANDY COEN.
HE'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE PLANNING ISSUES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT AND SITE PLAN.
6:41:05PM >> GOOD EVENING.
RANDY COEN, 4121 WEST CYPRESS STREET.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT FROM A
PLANNING STANDPOINT.
BUT FIRST, I'D LIKE TO MAKE ONE NOTE.
I THINK I HEARD IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WAIVERS THAT THE
WAIVER FOR ELIMINATING THE SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL AND 15-FOOT
BUFFER IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE.
IT IS NOT.
IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE.
IT IS BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE MARINA.
WE WANT TO HAVE A VIEW OF THE MARINA.
SO THAT'S WHERE THE WAIVER ACTUALLY IS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT PLANNING FOR A MINUTE.
I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A WHOLE LOT OF PLANNING LITERATURE
HERE.
I'M SIMPLY GOING TO QUOTE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
REPORT AND THE CITY OF TAMPA'S REPORT.
WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE ARE LOCATED IN THE WESTSHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS COMPARABLE TO THE EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN JUST A MINUTE.
THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPARABLE WITH
THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND
ALIGNS WITH THE CITY CODE.
CITY STAFF REPORT ON ZONING, SCALE OF DEVELOPMENT IS
APPROPRIATE SCALE AND SIZE.
THAT MEANS SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THAT MEANS ITS HEIGHT.
THAT MEANS ITS AMOUNT OF DWELLING UNITS, ET CETERA.
AND IT IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
WELL, HOW DO WE REALLY GET TO THAT?
WORDS SOUND REALLY GOOD, BUT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THE
DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
STARTING TO THE WEST, THIS IS THE MOSAIC APARTMENTS BUILDING
15, 18 YEARS AGO.
IT'S SIX STORIES.
HAS 210 UNITS IN IT.
THE MARINER APARTMENTS THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW
HAVE SEVEN STORIES, 107 FEET, 277 UNITS, MORE THAN WHAT WE
HAVE IN THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED PROJECT.
THE NOVEL WHICH FINISHED CONSTRUCTION IN 2024 IS 138 FEET,
ONE FOOT TALLER THAN WHAT WE PROPOSED IN THE REZONING AS MR.
BENTLEY INDICATED NOW DOWN TO 129.
SO WE'RE MUCH SHORTER.
OUR SITE IS HERE.
THE NOVEL IS 300 FEET.
MARINER 600 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST OF US.
MOSAIC IS 900 FEET TO THE EAST OF US.
THESE ARE THE TWO MARINER BUILDINGS WHICH ARE 80 FEET WHICH
MARK HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED.
WE ARE CERTAINLY COMPATIBLE, CONSISTENT, NOT THE TALLEST
BUILDING IN THE AREA, NOT THE HIGHEST DENSITY IN THE AREA AS
WELL.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
6:43:55PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
COUNCILMAN CARLSON.
6:43:58PM >>BILL CARLSON:
I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION.
A FEW MINUTES AGO YOU SHOWED A PICTURE OF THE LIVE LOCAL
OPTION, AND THEN YOU SAID IT DIDN'T WORK BECAUSE THE FAA
RULES.
COULD YOU SHOW US WHAT YOU THINK YOU COULD BUILD UNDER LIVE
LOCAL?
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ONE WITHOUT THE FAA PROVIDING A
VARIANCE.
6:44:35PM >> THIS IS THE SCENARIO WITH LIVE LOCAL.
AS YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING IN THAT AREA IS SUBJECT TO TAMPA
INTERNATIONAL ANALYSIS WHERE YOU FILE AN APPLICATION AND
THEN YOU GO THROUGH THE FAA PROCESS TO DETERMINE HEIGHT.
6:44:50PM >>BILL CARLSON:
WHAT IS THE FAA --
6:44:52PM >> WE KNOW FOR A FACT, RANDY MENTIONED NOVEL WAS APPROVED AT
138 FEET.
NOVEL IS ABOUT 200 FEET FROM OUR PROPERTY.
SO WE KNOW FOR A FACT -- WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR A FACT
-- STRONG LIKELIHOOD IT WILL BE APPROVED AT LEAST AT 138
FEET.
WITNESSED REDUCE OUR HEIGHT BECAUSE OF FAA.
WE STARTED WHEN WE FILED THE APPLICATION AT 150, AND WE JUST
DID THAT IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS TRYING TO GET
THE BUILDING DOWN.
BUT WE COULD, LIKE I SAID, UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING GO UP
TO 200 FEET, SO COULD MARINER SOUTH.
200 FEET UNDER LIVE LOCAL, THAT'S SUBJECT TO FAA.
BUT THE DENSITY -- THE HEIGHT IS DETERMINED WITHIN A MILE
RADIUS.
WE FOUND SOME PRETTY TALL BUILDINGS IN WESTSHORE THAT WE
COULD EMULATE, SUBJECT TO FAA ONCE AGAIN.
TALLER THAN 150 FEET.
6:45:46PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SO THE NOVEL PROPERTY IS 300 FEET CLOSER
TO TAMPA INTERNATIONAL AT 138, IS THAT CORRECT?
6:45:52PM >> WELL, THEY ARE APPROVED AT 138.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROVAL WAS FROM FAA, MR. CHAIR.
6:45:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HAVE THEY BEEN APPROVED BY FAA TO 138?
6:46:03PM >> YEAH, EITHER THEY ARE BUILT OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
6:46:09PM >> RANDY COEN.
6:46:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CAN YOU SHOW THE MAP WHERE NOVEL IS, TOO?
6:46:13PM >> SURE.
THIS IS OUR SITE.
THIS IS NOVEL.
IT WAS APPROVED BY FAA AND THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AVIATION
AUTHORITY AT 138 FEET.
WE'RE 300 OR MORE FEET TO THE SOUTH.
6:46:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THE SUPPOSITION, THEY WOULD APPROVE AT
LEAST --
6:46:40PM >> AT LEAST.
6:46:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
FURTHER BACK ON THE FLIGHT PATH.
6:46:43PM >> SOMEWHAT MORE BECAUSE OF THE GLIDE SLOPE INVOLVED.
6:46:48PM >> THAT'S THE CONDITION THAT CHRIS HAD MENTIONED ADDING ON
LIKE SUBJECT TO FAA APPROVAL BECAUSE THAT NOTE WASN'T ON
THERE.
6:46:57PM >>BILL CARLSON:
JUST TO EXPLAIN MY QUESTION, PROBABLY MOST
PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND, IT USED TO BE IF ON BIG
PROJECTS IF WE TURNED THEM DOWN, THERE WAS A CHANCE A
DEVELOPER WOULD SUE.
NOW BECAUSE THE STATE HAS CREATED LIVE LOCAL, INSTEAD OF
SUING US, THEY ARE GOING BACK AND DOING WHATEVER THE STATE
ALLOWS AND WE HAVE NO SAY.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY COULD
DO, ALTHOUGH IT SOUNDS LIKE THE HEIGHT WOULD END UP BEING
LESS THAN THIS.
IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO KNOW.
6:47:25PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
AGAIN, REMIND ME THE HEIGHT THAT YOU ARE
PROPOSING IN THIS PROJECT.
6:47:29PM >> 129 FEET.
WE STARTED OFF AT 150 AND 11 STORIES.
6:47:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SUPPOSITION WITH LIVE LOCAL IS THAT YOU
COULD GO BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL 13 STORY PLAN AND STILL FALL
WITHIN THAT.
6:47:42PM >> YES.
6:47:45PM >>BILL CARLSON:
SHOW THE 138 RENDERING AGAIN?
6:47:51PM >> THIS IS THE ONE I WENT OVER.
IT'S 129 IS OUR HEIGHT NOW.
THAT'S OUR BUILDING, AND THEN MARINER SOUTH IS ABOUT 80, 81
FEET.
AND THEN THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE IS --
6:48:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I THINK THE COUNCILMAN WAS ASKING YOUR
138-FOOT DEPICTION.
IS THAT THE 138-FOOT DEPICTION?
6:48:17PM >> WHAT WE DID, BECAUSE IT WAS A RECENT CHANGE, WE DIDN'T
FILE ANOTHER PLAN.
I JUST TOLD THE STAFF THAT WHEN I GOT TO THE HEARING, WE'LL
REDUCE IT ANOTHER NINE FEET.
[TALKING OVER ONE ANOTHER]
6:48:35PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
THE SITE PLAN OF RECORD NOTES 137 FEET.
WE WERE NOTIFIED TODAY BY THE APPLICANT'S AGENT THAT THEY
ARE DOWN TO 129.
SO IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CHANGING THE HEIGHT IF
APPROVED THIS EVENING BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING TO
REFLECT 129 FEET, WE COULD CERTAINLY ADD THAT TO THE
REVISION SHEET.
IT WOULD BE TO THE APPLICANT TO AGREE TO THAT.
6:49:01PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SINCE YOU'RE STANDING THERE, THERE WAS A
DISCREPANCY ABOUT WHERE THIS WAIVER IS, EAST OR WEST SIDE,
IS THE DOCUMENT AT ALL SHOWING THIS ON THE EAST SIDE?
ARE WE CONSISTENT WITH THE WAIVER BEING FOR THAT WALL ON THE
EAST SIDE?
6:49:56PM >> THE EAST SIDE IS THE WATER.
THE WEST SIDE OBVIOUSLY I DON'T KNOW IF YOU PICKED UP ON
THAT COUNCIL, EARLY ON I SAID AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS
WE'VE AGREED TO BUILD A SIX FOOT WALL.
6:50:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I DID.
THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
EVERYBODY HAS A MEETING OF THE MINDS, WE'RE CLEAR, THE
RECORD IS CLEAR AND THE DOCUMENTS ARE CLEAR.
6:50:30PM >> JOSEPH CERMAK, FORESTER EXAMINER.
ON THE PLAN HERE, STATING THAT A BUFFER REDUCTION WOULD BE
NEEDED TO THE EAST SIDE, IT WOULDN'T BE.
THIS SITE WOULD BE CONSIDERED USE GROUP C, MIXED USE BECAUSE
IT DOES HAVE A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT TO IT.
THE MARINA TO THE EAST IS ALSO A C USE REQUIRING ZERO
BUFFER.
ON THE WEST SIDE THIS IS WHERE I'M PRESUMING THEY NEED TO
REDUCE THE BUFFER THAT WOULD BE FROM 15-FOOT TO 10-FOOT
THAT'S GOING FROM A C USE TO A COMMERCIAL WHERE A 15-FOOT
BUFFER WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED.
6:51:15PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
JUST FOR INFORMATION WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT
STAFF WOULD REQUIRE AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS CONSENTING IS
TO BUILD A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL BETWEEN MARINER TO MARINER
ONE, BETWEEN THE EAST AND WEST BUILDING BETWEEN THE TWO
MARINER PROJECTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
6:51:32PM >> I'M SORRY.
I COULDN'T CATCH ALL OF THAT.
6:51:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. BENTLEY.
6:51:39PM >> RANDY WILL ADDRESS THAT.
6:51:40PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
RANDY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO -- WHAT -- WHAT'S
-- WHAT'S HERE?
6:51:46PM >> SINCE THE CITY BELIEVES THERE WOULD BE A WAIVER ON THE
WEST SIDE, THAT'S FINE.
OUR BUILDING IS ACTUALLY 50 FEET AWAY.
6:51:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO BUILD A WAIVER
FROM THE FISH OR BUILD A WALL FROM THE FISH.
6:51:59PM >> WE ARE ON THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL
ON THE WEST SIDE.
6:52:03PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT THE APPLICANT IS
REQUESTING THAT BUFFER REDUCTION AND A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL
BETWEEN THE WEST PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY YOU'RE PROPOSING.
6:52:15PM >> YES.
THE CITY I BELIEVE IS CORRECTLY INDICATING WE DO NOT NEED
THE WAIVER AT ALL ON THE EAST SIDE.
6:52:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO WAIVER ON THE EAST SIDE FROM THE FISH.
6:52:23PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PRESENT
SITE PLAN IS, MR. DEMANCHE?
THE REVISION SHEET I MEAN?
6:52:29PM >> YES, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
6:52:31PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IS IT CONSISTENT?
6:52:32PM >> WHAT WE WOULD DO IS SIMPLY GO FROM THE ZERO BUFFER TO A
TEN FOOT, AND WE WOULD STRIKE THE SIX FEET MASONRY WALL
BECAUSE WE'RE, IN FACT, PROVIDING THAT MASONRY WALL ON THE
WEST SIDE.
6:52:43PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THIS WOULD BE A REVISED REVISION SHEET
BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND OR ACCOMMODATED IN THE FIRST ONE?
6:52:52PM >> IT STAYS.
THAT WOULD BE WAIVER NUMBER 4 STAYS AS --
6:52:58PM >> IT SAYS WITH NO WALL.
WE'RE PROVIDING THE WALL.
WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN EVERYONE IS HAPPY WITH THAT.
THE ONLY REVISION IS TO STRIKE THE NO WALL.
6:53:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE WILL HAVE A REVISED REVISION SHEET WITH
THE WALL.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
6:53:22PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
JUST TO NOTE WITH OUR DISCUSSION HERE, WAIVER NUMBER 4 WOULD
BE TO SECTION 27-284.
IT WOULD STATE REQUEST TO REDUCE REQUIRED 15-FOOT USE-TO-USE
BUFFER WITH 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL TO A 10-FOOT USE-TO-USE
BUFFER WITH A 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THE WESTERN
PROPERTY.
6:53:44PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
THAT WOULD BE NOTED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND ON REVISED
REVISION SHEET.
6:53:49PM >> CORRECT.
ALONG WITH THE HEIGHT WE ADJUSTED FROM 137 TO 129.
6:53:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
REVISION SHEET WILL CAPTURE THAT AS WELL.
6:53:59PM >> APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
6:54:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE ARE NOW GOING TO OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE AND THIS
ISSUE ALONE.
BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE STANDING, WE WILL NOT CLOSE
PUBLIC COMMENT.
FUR HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO DO THAT.
ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE SPEAKING TO COUNCIL.
ONCE AGAIN, THE PERSON WHO IS SPEAKING, OPPORTUNITY TO
SPEAK, NO AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION.
ALWAYS START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
WHEN THE YELLOW LIGHT COMES ON, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS.
THE RED LIGHT, YOU'RE DONE.
YOU HAVE TO STOP WHEREVER YOU ARE AT IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE'LL START WITH THE GENTLEMAN HERE IN THE BLUE SHIRT.
SIR, START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
6:54:43PM >> COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
RYAN WHITMORE.
4804 WEST AZEELE STREET.
I WAS SWORN IN.
THIS IS MY SON.
6:54:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
EVERYBODY BE QUIET.
6:54:53PM >> MY SON JOINED ME TONIGHT.
I APPRECIATE EVERYONE LETTING ME GO FIRST TO GET HIM OUT OF
HERE.
THANK YOU FOR THE TIME.
WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE ON AZEELE IN 2015.
WE'VE WATCHED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE RAISED A FAMILY THERE, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR.
BENTLEY, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT HE SAID.
I'M GOING TO KIND OF GO OFF THE CUFF HERE FROM WHAT I HEARD
EVERYBODY SAID.
THERE'S NO WAY THIS WILL AFFECT THE RESIDENTS AND I LIVE
WHEREVER THIS ENTITY WAS FORMED.
HE ALSO SAID --
6:55:26PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I HAVE TO PAUSE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE
TO GET THIS UNDER CONTROL BEFORE IT GOES MUCH LONGER.
IF YOU ARE IN THIS AUDIENCE, THERE'S NO TALKING BACK THERE.
WHEN YOU GUYS TALK, EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU ARE WHISPERING, IT
AMPLIFIES, THE ACOUSTIC.
CARROLL ANN, EVERYBODY ELSE.
EVERYBODY, QUIET.
BECAUSE I CANNOT HEAR THE SPEAKER.
WE CAN'T HEAR THE SPEAKER AND THIS IS THEIR TIME TO TALK.
WHEN YOU'RE UP THERE, IT'S YOUR TIME TO TALK AS WELL.
IF YOU ARE IN THE AUDIENCE AND NOT STANDING AT THE PODIUM,
YOU CANNOT TALK.
IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK, PLEASE GO OUTSIDE BEYOND THE GLASS
DOORS.
THANK YOU.
HAS EVERYBODY HERE BEEN SWORN IN?
IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN SWORN IN, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN BY THE CLERK
[OATH ADMINISTERED]
6:56:16PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE'LL START YOUR TIME OVER BECAUSE OF THE
DISRUPTION.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
6:56:20PM >> THANK YOU.
AS I WAS SAYING, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. BENTLEY, TWO
THINGS THAT WOULD TAKE ISSUE WITH, ONE IS THERE'S NO WAY
ANYONE WOULD BE AFFECTED DOWN AZEELE.
THE SECOND ONE IS THAT THE TECHNICALITY OF WHERE THIS
BUILDING IS BEING PROPOSED IS NOT IN BEACH PARK.
THAT MAY BE TRUE.
HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'LL ASSUME THAT'S TRUE.
THE FACT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC WILL HAVE TO GO
THROUGH THERE TO GET TO THIS BUILDING.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE HERE, BUT MY PRIMARY CONCERNS IS
THE TRAFFIC LEVELS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH BEACH PARK.
I APPRECIATE THEIR WILLINGNESS TO LOWER THE HEIGHT A LITTLE
BIT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO BE A
LITTLE BIT HIGHER AND CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER BUILDINGS.
I DO BELIEVE IT'S TOO HIGH.
BUT HAVING LIVED THERE, MY PRIMARY ISSUE IS THAT IN 2019, I
SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION SURROUNDED BY ALL OF OUR ADJACENT
NEIGHBORS ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS TO GET A
SIDEWALK PUT IN BECAUSE I WANT THE SAFETY FOR OUR FAMILY AND
ALL THE OTHER FAMILIES.
THE CITY, I KEPT CALLING, KEPT CALLING, AND NOTHING
HAPPENED.
FINALLY THEY SAID IT'S JUST NOT IN THE BUDGET.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND THEN I'VE TALKED TWICE TO POLICE OFFICERS NEARBY THAT
ARE RADARING ON WESTSHORE.
I SAID WOULD YOU MIND RADARING ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE
PEOPLE DRIVE TOO FAST.
THERE'S SO MUCH TRAFFIC NOW CUTTING THROUGH THERE.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING ON WESTSHORE.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING.
I UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT AGAIN, THE POLICE OFFICER STATED WE DON'T HAVE THE
BUDGET TO SIT THERE AND RADAR INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
MY PROBLEM IS THAT OUR CHILDREN, OUR FAMILIES ARE NOT BEING
PROTECTED.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THE COUNCIL TAKE NOTE OF THAT AND LOOK TO
WAYS THAT CAN IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHILE WE TRY TO ALSO
OFFER DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE IT BE CONSISTENT.
THIS DOES NOT FEEL LIKE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, ACCORDING TO THE HEIGHT AND THE SIZE AND THE
DENSITY IS BECOMING A PROBLEM.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE HAS TO BE SOME COMPROMISE.
MY PROPOSAL TO COUNCIL AND TO THE DEVELOPERS, I WOULD LOVE
IT IF THERE WAS SOME WAY TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO GETTING
SIDEWALKS PUT IN, AT LEAST UP AND DOWN AZEELE ALL THE WAY TO
WESTSHORE AND PUT IN OVER THERE IN MARINER.
I FEEL THAT WOULD BE A FAIR COMPROMISE FOR EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, EVERYONE.
6:58:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
HELLO, YOUNG MAN.
WELCOME TO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL.
IT'S BORING, ISN'T IT?
[ LAUGHTER ]
START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
6:59:06PM >> IF I MIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE ORDER OF THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF TONIGHT OFFICIALLY ON
BEHALF OF BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AS WELL AS
MARINER SOUTH AND MARINER NORTH CONDOMINIUMS.
6:59:22PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
CAN I ASK YOU TO STATE --
6:59:26PM >> MARK MILLER.
I'M HANDING YOU A PRESENTATION SO YOU HAVE ALL THE
INFORMATION ON WHO IS SPEAKING IN WHAT ORDER TONIGHT.
THESE ARE THE PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF
BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE WOMEN'S CLUB, BEACH
PARK WOMEN'S CLUB AS WELL AS THE MARINER SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS
AND MARINER NORTH CONDOMINIUMS.
I MIGHT ADD THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION THAT THE APPLICANT
SPOKE OF BEING THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY IS SIMPLY AN
UMBRELLA FOR ALL THOSE TO HELP COORDINATE THE EFFORTS.
6:59:56PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
EACH PERSON IS GOING TO SPEAK
INDEPENDENTLY.
EACH PERSON WILL GET THREE MINUTES, BUT YOU ARE PROPOSING AN
ORDER.
7:00:03PM >> THAT'S CORRECT.
7:00:04PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO CALL THEM IN THAT
ORDER OR ARE YOU ALREADY STAGGERED?
7:00:10PM >> THEY SHOULD BE, BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND.
7:00:12PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DOES COUNCIL OBJECT TO ME CALLING THEM UP
IN THIS ORDER?
OKAY.
I WILL DO THAT.
YOU MUST BE MICHELLE FLEETER.
STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
7:00:34PM >> MY NAME IS MICHELLE FLEETER.
I LIVE AT 5218 WEST NEPTUNE WAY IN TAMPA.
I AM THE VICE PRESIDENT OF BEACH PARK'S HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION.
WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 1300 HOMES IN BEACH PARK.
I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD THAT THE FOLLOWING
RESOLUTIONS OF OUR ASSOCIATION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
IT ALSO SHALL BE NOTED THAT THE ADDRESS, 5600 MARINER STREET
IS PART OF BEACH PARK.
WHEREAS, THE BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTS
THE BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADVOCATES ON MATTERS
AFFECTING ZONING, TRANSPORTATION, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
WHEREAS, THE PROPOSED REZONING OF 5600 MARINER STREET CITY
FILE RESOLUTION 26-000062 WOULD PERMIT MULTIFAMILY
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCALE BEACH PARK HOA BELIEVES IS
NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA AND
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.
WHEREAS, BEACH PARK ALREADY FACES SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC,
LIMITED ACCESS, INCOMPLETE SIDEWALKS AND GROWING DEVELOPMENT
PRESSURE IN THE WESTSHORE CORRIDOR.
AND WHEREAS, THE BEACH PARK HOA MEMBERSHIP VOTED UNANIMOUSLY
ON APRIL 28, 2026, TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED REZONING.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, RESOLVED THAT BEACH PARK HOA
FORMALLY OPPOSES RESOLUTION 26-000062 AS PRESENTLY PROPOSED
AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THAT THE CITY DENY THE
APPLICATION.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT BEACH PARK HOA REMAINS WILLING TO
ENGAGE CONSTRUCTIVELY REGARDING AN APPROXIMATELY SCALED
ALTERNATIVE AND FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE SECRETARY IS
AUTHORIZED TO TRANSMIT THIS RESOLUTION TO THE APPROPRIATE
CITY OFFICIALS, THE APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND THE
BEACH PARK HOA MEMBERSHIP.
SIGNED ABBYE GRIMALDI, PRESIDENT OF THE BEACH PARK HOMEOWNER
ASSOCIATION.
THANK YOU.
7:02:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SUBMIT THAT TO OUR ATTORNEY, PLEASE.
DOES THAT COMPLETE YOUR PRESENTATION?
THANK YOU, MICHELLE.
PAULA PERRY.
START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
7:02:59PM >> PAULA PERRY.
I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF BEACH PARK.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS.
I'M A MEMBER AND A PAST PRESIDENT OF THE BEACH PARK WOMEN'S
CLUB, WHICH WAS FOUNDED IN 1930.
WE'RE DEDICATED TO PROMOTING EDUCATION, PHILANTHROPY,
PRESERVATION AND COMMUNITY BETTERMENT.
I'M PRESENTING A RESOLUTION ON BEHALF OF THE WOMEN'S CLUB
OPPOSING THIS.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY BOARD AND ALL OF OUR GENERAL
MEMBERSHIP.
BEACH PARK -- I'LL SUMMARIZE THIS FOR YOU.
YOU EACH HAVE A COPY IN THE PACKET.
ONE OF THE OLDEST TREASURED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES FOUNDED
MORE THAN A CENTURY AGO.
LOCATED WITHIN COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, CHHA, NEIGHBORHOOD
INCLUDING RESIDENTS ALONG MARINER STREET SUFFERED
SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE FROM HURRICANES HELENE AND MILTON WITH
MANY FAMILIES STILL REBUILDING THEIR HOMES AND RECOVERING AT
THIS TIME.
5600 MARINER STREET CHHA AND FEMA FLOOD ZONES VE AND AE.
AND ACCORDING TO FEMA'S COASTAL HAZARDS AND FLOOD MAPPING
VISUAL GUIDE 2021 DESIGNATES THESE ZONES AS COASTAL AREAS
SUBJECT TO HIGH VELOCITY WAVE ACTION DURING BASE FLOOD EVENT
WITH WAVE HEIGHTS LARGER THAN THREE FEET.
I'M SURE SOME OF THE RESIDENTS CAN SPEAK TO LARGER WAVES
THAN THAT.
STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN ZONE VE ARE SUBJECT TO MORE
STRINGENT BUILDING REQUIREMENTS DUE TO AN INCREASED RISK
FROM COASTAL FLOODING AND WAVE ACTION.
REQUEST TO REZONE FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL COMMERCIAL TO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD PERMIT 262 MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS INTO A COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RMU 100 DOES NOT BY
ITSELF ENTITLE OR REQUIRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY POTENTIALLY CONTEMPLATED BY THAT
DESIGNATION.
THE CITY OF TAMPA'S OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MUST BE
CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING SPECIFIC POLICIES
REGARDING POPULATION CONCENTRATION IN A COASTAL HIGH HAZARD.
OBJECTIVE 1.1, DIRECT FUTURE POPULATION AWAY FROM COASTAL
HIGH HAZARD AREA TO ACHIEVE NO NET INCREASE IN OVERALL
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY WITHIN THE CHHA.
1.1.6, LIMIT NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA
TO USES THAT ARE VESTED OR SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AND DEFINED IN THE URBAN DESIGN AND LAND USE ELEMENTS.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD INTRODUCE 262 RESIDENTIAL UNITS
INCREASING THE CONCENTRATION OF POPULATION IN AN AREA WHERE
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXPRESSLY DIRECTS FUTURE POPULATION
CONCENTRATIONS AWAY FROM THE CHHA.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES INCONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING
SCALE, MASS, CHARACTER, SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
BY NOTICING ALL THE WAIVERS FROM THE REDUCED PARKING FROM
484 TO 445 WITH 65% OF THOSE REDUCED TO COMPACT DIMENSIONS.
REDUCED LOADING BERTH.
REDUCED DIMENSIONS, ET CETERA.
BEACH PARK WOMEN'S CLUB STANDS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
REZONING FOR THE PROPERTY, FINDS THAT IT PRESENTS
SUBSTANTIAL CONCERNS REGARDING COMPATIBILITY, RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY, PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE, TRAFFIC, STORM AND
FLOOD HAZARDS AND THE CHARACTER.
THANK YOU, PLEASE DENY THIS REQUEST.
7:06:09PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DEB ZANOVI FOLLOWED BY MARK MILLER.
DEB, START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
7:06:32PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
SHE HAS THREE NAMES.
STAN FIELDS.
ARE YOU STANDING TO SPEAK, SIR?
NO.
I'M ASKING MR. FIELDS IF HE'S STANDING -- HE'S SHAKING HIS
HEAD NO.
TODD SCHNITT.
MICHELLE SCHNITT.
THANK YOU.
THREE ADDITIONAL MINUTES FOR A TOTAL OF 6.
7:06:55PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU HAVE 6 MINUTES.
7:06:58PM >> DEB, BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR MARINER NORTH REPRESENTING
THE 44 RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH IS LOCATED DIRECTLY
ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU WITHHOLD APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT
AS IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDINGS.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF REGARDING THE
IMPACTS ON THE TRAFFIC, EMERGENCY ACCESS, HURRICANE
EVACUATION, PARKING, DRAINAGE, FLOODING, WATER, WASTEWATER,
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS IS NOT
ABOUT BEING AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS ABOUT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR
THE ROAD, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT
ALREADY EXISTS.
THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AS IS CREATES NUMEROUS ISSUES FOR
QUALITY OF LIFE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THOSE IN THE AREA,
WILDLIFE AND RESIDENTS IN THE BEACH PARK COMMUNITY.
I BELIEVE THESE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE BEING APPROVED.
FIRST, TRAFFIC CONGESTION.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 262 ADDITIONAL UNITS AND POTENTIALLY 500
ADDITIONAL VEHICLES BEING ADDED TO A ROAD THAT ALREADY HAS
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT UNDERWAY.
THERE HAVE BEEN ADDITIONAL 555 UNITS AND POTENTIAL 1100
VEHICLES AND 4,000 TRIPS PER DAY ADDED ALREADY IN JUST THE
PAST 24 MONTHS.
ADDING ANOTHER 262 UNITS AND CORRESPONDING VEHICLES WOULD
PUT AN ENORMOUS BURDEN ON MARINER STREET.
ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC ULTIMATELY HAS TO LEAVE THIS AREA VIA
ONE ROAD, AS ONE ROAD IN, ONE ROAD OUT.
IT EMPTIES INTO A THREE-WAY STOP WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE
ACCIDENTS OCCURRING.
THIS IS NOT DOWNTOWN ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS DESIGNED FOR THE LEVEL OF DENSITY AND TRAFFIC.
IF WE WANTED TO LIVE IN CONGESTION, WE WOULD LIVE DOWNTOWN
OR IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT OR MIDTOWN.
WE CHOSE TO LIVE IN BEACH PARK BECAUSE IT'S PRIMARILY A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH LIGHT TRAFFIC.
WE SHOULD NOT BE TURNING THE RESIDENTIAL STREET INTO A HIGH
DENSITY TRAFFIC CORRIDOR SIMPLY BECAUSE A DEVELOPER WANTS TO
SQUEEZE MORE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY.
SECOND, PARKING.
WHERE WILL ALL OF THESE VEHICLES GO?
THE DEVELOPER IS ALREADY PROPOSING PARKING WAIVERS FOR THEIR
RESIDENTS TO PARK ON THE STREET IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SITE
PARKING.
OVERFLOW OF RESIDENTS AND GUEST PARKING WILL FLOOD THE
STREET.
STREET PARKING CANNOT BECOME THE OVERFLOW SITUATION.
WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE ORDINARY EVERYDAY.
WHAT HAPPENS DURING A HURRICANE OR AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION
AND EVERYONE IS TRYING TO GET OUT AT THE SAME TIME?
THIRD, EMERGENCY ACCESS, WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE VEHICLES.
WE HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER EMERGENCY VEHICLES,
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ET CETERA, WILL BE ABLE TO ADEQUATELY
ACCESS THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
THIS IS NOT A THEORETICAL CONCERN.
CITY SHOULD REJECT THE REZONING.
SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THE
USES.
FOURTH, DRAINAGE, STORMWATER RUNOFF AND FLOODING.
BEACH PARK IS NOT IMMUNE TO FLOODING AND ADDING A LARGE
AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CAN CHANGE HOW WATER MOVES
THROUGH AN AREA.
WE NEED CLEAR ANSWERS ABOUT WHERE THE STORMWATER WILL GO,
HOW THE RUNOFF WILL BE MANAGED AND WHAT PROTECTIONS WILL BE
IN PLACE FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
WE SHOULD NOT APPROVE A PROJECT AND THEN DISCOVER AFTER THE
NEXT MAJOR STORM THAT NEIGHBORING HOMES ARE EXPERIENCING
INCREASED FLOODING OR DRAINAGE ISSUES.
FIFTH, WATER PRESSURE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY.
APPLICANT HAS NOT PROVEN THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN
ACTUALLY SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT WILL THE ADDITIONAL DEMAND DO TO THE CURRENT WATER
PRESSURE?
WILL THE SURROUNDING SYSTEMS HAVE ADEQUATE CAPACITY FOR THE
ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS AND BUILDING INCLUDING THE TWO THAT ARE
UNDER CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE NOT YET OCCUPIED.
PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY, WILL THERE BE SUFFICIENT WATER
PRESSURE AND CAPACITY FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS AND
EMERGENCY NEEDS?
THESE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ANSWERED WITH ENGINEERING DATA,
NOT ASSUMPTIONS.
SIXTH, PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS AND PEOPLE WALKING THEIR
DOGS.
THIS IS THE PEDESTRIAN NEIGHBORHOOD YET WE ARE CONCERNED
THAT THERE ARE NO ADEQUATE EASEMENTS OR DEDICATED SPACE FOR
PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS OR DOG WALKERS AND NO CONTINUOUS
SIDEWALK SYSTEM.
7, ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.
IF THIS DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
AND FIVE WAIVERS MAKE -- TO MAKE IT WORK, WE NEED TO ASK THE
VERY BASIC QUESTION.
IS THIS PROJECT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION IN THE FIRST
PLACE?
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER AND
FUNCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO ACCOMMODATE A
DEVELOPMENT THAT IS SIMPLY TOO LARGE FOR THE EXISTING
INFRASTRUCTURE.
FINALLY, THERE IS AN ISSUE OF SCALE AND CHARACTER AT BEACH
PARK.
THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS MORE THAN TWICE THE SIZE OF THE
BUILDING NEXT DOOR AND ACROSS THE STREET.
IT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE
STREET AND ABSOLUTELY OBSTRUCT EXISTING VIEWS OF THOSE WHO
HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR AND ENJOY THE RIGHT OF THOSE VIEWS,
NOT TO MENTION THE DAMAGE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY VALUES.
AT SOME POINT, BEACH PARK STOPS BEING A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT
RESIDENTS CHOOSE TO LIVE IN.
WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO LOOK AT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF
DEVELOPMENT NOT JUST THIS ONE PROJECT IN ISOLATION.
ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE CONNECTED.
WE ARE NOT ASKING THE CITY TO STOP GROWTH.
WE ARE ASKING THE CITY TO REQUIRE GROWTH THAT IS
RESPONSIBLE, SAFE, AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BEACH PARK HAS A CHARACTER THAT CANNOT SIMPLY BE RE-CREATED
ONCE IT IS GONE.
WE ASK TO YOU PROTECT THE SAFETY, ACCESSIBILITY,
INFRASTRUCTURE, AND RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THIS COMMUNITY.
PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT OF THIS SIZE.
PLEASE HELP US TO PRESERVE BEACH PARK, NOT BY PREVENTING
RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT, BUT BY PREVENTING DEVELOPMENT THAT
OVERWHELMS THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND CHARACTER OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU.
7:12:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU, DEB.
MARK MILLER, FOLLOWED BY CARROLL ANN BENNETT.
7:12:53PM >> COUNCIL, WHILE THEY ARE CONFIRMING, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY
A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE, I WOULD WELCOME QUESTIONS AT THE END FROM COUNCIL.
7:13:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HOW THIS WORKS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A
SPEAKER WAIVER FORM -- YOU HAVE TWO.
OKAY.
ONCE HE CONFIRMS THAT, YOU'LL END UP GETTING FIVE MINUTES
TOTAL.
THAT'S ALL YOU'LL HAVE.
7:13:18PM >> I HAVE TEN MINUTES WORTH.
7:13:20PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
7:13:24PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I HAVE TWO SPEAKER WAIVER FORMS.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE 11 NAMES.
7:13:32PM >> JUST IN CASE ANYONE IS NOT HERE.
WE WERE VERY CAUTIOUS.
7:13:37PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'LL CALL THEM IN ORDER.
WHEN WE GET TO THE FIRST SEVEN, YOU'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF TEN
MINUTES.
7:13:44PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SEVEN PLUS THREE, YES.
7:13:55PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WHEN DOCUMENTS ARE PASSED AROUND --
7:14:03PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HE'S BEEN GIVING THEM.
7:14:07PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
LAST NAME IS AGARWILL.
THANK YOU.
JAMIE ZINGARETTI.
WILLIE McMILLEN.
WILLIE McMILLEN?
YOU ARE STANDING BUT YOU'RE NOT TALKING, IS THAT CORRECT?
XAVIER JONES.
THANK YOU.
KENNETH JONES.
THANK YOU.
JOHN RICK DELARI.
SELEMA PHILIPS.
THAT'S SEVEN NAMES.
7:14:45PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WITH SEVEN NAMES THAT WILL GIVE YOU TEN
MINUTES.
ONCE YOU STATE YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE THE TEN MINUTES.
7:14:52PM >> IS IT CONCEIVABLE SINCE I AM THE ATTORNEY FOR THE GROUP,
SINCE THE APPLICANT WAS GIVEN AN EXTRA FIVE MINUTES THAT I
MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THAT ESPECIALLY WITH A COUPLE OF
INCONSISTENCIES THAT WERE REPORTED IN THEIR OPENING?
7:15:06PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE
BECAUSE THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT I'LL DEFER THAT TO THE ATTORNEY.
HE SAYS BECAUSE HE'S REPRESENTING THIS GROUP, HE WANTS
ADDITIONAL TIME.
MY POSITION IS THAT IS A DIFFERENT REQUEST AND NOT
APPROPRIATE FOR THIS HEARING.
7:15:24PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
LET ME DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE IF I CAN.
I'VE BEEN PROVIDED WITH TWO PILES OF PAPER.
ONE PILE FOR THE CLERK.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS IS IDENTICAL TO WHICH OF THESE TWO
THINGS I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
THIS ONE LOOKS SUBSTANTIALLY THICKER.
7:15:43PM >> FOR THE CLERK, IT'S PRESENTATION MATERIALS SO SHE HAS
THEM FOR HER BENEFIT.
CLIP, NOT STAPLED, AS SHE LIKES.
7:15:53PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
TWO PILES HERE FROM DIFFERENT THICKNESSES
FOR CITY COUNCIL.
7:16:02PM >> THOSE ARE THE SUBMISSIONS THAT WERE MADE ONLINE LAST WEEK
PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE.
WE JUST WANTED IN CASE --
7:16:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT'S RECEIVE AND FILE.
7:16:12PM >> THAT'S ALREADY BEEN FILED WITH YOU.
7:16:15PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IS IT GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO COUNT.
7:16:18PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HE SAID HE ALREADY SUBMITTED THOSE TO
OnBase.
7:16:22PM >> [INAUDIBLE]
7:16:23PM >> THEY HAVE NOT.
BUT THE PACKAGE YOU HAVE THERE, YES.
7:16:33PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THESE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED FOR COUNCIL TO
HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM, IS THAT YOUR INTENTION?
7:16:38PM >> IF THEY CARE.
7:16:39PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DISTRIBUTE THE DOCUMENTS.
7:16:48PM >> THAT WOULD BE PREFERRED, THANK YOU.
7:16:58PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR INDULGENCE ON
THIS.
MY GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS ACCURATE AND
COMPLETE.
7:17:16PM >> MR. CHAIRMAN.
7:17:16PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
WHEN WE'RE DONE, I'LL MAKE SURE MR. SHELBY CAN CHIME IN.
ONCE HE IS NOT DISCOMBOBULATED OR DISTRACTED.
BETTER WAY TO PUT IT.
MR. SHELBY, THE GENTLEMAN AT THE PODIUM IS REPRESENTING --
I'M ASSUMING --
7:17:35PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
HE'S REPRESENTING SEVEN PEOPLE.
THAT'S WHY HE GAVE ME THE SPEAKER WAIVER FORM.
THOSE SEVEN PEOPLE ARE NOT SPEAKING.
YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TEN MINUTES.
7:17:45PM >> I WAS REQUESTING IF I COULD HAVE THE SAME COURTESY AS WAS
GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR EXTRA TIME.
7:17:52PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WHAT IS YOUR STANDING IN THIS CASE, SIR?
7:17:55PM >> I AM THE ATTORNEY FOR THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION THAT
COVERS BEACH PARK WOMEN'S CLUB, BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, MARINER SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS AND MARINER NORTH
CONDOMINIUMS.
AND I DON'T THINK I'LL NEED ALL FIVE MINUTES, BUT THERE WERE
SOME CLARIFICATIONS MADE AND STATEMENTS MADE BY THE OTHER
SIDE THAT I THINK NEED ADDRESSING THAT ARE NOT PART OF MY
FORMAL PRESENTATION.
7:18:25PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
SO YOU'RE REQUESTING A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS -- SO YOUR CLIENT IS THE UMBRELLA
ORGANIZATION.
7:18:35PM >> THAT'S CORRECT, WHICH REPRESENTS -- YES, THAT'S A CORRECT
STATEMENT.
7:18:41PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS MS. PERRY'S DOCUMENTS.
MR. BENTLEY, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WANT A SIDEBAR WITH ME.
DO YOU WANT THE DISCUSSION AT THE LECTERN?
7:19:03PM >> MARK BENTLEY, 400 NORTH ASHLEY.
THE PURPORTED UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION IS ACTUALLY BEACH PARK
PRESERVATION SOCIETY.
THEY HAVE NO RELATIONSHIP TO ANY OF THESE OTHER ENTITIES.
THEY ARE AN INDEPENDENT CORPORATION.
ACTUALLY, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THEIR LAWYER LAST WEEK,
A YOUNG LADY NAMED MS. BURKEY WHO SAID SHE WAS REPRESENTING
ALL THESE DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
AND TO BE AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME
KIND OF RELATIONSHIP, LEGAL RELATIONSHIP.
THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BEACH PARK
PRESERVATION SOCIETY AND ANY OF THESE ENTITIES AT ALL.
IT'S NOT THE UMBRELLA FOR ANYTHING.
IT'S AN INDEPENDENT CORPORATION.
NOW, IF HE WANTS TO REPRESENT THEM, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY
MEMBERS.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ASSETS IN BEACH PARK, THAT'S FINE WITH
ME.
SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY STANDING IF THIS GOES ANYWHERE.
THANK YOU.
7:20:09PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. SHELBY, MY POSITION IS HE -- SO MY
POSITION IS THAT HE GETS THREE MINUTES PLUS THE SEVEN FOR
TEN, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR HEARING RULES, TOTAL OF TEN
MINUTES, NOT EXTRA, UNLESS YOU GIVE ME DIFFERENT GUIDANCE.
7:20:30PM >> CAN I MAKE THIS EASY FOR YOU?
IF THE COUNCIL WOULD ASK ME QUESTIONS ABOUT LIVE LOCAL AT
THE END OF EVERYONE'S PRESENTATION --
7:20:39PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
7:20:42PM >> I UNDERSTAND.
THEN I WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH THE ORIGINAL TEN MINUTES.
I'LL MAKE IT VERY EASY ON THE COUNCIL.
7:20:49PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AND ME AS WELL.
THANK YOU.
7:20:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
LET'S GO WITH THAT.
IF COUNCIL HAS QUESTIONS, I'M NOT MANDATING THEY ASK A
QUESTION, IF COUNCIL HAS QUESTIONS, THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR
RIGHT TO ASK THE QUESTIONS.
START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
YOU'LL HAVE TEN MINUTES.
7:21:03PM >> ABSOLUTELY.
ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS MARK MILLER.
I LIVE AT 5218 WEST NEPTUNE WAY.
I'VE BEEN PRACTICING REAL ESTATE LAW AND TRANSACTIONAL LAW
AND ALSO A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER FOR THE PAST 42 YEARS HERE
IN TAMPA.
I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY I AM PRODEVELOPMENT.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE RESIDENTS OF BEACH PARK AND THE
MARINER CONDOMINIUMS ARE PRODEVELOPMENT.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE.
THEREFORE WE PROPOSED COMPROMISES TO THE DEVELOPER OVER THE
PAST TWO YEARS.
MORE ON THAT LATER.
BUT ANY COMPROMISE ON THE PART OF BEACH PARK IS WITH THE
QUALIFICATION THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT BE CONTEXT SENSITIVE
APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT.
IN OTHER WORDS, REASONABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDINGS AND CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF TAMPA'S LAND
USE POLICIES.
I'M HERE TO DEMONSTRATE TONIGHT WHY THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
OF 11 STORIES, 262 APARTMENTS AND FORMALLY FOR THE RECORD
137 NOW 129 AND NECESSITATING FIVE WAIVERS TO EVEN FIT ON
THE LOT IS NEITHER REASONABLE, COMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDINGS OR COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND USE
POLICIES.
PLEASE JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES IF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SHOW IS YOU
EITHER REASONABLE OR COMPATIBLE.
HERE IS A PICTURE ON THE FRONT THERE OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES JUST ACROSS THE CANAL, JUST ACROSS THE CANAL FROM THE
SUBJECT SITE.
LOOK HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO 5600 MARINER AS SHOWN IN THE
BOTTOM PANEL ON THE SCREEN.
HERE IS A PICTURE OF THE CURRENT TWO-STORY BUILDING ON THE
SUBJECT SITE WITH THE SAME HOMES AND MANY MORE SINGLE-FAMILY
HOMES JUST ACROSS THE CANAL.
AND HERE IS A TRANSPARENT OUTLINE OF THE SIZE OF THE
PROPOSED 11 STORY -- SORRY, TRANSPARENT -- OF THE PROPOSED
11 STORY, 137, 129, 260 APARTMENT COMPLEX REQUIRING FIVE
WAIVERS.
AND HERE, FINALLY, THIS PHOTO WILL GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE
MASSIVE WALL OF CONCRETE AND GLASS THAT ALL THOSE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON SANDPIPER AND BEYOND WILL BE LOOKING
AT DAY IN AND DAY OUT AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT ALL THE
RESIDENTS OF THOSE 262 UNITS WILL BE STARING DOWN INTO THE
BACKYARDS OF THOSE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
AND TO STUFF THIS OVERSIZED COMPLEX ON THE SITE, THE
DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING -- I'M SORRY -- REQUIRING FIVE
WAIVERS.
SO LET ME SAY THAT JUST TO DEAL WITH ONE OF THOSE AND THAT
IS THE PARKING.
DEVELOPER IS REQUIRING 8% REDUCTION OF PARKING SPACES.
FOLLOW THE MATH PLEASE.
PARKING FOR 262 UNITS BY CODE FOR THIS PROJECT IS 484
PARKING SPACES.
THE 8% REDUCTION FROM CODE THEREFORE PUTS THE PROPOSED
PROJECT 39 PARKING SPACES SHORT.
AND THAT IS JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT
BUILDING.
LET'S BE ULTRACONSERVATIVE AND SAY THAT ON A GIVEN FRIDAY OR
SATURDAY NIGHT, 1%, JUST 1% OF THE APARTMENTS HAVE A DINNER
PARTY FOR TEN GUESTS AND ANOTHER 1% HAVE A PARTY WITH 15
GUESTS, TOTAL OF 104 POSSIBLE CARS ON A TYPICAL WEEKEND
NIGHT.
THAT IS ASSUMING ONLY FIVE APARTMENTS OUT OF 262 HAVE GUESTS
OVER.
LET'S DO MORE MATH TOGETHER.
104 CARS ON THE STREET, BUMPER TO BUMPER WITHOUT ACCOUNTING
FOR DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE HYDRANTS WOULD STRETCH THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF MARINER STREET TWICE OVER.
IT IS NO WONDER MARINER SOUTH AND NORTH CONDO OWNERS ARE
PANICKED ALONG WITH ALL THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMEOWNERS ON
MARINER.
SIMPLY PUT, THIS PROJECT IS EXCESSIVE, INCONSISTENT,
INAPPROPRIATE, CONSIDERING THE SITE'S LOCATION, WHICH IS
INTERNAL TO THE BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT THIS APPLICANT IS COMPARING
THEIR PROPERTY TO ARE NOT ONLY SHORTER THAN THE 11 STORIES
PROPOSED, THEY ARE BOTH FRONTING THE INTERSTATE 275 OFF RAMP
ON KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
AND THEY ARE BOTH IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE TWO COMPARED PROPERTIES AS COMPARED TO THE 5600 MARINER
APARTMENTS THAT FRONT MARINER STREET, TWO-LANE NEIGHBORHOOD
STREET WHICH IS A FULL QUARTER MILE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD
FROM KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
HERE ARE THE PHOTOS SIDE BY SIDE.
ON THE LEFT IS THE APARTMENT BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT
THE CORNER OF KENNEDY AND HOOVER ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND YET IT IS ONLY SEVEN STORIES COMPARED TO THE APPLICANT'S
11.
ON THE RIGHT IS THE NOVEL APARTMENTS WHICH ARE SEEN HERE
FROM THE OFF-RAMP OF 275 AND IS ONLY 9 STORIES COMPARED TO
THE APPLICANT'S 11 STORIES.
APPLICANT COMPARISON TO THE TWO PROPERTIES IS ABSURD.
GIVEN THE TWO OTHER PROPERTIES, BOTH HAVE FEWER FLOORS, ARE
IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT, IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF THE
SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD OF BEACH PARK AND BOTH FRONT AN
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY AND KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
WHILE THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT STARES DOWN AT THE BACKYARDS
OF A MULTITUDE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, ACROSS A NARROW CANAL
AS I SHOWED YOU EARLIER, A FULL MILE, QUARTER MILE INTO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMONG LAND USE PRACTITIONERS THAT THE
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO CASCADE DOWN AS YOU MOVE
INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THIS APPLICANT'S PROJECT TO BE AN
EXCEPTION THAT WELL ESTABLISHED POLICY.
LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT TRAFFIC.
YOU EITHER EXIT OUT OF BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD INTO
WESTSHORE BOULEVARD OR KENNEDY BOULEVARD.
THAT'S IT.
NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT WESTSHORE BOULEVARD TO KENNEDY
BOULEVARD ARE ALL FAILING ROADS WITH AN F GRADING BECAUSE OF
CHRONIC SAFETY PROBLEMS, DRAINAGE FAILURES AND BACKED UP
TRAFFIC.
IF YOUR CHILD COMES HOME FROM SCHOOL WITH F GRADE YOU WOULD
TAKE AWAY THEIR PHONE AND TV PRIVILEGES.
BUT THIS APPLICANT WANTS TO BE REWARDED WITH REZONING WITH
OVERSIZED DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING FIVE WAIVERS.
WHICH WILL GUARANTEE AN F GRADE ON OUR ROADWAYS OUT INTO THE
FUTURE.
STRESS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENVIRONMENT AND JEOPARDIZE THE
SAFETY OF OUR SCHOOL-BOUND CHILDREN EVERY WEEKDAY MORNING.
NOW, LET ME GET BACK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD EFFORT TO
COMPROMISE AND MY SUMMARY.
IN MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO AND SINCE
WE SUGGESTED, WE SUGGESTED THEY MATCH THE HEIGHT OF MARINER
SOUTH CONDOMINIUM AT 73 FEET.
WE EVEN OFFERED TO APPEAR BEFORE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT
SUCH A PROPOSAL.
NOW THIS DEVELOPER WILL TELL YOU THEY COMPROMISED FROM THAT
FIRST MEETING TWO YEARS AGO WHEN THEY INDICATED THEY MIGHT
DO AS MANY AS 300 UNITS.
THEY MIGHT HAVE SAID 500 UNITS AND SAY THEY CUT IT IN HALF.
KEEP IN MIND, THEY CAN'T FIT THE 262 UNITS ON THE PROPOSED
SITE WITHOUT REQUIRING FIVE WAIVERS.
BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BANNED TOGETHER AND COMPROMISED
WITH DEVELOPERS IN THE RECENT PAST AND SEVERAL MEMBERS OF
THE COUNCIL APPROVED THOSE COMPROMISES.
WE HAVE BEEN COOPERATIVE.
WITH THE APARTMENTS ALMOST COMPLETE, WE ASKED THE DEVELOPER
TO REDUCE TO SEVEN STORIES.
THEY AGREED, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ON SEND BOULEVARD.
AND WE CAME OUT IN FAVOR OF THEM.
WITH THE SOON-TO-BE COMPLETED 200 SOUTH HOOVER, WE NOT ONLY
CAME TO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH THEM THAT SHOWS A COMING DOWN, A
CASCADING DOWN, THE PERFECT FIT, WE ACTUALLY CAME -- I
PERSONALLY CAME BEFORE COUNCIL AND SUPPORTED IT AND TOLD YOU
HOW PROUD BEACH PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS OF THAT
DEVELOPMENT.
5600 MARINER APPLICANT HAS IGNORED OUR COMPROMISE OFFER TO
MATCH THE HEIGHT OF THE MARINER SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS.
THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPROMISE BY THE CURRENT APPLICANT, NO
CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY.
NOTHING MEANINGFUL WHATSOEVER.
I BELIEVE I HAVE FAIRLY DEMONSTRATED TO YOU TONIGHT AS I SET
OUT TO DO, THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT IS NOT CONTEXT SENSITIVE
APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT.
NEXT VERY QUALIFIED PRESENTER IS GOING TO PROVIDE WITH YOU
THE LEGAL AMMUNITION TO HANG YOUR HAT ON TO DENY THIS
REQUEST FOR REZONING.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ALL OUR DISTINGUISHED COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR REZONING AND MULTIPLE
WAIVERS.
I ALSO SHARE WITH YOU 974 PETITIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
REQUESTING THAT SAME REJECTION OF THIS REZONING REQUEST.
I ESPECIALLY WANT TO APPEAL TO YOU, COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, AS
OUR BEACH PARK DISTRICT 6 REPRESENTATIVE AND TO YOU,
COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO, AS OUR IMMEDIATE PAST DISTRICT 6
REPRESENTATIVE.
YOU BOTH HAVE BEEN SUCH WONDERFUL STEWARDS OF BEACH PARK,
AND WE HOPE YOU CARRY OUT THAT TRADITION, ESPECIALLY IN
LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS REPEATEDLY
WELCOMED COMPATIBLE, MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ONE MINUTE TO SPARE.
7:30:01PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE PETITIONS
FOR THE RECORD.
[ APPLAUSE ]
7:30:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO, NO.
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
I TOLD YOU ALL I WOULD THROW YOU OUT IF YOU DO IT.
NO CLAPPING, NO WHISTLING, NOTHING ELSE.
ASK THE LADY IN THE BACK RIGHT.
SHE WILL TELL YOU I THROW PEOPLE OUT.
7:30:19PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. CHAIRMAN I JUST WANT TO LET COUNCIL
KNOW AND THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT SIGNED PETITIONS IN AND OF
THEMSELVES ARE NOT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO YOUR DECISION, AND IT
WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THEM AS PART OF
THIS PROJECT.
7:30:38PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DO YOU STILL PUT IT IN THE RECORD, THOUGH?
7:30:42PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I HAD SEEN IT ATTACHED TO THE COUNSELOR'S
LETTER WHICH WAS ELECTRONICALLY PROVIDED.
I DON'T THINK THE CLERK WOULD APPRECIATE 900 ODD PIECES OF
PAPER THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR DECISION.
7:30:54PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE'LL GO WITH MR. SHELBY, YOU CAN KEEP
YOUR PAPER.
IF YOU ARE DONE WITH THE PLACARDS, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF
YOU TAKE THEM DOWN.
WE HAVE SECURITY OUTSIDE AND IT RESTRICTS OUR VISIBILITY.
7:31:08PM >> WE CAN REDUCE IT TO ONE.
7:31:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I'VE BEEN HAVING ANGST BECAUSE OF THIS.
AS SOON AS YOU ARE FINISHED, I WOULD LIKE THEM DOWN BECAUSE
THEY ARE QUITE LARGE, WITH OUR LINE OF SIGHT WITH SECURITY.
7:31:29PM >>LUIS VIERA:
FIRST OFF, I SALUTE THE THUD.
WAY TO GO, ATTORNEY.
IF I MAY ASK YOU, SIR, YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THE LIVE LOCAL
ACT AND YOU WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT.
I'M CURIOUS AS TO YOUR POSITION, THE APPLICANT -- I DON'T
WANT TO PUT WORDS IN HER MOUTH, BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW
THAN THE DEVIL YOU DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS WE KNOW THE DEVIL, IF THAT'S YOUR POSITION, I SHOULD
SAY.
WHAT'S YOUR POSITION WITH ANY DISTINGUISHING POINTS?
I'M JUST CURIOUS.
7:32:01PM >> COUNCILMAN, WE DEEM THE LIVE LOCAL AS A THREAT THAT IF WE
DON'T APPROVE.
IF WE DON'T ALLOW YOU, AS IF WE HAVE THAT OPTION, TO
APPROVE, THAT THEY WILL SHOVE LIVE LOCAL DOWN OUR THROATS,
AND WE FIND THAT ABHORRENT AND COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE WHAT
WAS INTENDED BY OUR GOVERNOR WHEN THEY PASSED LIVE LOCAL.
I FIND THAT TRULY OBNOXIOUS.
I ALSO HAVE TO SAY THAT MR. BENTLEY'S CHARACTERIZATION OF
THE BEACH PARK UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION, WHERE DOES HE COME OFF
TELLING US WHO REPRESENTS WHO AND WHO IS UNDER OUR UMBRELLA?
I FIND THAT TO BE ALSO OBNOXIOUS.
7:32:44PM >>LUIS VIERA:
I WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY -- I
UNDERSTAND YOUR CHARACTERIZATION.
THERE ARE THREATS, MAYBE THERE'S STATEMENTS OF LAW THAT HAVE
BASIC FORESEEABLE FACTS AND SO FORTH.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOME DISTINCTION FROM WHAT
WAS ALLEGED.
7:33:02PM >> WE'RE NOT HERE TO OBJECT TO LIVE LOCAL IN THAT LOCATION.
WE LIVE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT COMPATIBILITY WITH
SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE CANAL IS
WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE.
THE REST OF MARINER STREET THAT IS SINGLE-FAMILY.
THE CONDOMINIUMS, THEY WERE BUILT MANY, MANY YEARS AGO,
DECADES AGO.
TO COMPARE THEM TO THAT AND THAT'S WHY THOSE ARE THERE NEXT
TO THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, THAT'S RED HERRING.
7:33:31PM >>LUIS VIERA:
THANK YOU, SIR.
APPRECIATE IT.
7:33:33PM >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMAN.
7:33:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, CARROLL ANN
BENNETT IS NEXT.
7:33:38PM >> PERFECT.
THANK YOU.
CARROLL ANN, GO FOR IT.
7:33:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO, I DON'T HAVE TO SCHOOL YOU.
YOU'VE GOT THE ROUTINE DOWN.
7:33:45PM >> I KNOW WHAT TO DO.
7:35:27PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MS. BENNETT HAS SEVERAL NAMES.
WHEN WE GET TO SEVEN.
SHARON ALVERS.
THANK YOU.
KEITH CARNOTTI.
THANK YOU.
KELLY.
DEBRA SYSKO.
THANK YOU.
RON SPARKS.
I SEE THE HAND.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING, MR. SPARKS, IS THAT CORRECT?
I SEE YOU ARE STANDING, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING.
OKAY.
JENNIFER SPARKS.
THANK YOU.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL NAME, DAVID INGRAM.
I SEE THAT.
THAT BRINGS YOU TO SEVEN PLUS THREE IS TEN.
WOULD YOU LIKE THESE OTHER PAGES BACK?
7:36:10PM >> I WOULD.
7:36:12PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
TEN MINUTES, MR. CHAIRMAN.
7:36:14PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MS. BENNETT, START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES.
7:36:18PM >> MY MOUTH IS VERY DRY.
CARROLL ANN BENNETT.
PROFESSIONAL PLANNER PATRICIA ORTIZ PREPARED A COMPREHENSIVE
REPORT THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD.
HOWEVER, SHE CANNOT BE HERE TONIGHT, SO I'M PRESENTING IN
HER PLACE.
BEACH PARK SUPPORTS DEVELOPMENT AND FEELS RM 75 ZONING IS
APPROPRIATE.
THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS NOT
REASONABLE IN ITS HEIGHT, SCALE, MASS, DENSITY AND
COMPATIBILITY.
THE CITY'S ADOPTED PLANNING FRAMEWORK IN THE COMP PLAN
STATES THAT THE CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICT, WESTSHORE
PLANNING DISTRICT, AND UNIVERSITY PLANNING DISTRICTS ARE
INTENDED AS CENTERS OF EMPLOYMENT, COMMERCE, AND MIXED USE,
AND HAVE THE GREATEST GROWTH POTENTIAL.
CONVERSELY, SOUTH TAMPA AND NEW TAMPA HAVE DIFFERENT
CHARACTERISTICS AND ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR GREAT GROWTH.
THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY IS INTENDED AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN
THE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTSHORE PLANNING DISTRICT
AND THE LOWER DENSITY SOUTH TAMPA DISTRICT, INCLUDING BEACH
PARK AND ESTABLISHED LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS PROJECT IS OUTSIDE BOTH THE HIGH DENSITY WESTSHORE
PLANNING DISTRICT AND THE TRANSITION AREA OF THE WESTSHORE
OVERLAY.
INSTEAD, IT'S IN THE LOW DENSITY, SOUTH TAMPA DISTRICT,
MAKING THIS PROJECT INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION.
ADDITIONALLY, RMU 100 CAN ONLY USE F.A.R. IN SOUTH TAMPA FOR
MIXED USE PROJECTS.
THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SINGLE USE, NOT MIXED USE,
BECAUSE ONLY 1.12 PERCENT IS NONRESIDENTIAL.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY CODE.
THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT PROVED CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN,
PARTICULARLY THE COMPACT CITY GROWTH STRATEGY, WHICH STEERS
INTENSE DEVELOPMENT TO THE WESTSHORE, UNIVERSITY, AND
CENTRAL PLANNING DISTRICTS.
A MIXED USE RMU 100 PROJECT ALLOWS F.A.R. FOR DETERMINING
DENSITY POTENTIAL, BUT EVEN THEN, THE MAXIMUM IS NOT
AUTOMATIC.
IT MUST BE COMPATIBLE.
I QUOTE, POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE COMPATIBLE IN
CHARACTER AND SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL BUILT
ENVIRONMENT.
BUT THIS PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED MIXED USE BECAUSE
ONLY 1% OF THE BUILDING IS NONRESIDENTIAL.
AS A SINGLE USE PROJECT, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE F.A.R.
IS THIS TRUE MIXED USE?
THIS UNSPECIFIED NONRESIDENTIAL DOES NOT CREATE A
SUBSTANTIALLY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THE GENERAL RULE OF THUMB FOR MIXED USE IS 10%
NONRESIDENTIAL.
TEN TIMES MORE THAN THIS.
AND THE STATUS OF THIS NONRESIDENTIAL IS UNSPECIFIED,
INCLUDING WHETHER IT IS FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE USE.
A PD REQUIRES COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT.
THEIR PROPOSAL IS UNLIKE THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH AND
THE WEST.
THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS NOT IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY, WHICH IS
THE TRANSITIONAL BOUNDARY BETWEEN HIGH INTENSITY WESTSHORE
AND LOW INTENSITY SOUTH TAMPA.
A PD REQUIRES CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT AND 27-226 AND
27-136 SAY A PD SHOULD BE APPROVED WHEN STANDARD ZONING
CANNOT PROVIDE PLANNED DIVERSIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF
USE.
STANDARD RM 75 CAN EASILY PROVIDE THAT.
THE DEVELOPER IS MISUSING THE PD AS A MEANS TO ACHIEVE
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT.
HEIGHT AND MASS SHOULD TRANSITION, RATHER THAN JUMP TO THE
MAXIMUM AND OVERWHELM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY SINCE
THIS SITE IS A QUARTER MILE FROM KENNEDY BOULEVARD, DOWN A
WINDING TWO-LANE ROAD AND IS NOT IN THE WESTSHORE PLANNING
DISTRICT OR THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY.
HERE IS THE BOUNDARY OF THE OVERLAY, BOTH THE MARINER AND
NOVEL ARE IN THE OVERLAY.
THIS PROJECT IS NOT.
YET IT WILL BE AS TALL AS -- ALMOST AS TALL DEPENDING ON AS
NOVEL AND TALLER THAN THE MARINER.
MARINER NORTH AND SOUTH NEXT TO IT ARE APPROPRIATE HEIGHTS.
THIS IS THE TYPICAL HOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS FIVE TIMES THAT SIZE.
THIS IS THE ABUTTING PROPERTY NEXT DOOR AT 80 FEET TALL,
SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN THE PROPOSAL.
THESE TWO PROPERTIES ARE BOTH IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY, AND
THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE APPROXIMATELY OR SMALLER THAN WHAT IS
BEING PROPOSED OUTSIDE THE OVERLAY.
THEREFORE, THIS PROJECT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMP PLAN'S
INTENTIONS FOR THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
THESE FIVE WAIVERS -- FIVE -- ARE ONLY NEEDED TO ALLOW A
MAXIMIZATION OF THE LAND AND WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY IF THE
INTENSITY WAS APPROPRIATE.
THE CONSEQUENCES ARE SEVERE AND UNREVERSIBLE.
BLURS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A HIGH GROWTH AREA AND AREA
WHERE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PRESERVED
AND PROTECTED.
IT WILL CREATE A PRECEDENT FOR TALLER, LARGER BUILDINGS
OUTSIDE THE OVERLAY WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG.
IT WILL INCREASE PRESSURE ON MARINER STREET AND SHIFT THE
DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
IT WILL AFFECT VIEWS, PRIVACY, SHADOWS, AND TRAFFIC.
DENIAL WILL PROMOTE REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT.
THE STANDARD RM 75 ZONING IS VIABLE AND REASONABLE.
IT WOULD ALLOW IS 175 UNITS ON THIS SITE.
RM 75 ALSO REINFORCES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BUILDING
HEIGHT AND SPATIAL SEPARATION.
BEACH PARK DOES NOT OPPOSE MULTIFAMILY THAT IS COMPATIBLE IN
INTENSITY, MASS, AND HEIGHT.
IN FACT, THE CURRENT ZONING OF OP 1 ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY
DEVELOPMENT.
BEACH PARK DOES NOT OPPOSE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.
IT ONLY OPPOSES THIS INAPPROPRIATE INTENSITY THAT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING CONTEXT AND THE
ESTABLISHED CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I AM NOW SPEAKING MY OWN PERSONAL COMMENTS.
IN 2021, THE MAYOR CAME TO THE GANDY CIVIC ASSOCIATION WITH
A DOZEN STAFF MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS TO DISCUSS
INAPPROPRIATE GROWTH IN SOUTH TAMPA.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF, CITY STAFF, THE MAYOR, AND CITY
COUNCIL ALL AGREED GROWTH WAS NOT OCCURRING WHERE IT WAS
MOST BENEFICIAL.
BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND STEPHEN BENSON FROM THE
CITY PRESENTED DATA TO COUNCIL SHOWING THAT AREAS THAT
SHOULD HAVE THE HIGHEST AND MOST INTENSE RATE OF GROWTH HAD
ONLY GROWN 1% IN TEN YEARS.
BUT SOUTH TAMPA, WHICH SHOULD HAVE THE LOWEST GROWTH, HAD
GROWN 13 TIMES AS FAST AND, IN FACT, HAD THE HIGHEST GROWTH
RATE IN THE CITY.
THERE WERE PARTS OF THE CITY THAT WERE STARVING FROM A LACK
OF FINANCIAL INVESTMENT WHILE SOUTH TAMPA WAS GAGGING AND
CHOKING ON THE FINANCIAL INVESTMENT THAT WAS BEING SHOVED
DOWN OUR THROATS.
SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS SUGGESTED A MORATORIUM ON GROWTH IN
SOUTH TAMPA, LIKE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAD AT THAT TIME.
BUT THAT WAS VERY SCARY.
SO THE CITY ADVOCATED FOR SOMETHING LESS IMPACTFUL.
THE ELIMINATION OF F.A.R. AS A TOOL FOR SUPERVISED GROWTH IN
NEW TAMPA AND SOUTH TAMPA.
THIS CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN WAS INITIATED BY YOU, CITY
COUNCIL, FOUR OF YOU WERE ON COUNCIL THEN AND I'M SURE YOU
REMEMBER THAT.
YOU INITIATED THIS AMENDMENT TO THE COMP PLAN AND YOU
APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY.
TAMPA CITY COUNCIL HAS INITIATED THIS POLICY CHANGE TO
BETTER PLAN FOR AREAS OF GROWTH AND MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF
SINGLE USE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.
THERE WAS A GREAT FEAR AT THE TIME THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD TRY
TO CIRCUMVENT THE INTENT OF YOUR AMENDMENT WITH PROJECTS
THAT HAD ONLY TOKEN MIXED USE.
THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT GREAT LENGTH FOR MONTHS BY STAFF AND
COUNCIL.
MEETING TO DISCUSS MODIFIED MORATORIUM FROM RANDY GOERS,
ABBYE FEELEY, CATE WELLS, STEPHEN BENSON, REQUIRE A MIXED
USE, SECOND USE MUST BE AT LEAST 30% OF THE F.A.R.
FROM ABBYE FEELEY, 30%, WHEN RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF AN
F.A.R., THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE MEANINGFUL.
THEN IN JULY, IT WAS CHANGED.
THEY PROPOSED THAT 10% WOULD BE MORE REASONABLE.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS WAS SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL.
AND THEN AGAIN IT WAS SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL IN OCTOBER.
10% MIXED USE.
PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO PUT
PERCENTAGES IN THE COMP PLAN.
THEY THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
BECAUSE THE LDC WAS GOING TO BE REWRITTEN AND BECAUSE
BUREAUCRATIC CHANGE PROCEEDS AT A SNAIL'S PACE, THIS IS
STILL IN PROCESS.
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, COUNCIL SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE
CIRCUMVENTION OF THEIR OWN INTENTIONS BY BEING TRICKED INTO
APPROVING A FAKE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
I WANT TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN TO HERE SAID THEY
NEVER REQUESTED THAT THE NONRESIDENTIAL BE REDUCED.
STAFF FOUND THIS INCONSISTENT.
THEY NEED FIVE WAIVERS.
IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE GROWTH GOALS OF THE COMP PLAN.
IT IS NOT THE ONLY VIABLE OPTION, THEREFORE IT DOESN'T
COMPLY WITH CRITERIA FOR PDs.
IT CONTRADICTS THE PURPOSE OF THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY.
PLEASE DENY IS FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS.
THANK YOU.
7:46:20PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO CLAPPING.
YOU CAUGHT YOURSELF.
YOU WANTED TO BUT YOU CAUGHT YOURSELF.
I HEARD THAT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
MR. BENTLEY.
7:46:30PM >> I'M JUST DOING MY JOB HERE, BUT WHAT WE JUST HAD WAS WE
THINK INAPPROPRIATE.
YOU HAD A NONEXPERT TESTIFYING --
7:46:39PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HEY, NO, NO.
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
LESSONS LEARNED, REMEMBER.
MR. BENTLEY, STATE YOUR OBJECTION.
7:46:46PM >> I HAVE TO GET THIS ON THE RECORD.
YOU HAD A NONEXPERT TESTIFYING TO AN EXPERT, PURPORTED
EXPERT'S OPINION, WHICH IS ALL HEARSAY.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION THE EXPERT.
SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, I THINK THAT TESTIMONY SHOULD BE
STRICKEN.
WHATEVER SHE SAID ABOUT HER PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, SHE'S GOT A
RIGHT TO DO THAT, BUT ALL THE OTHER ANALYSIS BASED ON SOME
EXPERT'S REPORT SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
THANK YOU.
7:47:12PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED.
THANK YOU.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS BRAND -- PROBABLY SLAUGHTERED IT.
7:47:21PM >> CLOSE ENOUGH.
7:47:27PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
ONE ADDITIONAL NAME.
RENEE INGRAM.
THANK YOU.
THAT'S FOUR MINUTES.
7:47:33PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES.
7:47:35PM >> GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS GORDON DORNYAK.
I AM A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF
FLORIDA WITH A BACHELOR AND MASTER DEGREE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING FROM UCF SPECIALIZING IN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
ENGINEERING.
I'M ALSO A VISION SUSTAINABILITY PROFESSIONAL AND SMART
CITIES PRACTITIONER.
I WANT TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REPORT
BEFORE YOU AS EXHIBIT 2 PREPARED BY DREW ROURKE, WHO IS A
PE, PTOE, AND CTL.
HIS INDEPENDENT REVIEW IDENTIFIED SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
WITH TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS SUBMITTED FOR 5600 MARINER.
FIRST, THE TRIP GENERATION APPEARS TO BE UNDERESTIMATED.
THE ANALYSIS DOES NOT MATCH THE CURRENT SITE PLAN AND
INCORRECT P.M. PEAK HOUR FACTOR WAS USED.
AS A RESULT POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL TRIP GENERATION IS
UNDERESTIMATED BY APPROXIMATELY 50%.
SECOND, THE TRIP ASSIGNMENTS DO NOT APPEAR TO FOLLOW THE
EXISTING TRAVEL PATTERNS DESPITE THE METHODOLOGY AGREEMENT
STATING THAT THE EXISTING TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION WOULD BE
USED.
AT MARINER STREET AND HOOVER BOULEVARD, FOR EXAMPLE,
EXISTING EASTBOUND RIGHT TURNS REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY 27%
OF THE APPROACHING TRAFFIC WHILE DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS
ASSIGNS ONLY 14%, LEAVING 13% OF TRAFFIC UNACCOUNTED FOR.
THIRD, BACKGROUND TRAFFIC WAS NOT PROPERLY ADJUSTED TO THE
PEAK SEASON CONDITIONS.
AS WE ALL KNOW, IN FLORIDA, SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ARE
IMPORTANT BECAUSE TRAFFIC FLUCTUATES SIGNIFICANTLY
THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
EVALUATING ANNUAL -- AVERAGE ANNUAL CONDITIONS RATHER THAN
PEAK SEASON CONDITIONS CAN UNDERSTATE THE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
THIS NETWORK WILL ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE.
THERE IS ANOTHER UNUSUAL FACTOR HERE.
AT LEAST 60 NEARBY HOMES REMAIN UNOCCUPIED FOLLOWING
HURRICANES HELENE AND MILTON.
AT APPROXIMATELY 9.5 DAILY TRIPS PER SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE, THAT REPRESENTS MORE THAN 650 DAILY TRIPS
CURRENTLY ABSENT FROM THE SURROUNDING NETWORK.
THOSE TRIPS WILL RETURN ONCE THOSE HOMES ARE REOCCUPIED.
TAKEN TOGETHER, THESE ISSUES RAISE A FUNDAMENTAL ENGINEERING
CONCERN.
DOES THE ANALYSIS BEFORE YOU ACCURATELY REPRESENT THE
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL CREATE.
THE CONCERN IS AMPLIFIED BECAUSE THIS IS ALSO A HIGH FLOOD
RISK AREA WITHIN HURRICANE EVACUATION ZONE A.
ADDING MORE THAN 260 RESIDENTIAL UNITS MEANS POTENTIALLY
HUNDREDS OF ADDITIONAL RESIDENTS RELYING ON THE SAME
TRANSPORTATION NETWORK DURING AN EVACUATION.
FINALLY, WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT ADDS TRAFFIC TO A CONSTRAINED
NETWORK, DRIVERS SEEK ALTERNATE ROUTES NATURALLY.
AS MARINER STREET, HOOVER BOULEVARD, AND KENNEDY BOULEVARD
BECOME MORE CONGESTED, CUT-THRU TRAFFIC CAN MIGRATE TO
RESIDENTIAL STREETS SUCH AS WEST CLEVELAND AND WEST AZEELE,
BRINGING ADDITIONAL VOLUME, HIGHER SPEEDS, AND POTENTIAL
SAFETY CONCERNS INTO ALREADY ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS.
I MYSELF AM PRODEVELOPMENT, BUT DEVELOPMENT MUST BE CONTEXT
SENSITIVE, SUPPORTED BY SOUND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS, AND
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE COMMUNITY
SURROUNDING IT.
BEFORE APPROVING THIS LEVEL OF DENSITY, I RESPECTFULLY ASK
THE COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT THE TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
ACCURATELY REFLECTS PEAK CONDITIONS, EXISTING TRAVEL
PATTERNS, RETURNING RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC, AND CUMULATIVE
IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND THEN WE WILL REALLY KNOW WHAT
THE IMPACT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS.
THANK YOU.
7:51:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU, SIR.
IF NOBODY IS USING THE PRESENTATION, IF WE COULD REMOVE THE
PLACARD AND PUT IT DOWN AGAINST THE WALL.
WHO IS GOING TO USE IT?
THE NEXT SPEAKER.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DEBRA CRAMER.
7:51:41PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL.
MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY.
I JUST WANT TO ASSURE THE PUBLIC THAT THE GOAL HERE IS TO
HAVE AN ACCURATE RECORD THAT WOULD ADEQUATELY AND LEGALLY
SUPPORT WHATEVER CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION IS.
IF AN ATTORNEY OR SOMEBODY WHO HAS STANDING HAS THE ABILITY
TO MAKE AN OBJECTION, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THEY DO SO
TO PRESERVE THAT OBJECTION FOR THE RECORD.
7:52:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
MR. BENTLEY.
STATE YOUR OBJECTION.
7:52:10PM >> MARK BENTLEY.
THE PROBLEM YOU JUST HEARD IS THAT THIS GENTLEMAN WHO HOLDS
HIMSELF OUT AS A PROFESSIONAL SAID THAT HE TESTIFIED TO MR.
O'ROURKE'S REPORT THAT HE DID NOT AUTHOR.
I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION MR. ROURKE.
ALSO, HEARSAY TESTIMONY.
DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE
UNDER THE LAW, IN QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS WHAT YOU
NEED TO RELY ON.
THEREFORE WE OBJECT TO HIS TESTIMONY AND REQUEST THAT IT BE
STRICKEN.
7:52:43PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. BENTLEY, YOUR OBJECTION IS NOTED.
YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY DURING REBUTTAL TO ADDRESS THE
SPECIFICS OF YOUR OBJECTIONS.
NEXT, START WITH YOUR NAME.
7:53:03PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MS. CRAMER HAS FIVE NAMES.
ROBERT CRAMER.
THANK YOU.
JUDY RORTY.
THANK YOU.
JIM HOLLOWAY.
7:53:20PM >> NO, HE'S NOT ON THERE.
7:53:21PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
CROSSED OUT.
OKAY.
CARMEN OMARA.
TARA CURRY.
THANK YOU.
FOUR NAMES PLUS THREE EQUALS SEVEN.
7:53:32PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
START WITH YOUR NAME, YOU HAVE SEVEN
MINUTES.
7:53:35PM >> DEBRA CRAMER.
I AM AN OWNER AND RESIDENT OF 5700 MARINER, MARINER SOUTH
CONDOMINIUMS, NOT MARINER WEST.
DIRECTLY WEST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF OUR HOMEOWNERS BOARD AT MARINER SOUTH.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF THE REZONING FOR
5600 MARINER ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD AND OWNERSHIP OF MARINER
SOUTH.
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, I APPEAL TO YOU TO REPRESENT US TO
HEAR OUR CONCERNS OF THE 43 RESIDENTS OF MARINER SOUTH AND
44 RESIDENTS OF MARINER NORTH, AS WELL AS THOSE OF OUR
SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORS ON MARINER AND IN BEACH PARK.
THESE ARE OUR MAJOR CONCERNS.
THE 262 UNITS AND THE EXTRA TRAFFIC ON THE ALREADY FAILING
ROADS OF KENNEDY AND WESTSHORE AND THE BURDEN ON THE SMALL
ROADS BEING MARINER, HOOVER, AZEELE, AND CLEVELAND THAT OUR
FAMILIES USE MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY.
THE INSUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTS MAGNIFIED BY THE
PARKING WAIVERS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROPOSED
BUILDING WILL RESULT IN CARS SPILLING OVER ON TO MARINER
STREET.
THE LACK OF PARKING FOR THEIR NUMBER OF GUESTS WILL
CERTAINLY POUR ON TO MARINER IN SEARCH OF PARKING AND LIKELY
TAKE AWAY THE SURFACE PARKING INTENDED FOR OUR OWN RESIDENTS
AND OUR GUESTS.
THE BACK OF HOUSE FACILITIES, ESPECIALLY TRASH THAT ARE TO
BE PLACED ON THE PROJECT'S WEST SIDE, EXTREMELY CLOSE TO OUR
BUILDING.
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO SAY A LITTLE MORE ABOUT PARKING.
WHERE WILL THESE RENTERS PARK?
WHERE WILL THEIR GUESTS PARK?
WHERE WILL RETAIL CUSTOMERS PARK?
AND WHERE WILL THE LARGE DELIVERY MOVING TRUCKS PARK?
IF DONE CORRECTLY, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A WAIVER.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE DEVELOPER IS LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE
EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SITE EXCEPT THE ESSENTIALS, LIKE
PARKING.
INSTEAD, THE OVERFLOW OF RESIDENTS AND THEIR GUESTS WILL
PARK ON OUR PARKING SPOTS AND ON THE STREET.
THIS STREET HAS NO SIDEWALKS.
SO PEOPLE WHO WALK, RUN, BIKE, OR TAKE THEIR BABIES OUT WILL
HAVE NO SAFETY.
SO THIS BECOMES A HARDSHIP, NOT ONLY FOR OUR OWNERS, BUT A
DANGER TO ALL PEDESTRIANS.
IT WILL ALSO COST US MONEY TO PROTECT AND SECURE OUR OWN
PARKING LOT.
WHY SHOULD THE DEVELOPER DESIRE TO MAXIMIZE PROFIT BE
ALLOWED TO BURDEN US?
WILL THEY SHARE IN THAT TOUR AND THAT COST FOR US?
THE CURRENT PLAN FOR 5600 MARINER CALLS FOR ALL BACK OF
HOUSE FACILITIES TO BE ON THEIR WEST SIDE, NEXT TO OUR
BUILDING.
THAT INCLUDES TRASH, TRASH COMPACTOR, DELIVERY VEHICLES,
MOVING TRUCKS, DELIVERY VANS, GENERATORS, TRASH AND
RECYCLING TRUCKS AS WELL AS OWNERS AND RENTERS OWN PERSONAL
VEHICLES.
THIS BRINGS NOISE, POLLUTION, DIRT, AND TRASH RIGHT TO THE
EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY.
WE HAVE ASKED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS GOING BACK SEVERAL YEARS
TO HAVE THESE FUNCTIONS MOVED TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE
BUILDING WHERE THERE ARE NO NEIGHBORS.
THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT DUE TO THE GEOMETRY OF THE LOT
CONFIGURATION, IT'S TOO HARD TO GET GARBAGE TRUCKS AND FIRE
EQUIPMENT AROUND THE BUILDING AND STILL MAINTAIN THE TURNING
RADIUS NEEDED.
THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO NAVIGATE THE THREE-POINT TURN.
ALL THESE EXCUSES FROM THE DEVELOPER AND LITTLE TO NO
COMPROMISE.
DESPITE THE FACT THESE CONDITIONS ARE BASED ON THE
DEVELOPER'S OWN MAKING.
I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT SINCE THE VERY
BEGINNING.
I HAVE GONE TO EVERY SINGLE MEETING, INCLUDING A MEETING
HELD AT MARINER SOUTH FOR MARINER NORTH AND OUR OWNERS.
THE LAST TIME I SPOKE TO THE DEVELOPER WAS ON AUGUST 12.
AT THAT CONVERSATION, HE PROPOSED TWO COMPROMISES.
ONE WAS A FENCE OR A WALL INSTEAD OF A FENCE.
INITIALLY, THE PROJECT ON THE BORDER OF OUR TWO PROPERTIES
WAS A FENCE.
HE SAID, I CAN PUT UP A SIX FOOT WALL.
CONSIDERING THE HEIGHT OF THEIR BUILDING COMPARED TO OURS,
SIX FOOT DOESN'T REALLY CUT IT.
AND WHAT I WANT IS TREES.
LOTS OF TREES, TALL TREES.
I WANT A BUFFER TO PROTECT US FROM THE SOUND AND NOISE AND
POLLUTION THAT WILL COME FROM WHAT THEY ARE PUTTING ON THE
WEST SIDE.
THE OTHER COMPROMISE HE OFFERED WAS TO COME DOWN IN HEIGHT.
OKAY, THE TRICK ABOUT THAT IS, WHEN YOU COME DOWN ON HEIGHT,
YOU GO WIDE.
WIDE MEANS CLOSER TO OUR BUILDING, WHICH GOES AGAINST
EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR.
SO THAT IS NOT A FIX.
I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THEY ARE OVERBUILDING ON AN
IRREGULAR TOO SMALL LOT.
SO WE ARE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND, NOT THIS
DEVELOPMENT HOWEVER.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I CANNOT SUPPORT THE WAY IT LOOKS
NOW.
THANK YOU.
7:58:32PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DEBRA.
STEPHANIE POYNOR FOLLOWED BY ROBBY SHERRY.
7:59:10PM >> [INAUDIBLE]
7:59:12PM >> IT'S OUT OF ORDER THAT HE'S IN PEOPLE'S PERSONAL SPACE
WHEN THEY ARE HANDING PAPER WORK TO MR. SHELBY AS WELL.
7:59:31PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MARK SACKALOWSKI.
ARE YOU HERE?
GOING ONCE, I DON'T HEAR ANYBODY.
GARRETT GARCIA?
THANK YOU.
LISA T.
THANK YOU.
THAT'S TWO.
ROBERT SINGLETON.
THAT'S THREE FOR A TOTAL OF SIX MINUTES.
8:00:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
STEPHANIE, START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU HAVE SIX MINUTES.
8:00:04PM >> MY NAME IS STEPHANIE POYNOR.
MR. BENTLEY IN MY OPINION HAS ALREADY USED HIS FIVE MINUTES
OF ADDITIONAL RESPONSE, REBUTTAL TIME.
HE'S BEEN UP HERE MORE THAN ANY OTHER ATTORNEY I'VE EVER
SEEN AT CITY COUNCIL IN ALL THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN HERE.
I WISH I MAY.
I WISH I MIGHT.
I WISH I COULD MOVE THIS SITE.
CARROLL ANN, BRING ME MY LAPTOP, PLEASE.
I'M ACCUSED OF BEING ANTIDEVELOPMENT.
I'M NOT.
I'M ANTI-STUPID DEVELOPMENT.
THIS ONE FALLS INTO THAT CATEGORY.
EIGHT MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEANS THAT THEY DIDN'T
LISTEN TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE FIRST SEVEN TIMES THEY MET
WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL HERE AND STILL UPSET.
THIS IS NOT BEACH PARK'S FIRST RODEO.
THEIR FIRST RODEO WAS BACK IN 2021-22 TIME FRAME.
THEY GOT FROM THIS KIND OF PROCESS ALL THE WAY TO YES AND
SUPPORTED THAT PROCESS.
WHY?
BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO WORK WITH THEM, NOT TRY TO
INTIMIDATE AND BULLY THEM, BUT TO WORK WITH THEM.
WHO CARES WHO TAKES THE LEAD IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SOMETIMES IT'S SOMEBODY TWO STREETS OVER.
YOU KNOW WHY?
THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD WHO DO NOT WANT TO COME DOWN
HERE AND SPEAK TO CITY COUNCIL.
THEY CARE VERY MUCH ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD BUT DO NOT WANT
TO COME DOWN HERE AND SPEAK TO CITY COUNCIL.
SO OTHER PEOPLE, LIKE YOURS TRULY HERE, SHOW UP AND SCREAM
BLOODY MURDER.
WHY?
BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING
THAT.
QUESTIONING A NEIGHBOR FOR NOT BEING CLOSE ENOUGH IS
INAPPROPRIATE.
MR. BENTLEY SAID THAT THIS PROJECT IS NOT IN BEACH PARK.
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.
IT IS PART OF BEACH PARK, AND IT HAS BEEN SINCE 2021 WHEN WE
MADE IT PART OF BEACH PARK BECAUSE THE LAST PROJECT WAS
APPROVED WITHOUT ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS BEING NOTIFIED,
JUST LIKE THE PUBLIX ACROSS FROM STUART, JUST LIKE THERE ARE
OTHER PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF BOUNDARIES BECAUSE THE
NEIGHBORHOODS WEREN'T NOTIFIED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ON THE
MAP PROPERLY.
SO THAT WAS CHANGED.
I WAS PRESIDENT OF THAN.
THE APPLICANT PUT UP THE DEFINITION OF RMU 100.
I THINK THIS IS WONDERFUL THAT HE DID THIS.
BUT HE NEGLECTED TO POINT OUT THIS PART.
I'M SORRY, IT'S KIND OF BLURRY.
BOTTOM LINE IT SAYS RMU 100 NOT FOR SOUTH TAMPA AND NOT FOR
NEW TAMPA.
JUST LIKE CARROLL ANN TOLD YOU.
THIS IS NOT IN THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS PUT IN THERE 30
YEARS AGO.
IT'S IN THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE OUR COMMUNITY WAS RAPED,
ROBBED, AND PILLAGED WITH REDEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN AS PART OF THIS, THEY CAME BACK, THE BEACH PARK
COMMUNITY CAME BACK, AND IN 2022 AT SOME POINT -- LET ME GET
THIS DOWN HERE --
8:02:52PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
BRING IT DOWN.
8:02:54PM >> BEACH PARK HIRED SUSAN SWIFT AND THEY ACTUALLY ADDED IN
2022 THE RMU 100, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PROBABLY COULD OR
SHOULD BE.
BUT, NO, THEY ARE COMING FOR A PD BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SKIRT
AROUND THE F.A.R. REQUIREMENT.
THIS ISN'T SOMETHING FROM LONG AGO AND FAR AWAY.
THIS IS OUR REALITY.
THERE IS A REASON WHY THESE RULES ARE IN PLACE.
I'M SORRY, BUT A DEVELOPER COMING IN HERE AND SAYING, OH,
WAIT A MINUTE -- SORRY, I LEFT MY LAPTOP BACK THERE.
I GOT EXCITED BECAUSE I THOUGHT I WOULD BE LAST.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS IN BEACH PARK.
NUMBER ONE.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHOW YOU THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAPS.
BRING THEM BACK UP HERE IF YOU LIKE.
THIS IS ALSO IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
THIS IS IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
YOU CANNOT WISH IT WHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE.
NOBODY HERE CAN CHANGE THAT.
TRUST ME.
SO WHY ARE WE EVEN TALK ABOUT WESTSHORE DISTRICT.
I DON'T KNOW.
THE REQUIREMENT IN THE COMP PLAN IS NOT RANDOM.
THE WAIVERS, IT'S NOT EVEN -- OH, WE'RE REDUCING FROM FOUR
LOADING DOCKS TO ONE.
NO, IT'S REDUCING IT FROM FOUR LOADING DOCKS TO HALF A
LOADING DOCK.
IF YOU LOOK, IT SAYS REDUCING THE LOADING DOCK 12 BY 60 TO
12 BY 30.
THAT'S HALF.
THAT'S HALF.
SO WE -- THIS BLOWS MY MIND.
I DON'T HAVE TO TRY REALLY HARD TO FIGURE THIS STUFF OUT.
THE NOTE THE APPLICANT IN HERE CLAIMS TO REDUCE THE PROJECT,
WE CAME IN HERE TONIGHT WITH ONE SET OF EXPECTATIONS.
WE WALKED OVER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOLKS TO THE LAND
USE DEPARTMENT FOLKS AND SAID, OH, WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE IT
BY TEN FEET.
OH, WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS AND THAT.
WE JUST NOW GOT AROUND TO IT, WHY?
BECAUSE THIS ENTIRE GALLERY IS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO OBJECT TO
THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S CRAP.
IF IT WAS A GREAT PROJECT, NOBODY WOULD BE HERE COMPLAINING.
YOU GUYS APPROVE 90 PLUS PERCENT OF WHAT COMES IN FRONT OF
YOU BECAUSE 90 PLUS PERCENT OF WHAT COMES IN FRONT OF YOU
EITHER, ONE, WORKS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKES IT A
GREAT PROJECT OR THEY BRING YOU A GREAT PROJECT TO START
WITH.
THIS ONE IS POOP.
IF IT WAS A GREAT PROJECT, THESE FOLKS HAVE SHOWN UP IN THE
PAST AND SAID THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT, AND WE CAN LIVE WITH
IT.
THIS IS NOT AN UNTESTED GROUP OF NEIGHBORS.
THIS IS A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS WHO HAS GOTTEN TO YES WITH AN
APPLICANT BEFORE.
AND TONIGHT, THEY ARE HERE GOING NOT NO, BUT HELL NO.
WHY?
BECAUSE COCKY ARROGANT PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO
COMMUNICATE WITH OUR COMMUNITY.
MR. BENTLEY STARTED OUT THIS EVENING LETTING US ALL KNOW
THAT THEY DON'T LIVE HERE.
THEY DON'T LIVE HERE.
ALL OF THESE PEOPLE AND I DO.
YOU DO.
BUT THESE PEOPLE GET TO COME IN HERE AND SAY I'VE MET WITH
THEM EIGHT TIMES, AND I DON'T REALLY -- THIS IS WHERE WE'RE
AT.
BUT YET YOU GOT FIVE WAIVERS AND A BUILDING THAT'S TOO BIG
FOR THE DAMN SPACE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THAT'S WHY I TRIED TO BE LAST.
SORRY.
8:06:24PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ROBBY.
8:06:25PM >> ROBBY CHARRY.
SPANISH MAIN FROM BEACH PARK.
YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF --
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
8:06:31PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HOLD IT DOWN.
THIS GUY IS SPEAKING.
8:06:36PM >> YOU HEARD FROM A LOT OF FOLKS ON OUR TEAM, FROM OUR
PLANNERS, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, CONDOS AS WELL THAN.
ONE POINT REITERATE.
HEARD IT SEVERAL TIMES, BEACH PARK DOES SAY YES TO
DEVELOPMENT, AND PRETTY EMPHATICALLY STATED IN THE LAST
SPEAKER.
WE UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY THAT THE CITY NEEDS HOUSING AND
THOUSANDS OF APARTMENTS HAVE GONE UP AROUND US, AND I HAVE
THIS -- I DON'T KNOW IF THIS TURNS ON.
8:07:03PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CAN WE GET THE WOLF?
8:07:04PM >> YOU CAN SEE AROUND US THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PLACES THAT
WE SUPPORTED.
THE NOVEL, BEACH PARK, MARINER, UNDER CONSTRUCTION, MARK
MENTIONED.
WESTSHORE PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT, 200 HOOVER.
THE APARTMENTS AT KENNEDY AND HOOVER, MR. MILLER TALKED
ABOUT THOSE.
THEY ARE GOING UP RIGHT NOW, AND THAT DEVELOPER CAME TO US,
AND WE ASKED THEM TO COME DOWN TO SEVEN STORIES.
GUESS WHAT, THEY DID.
AND WE BACKED THAT PROJECT WHOLEHEARTEDLY, AND YOU ALSO
HEARD, AND THIS IS ONE, AS YOU REFERENCE THE TIME BACK TO
EARLY 2020, 2021, WHEN WE GOT ACTIVE AND WORKED ON 200 SOUTH
HOOVER.
AND WE HELPED THAT DEVELOPER SHAPE THOSE STEPS AND STEP IT
DOWN FROM KENNEDY INTO A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
CONTEXT SENSITIVE.
HEARD THAT WORD, APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT.
MR. MILLER WHO WAS HERE AND SPOKE FOR US THIS EVENING, WAS
ACTUALLY HERE.
REITERATE WHAT HE SAID.
HE DIDN'T JUST SAY NO OBJECTION, HE APPLAUDED THAT EFFORT.
A NUMBER OF YOU HERE VOTED FOR IT.
SO THAT'S OUR RECORD FOR BEACH PARK.
THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THEIR RECORD, AND YOU'VE HEARD THAT ALSO.
THEY TOLD YOU TONIGHT THAT THEY COMPROMISED, BUT ASK THEM
WHAT THEY GAVE UP.
A LOT OF NUMBERS WERE THROWN OUT TODAY, BUT AT THE END OF
THE DAY, THEY SAY THEY ARE DOWN TO 300 UNITS BUT AS MARK
SAID, YOU COULD HAVE STARTED WITH 520 DIVIDED BY TWO AND
WOULD YOU GET TO 260.
CHANGING THE NUMBER IS NOT A COMPROMISE.
THE PART THAT DOESN'T NEED ANYONE TO HAVE A WORD AT ALL,
DEPENDING ON ANYBODY'S WORD IS IT STILL DOESN'T FIT, NOT ON
THIS LOT, NOT UNDER THE ZONING BECAUSE IT TAKES FIVE
WAIVERS.
WE HEARD IT ALL NIGHT.
FIVE WAIVERS.
AS WE'VE SAID, WE HAVE COME FORWARD, AND THERE'S ONE
SPECIFIC NUMBER WE PUT FORWARD TO THEM.
73 FEET.
AND, BY THE WAY, EVEN IF THEY DROP IT TO 129, 129 AND 73
FEET, THAT'S 56 FEET DIFFERENCE, NOT 45 THAT'S BEEN PUT UP
HERE.
AND THAT IS THE HEIGHT OF MARINER SOUTH.
IT IS CONTEXT SENSITIVE, APPROPRIATE, AND RESPONSIBLE.
NONE OF THESE ARE IN THEIR APPLICATION.
THERE'S BEEN NO COMPROMISE HERE.
YOU'VE HEARD THAT.
COUNCIL MEMBER, EVERY DEVELOPER, REITERATE THIS, EVERY
DEVELOPER WHO HAS COME AND WORKED WITH US HAS GOTTEN TO YES.
IN GOOD FAITH WE GET THEM TO YES.
AND WHEN THEY PRESENT A CONTEXT SENSITIVE PROJECT DOWN THE
ROAD, WE WILL SUPPORT THESE DEVELOPERS AS WELL.
BUT SO FAR THEY HAVEN'T.
THAT'S THEIR CHOICE, AND TONIGHT IT'S YOUR CHOICE.
PLEASE DENY THIS PETITION.
8:09:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU, RAVI.
HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK TONIGHT?
REMEMBER, IF YOU SIGNED A SPEAKER WAIVER FORM, YOU CAN'T
SPEAK.
I SEE ONE, TWO, THREE.
IF YOU ALL WOULD LINE UP AGAINST THE WALL.
SANDY, GO AHEAD, START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
8:09:50PM >> SANDY SANCHEZ.
I CAME HERE TO GIVE A MINUTE, BUT SOMETHING CAUGHT MY EYE,
SO I HAD TO STAY.
BEFORE I SAY THAT, I HAVE A STATEMENT I'D LIKE TO MAKE.
ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO WHEN I GOT INVOLVED WITH MY COMMUNITY, I
TALKED TO LaCHONE, I TALKED TO ABBYE FEELEY, I TALKED TO
ERIC COTTON, DAVID HEY, DIFFERENT PEOPLE FROM THE COUNTY AND
THEY TOLD ME IF I WANTED TO FIND INFORMATION I HAD TO USE
EITHER THE COMP PLAN OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WHEN WE PRIVATE TAX-PAYING CITIZENS COME UP HERE AND WE
QUOTE FROM THOSE TWO BIBLES THAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD TO USE,
YOU SHOULD NOT DISMISS WHAT WE HAD TO SAY.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY.
THE OTHER THING THAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS THE LOADING DOCKS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S COME UP WITH ALL THE MONOLITHS THAT
YOU'RE PUTTING UP.
LET ME REMIND YOU OF SOMETHING.
WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF DELIVERY.
EVERY DAY AMAZON, UPS, DHL, AND A NUMBER OF COMPANIES
DELIVER PACKAGES ALL DAY LONG, AND THEY ARE DISORGANIZED,
ESPECIALLY AMAZON.
SOMETIMES THERE ARE FOUR AMAZON TRUCKS PARKED IN TWO BLOCKS.
WHEN THEY COME TO THE ADDRESS, THEY HAVE TO PARK THE CAR,
THE TRUCK.
THEY HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE TRUCK, FIND THE PACKAGE BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT ORGANIZED EITHER, AND THEN DELIVER IT TO THE
HOME.
IT TAKES TIME.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LOADING DOCK AND YOU HAVE A RESIDENT
LIKE THIS THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE 300, 350 PEOPLE,
YOU'RE GOING TO GET DELIVERIES ALL THE TIME.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WORK AT HOME AND THEY GET DELIVERIES,
AND LET'S NOT FORGET UBER EATS AND DOOR DASH.
THOSE RUN 24 HOURS A DAY.
I HAVE TWO GAMERS, ADULT GAMERS THAT LIVE IN MY BLOCK, AND
THEY GET DELIVERY AT 1:00 IN THE MORNING, 3:00 IN THE
MORNING, WHENEVER THEY FEEL.
WHERE ARE THESE TRUCKS GOING TO PARK IF THEY DON'T HAVE A
PLACE, A LOADING DOCK TO LOAD AND UNLOAD?
NOT TO MENTION, WHAT ABOUT THE 292 APARTMENTS THAT ARE GOING
TO BE FILLED WITH PEOPLE?
THEY HAVE TO BRING U-HAULS, SUVs, THEY NEED PLACES TO PARK
THOSE CARS.
WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO PARK?
ON MARINER AND WALK AND FIND THAT.
UBER EATS HAS TO GO TO EVERY APARTMENT.
THEY CAN'T LEAVE FOOD DOWN STAIRS LIKE PACKAGES.
IT TIES IT UP.
I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING
UP.
EVERY TIME, THE LAST FOUR I HAVE WATCHED AND I KNOW
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK IS PASSIONATE ABOUT THE LOADING DOCKS,
BUT THEY ARE IMPORTANT.
YOU CANNOT IGNORE THEM BECAUSE TRAFFIC ON MARINER, IF THEY
HAVE TO PARK THERE, AND YOU ARE ALSO ADDING 150 CARS TO
MARINER.
THAT IS AN EVACUATION ROUTE FOR THOSE PEOPLE.
PLEASE THINK ABOUT THIS.
THANK YOU.
8:12:56PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER, START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
8:13:00PM >> JOAN WADDLER.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN AND ALLOWING
ME TO SPEAK.
I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS.
AS A BIT OF HISTORY, FIRST OF ALL, I'M HERE AS AN OWNER.
TWO UNITS AT MARINER SOUTH.
MY PARENTS LIVED THERE FOR ALMOST 29 YEARS.
I HAVE BEEN THERE COUNTLESS TIMES THROUGH THE YEARS.
PARKING IS ALREADY AN ISSUE.
AND THIS MONSTROSITY OF A BUILDING, THEY WANT LESS PARKING
THAN IS REQUIRED.
WITH THAT MANY APARTMENT UNITS, THERE'S GOING TO BE FOUR TO
FIVE HUNDRED CARS MINIMUM.
THERE'S JUST NO WAY AROUND IT.
PARKING ON THE STREET IS JUST NOT PRACTICAL ON MARINER
STREET.
SPEAKING OF MARINER STREET, MARINER SOUTH, AND THIS WHOLE
AREA IS IN AN EVACUATION ZONE A, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
AND EVACUATION OUT OF THAT STREET, OFF OF MARINER IS VERY
DIFFICULT WHEN A STORM COMES, UNLESS YOU ARE A WEEK AHEAD OF
IT.
RIGHT NOW, THERE'S CONSTRUCTION ON THE CORNER OF I BELIEVE
IT'S MARINER AND HOOVER.
IT'S AN APARTMENT BUILDING, AND THE TRAFFIC IS HORRENDOUS.
JUST GETTING IN AND OUT OF MARINER, IT'S TERRIBLE.
OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT KENNEDY AND THOSE OTHER
AREAS.
THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE IMPACTED IF YOU PERMIT SUCH A HUGE
COMPLEX.
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THAT THE APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT IS
REQUIRED.
AND WITH THE APPROPRIATE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
8:14:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
NEXT SPEAKER, START WITH YOUR NAME.
YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
8:14:56PM >> MY NAME IS ANDREW DOYLE.
4501 WEST ROSEMARY ROAD, LOCAL, OWN THE HOUSE.
I HAVE TO SAY THIS IS MY FIRST TIME BEING AT CITY HALL, IN
THE CITY MEETING.
SO THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE WHAT EACH OF YOU DO.
I'M AMAZED.
I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO WHAT EACH OF YOU DO, TO BE HERE AT
THIS HOUR.
MOST OF MY LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT HELPING BIG COMPANIES ON BIG
PROJECTS.
I SENSE FROM A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT THERE IS SOME
CONCERN AROUND POTENTIAL LITIGATION FROM THE APPLICANT,
ET CETERA AND FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I APPRECIATE WHAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IN NOT GETTING THE CITY SUED BECAUSE
THAT WILL COME OUT OF MY POCKET IN TAXES.
I HAVE TO THINK IF YOU LIVE IN THAT AREA, YOU WOULD SEE
THERE ARE REAL TRAFFIC ISSUES AND CONCERNS AND TALKED ABOUT
SAFETY.
I'M CONCERNED SPECIFICALLY IN THAT, YOU KNOW, HEARING, I
THOUGHT I HEARD EARLIER, TRAFFIC ISN'T A PROBLEM.
LOOKED AT IT, ISN'T A PROBLEM.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT EARLIER.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.
IF ANYBODY GOES OVER THERE AND LOOKS AT THE BASE, WHEN THE
BASE GOES OUT IN THAT TIME FRAME, IT'S A ZOO ALREADY.
AND WHEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS, WHEN 275 IS A PROBLEM, THAT'S A
NIGHTMARE.
NOT MANY CORRIDORS THAT COME IN IN THAT SECTION.
IT'S A NIGHTMARE.
YOU ADD THAT KIND OF ZONING, IT'S RIDICULOUS.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT FROM A NIMBY PERSPECTIVE, NOBODY
WANTS A BIG THING IN THEIR BACKYARD.
AS EVERYBODY HERE HAS SAID, IF IT IS A REASONABLE LOCATION
AND THERE IS A REASONABLE SIZE, I THINK EVERYBODY IS OPEN TO
THAT.
AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN AN EARLIER APPLICATION, WE WERE
TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY, DON'T QUITE
REMEMBER WHERE IT WAS, JUST LISTENING IN, THERE WERE
CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING ON THE STREET.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
HEARING, OH, WELL, THE ZONING CODES FOR PARKING ARE 1963,
THAT'S LUDICROUS.
COME DOWN TO SOUTH TAMPA AND SEE WHAT PARKING LOOKS LIKE.
THERE ARE CARS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
CAN I BARELY GET DOWN MY STREET WITH CONSTRUCTION THINGS
LIKE THAT.
IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.
I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS WE DON'T --
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST MY PERCEPTION, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE
HAVE TO GIVE IN TO THESE WAIVERS, THESE WAIVER REQUESTS.
IF THERE IS A CONCERN THAT SOMEHOW WE'LL GET SUED BECAUSE
WE'RE NOT GIVING INTO THE ZONING APPROPRIATELY, THAT
SHOULDN'T BE A CONCERN.
I CAN'T IMAGINE, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE RULES.
IF YOU TALKED TO ME ABOUT ACCOUNTING, THINGS LIKE THAT, I
COULD GIVE YOU RULES.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO GIVE EXCEPTIONS
BECAUSE OF THIS MONSTROSITY THAT'S COMING IN FOR PARKING.
THAT JUST SEEMS RIDICULOUS.
ANYWAYS, I APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU.
8:17:26PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LAST PUBLIC SPEAKER.
ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK?
SIR, BRING IT HOME.
YOU ARE THE LAST SPEAKER.
8:17:35PM >> TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW.
MICHAEL BANKS.
I'M ACTUALLY A RESIDENT, 46 SANDPIPER ROAD.
I DON'T HAVE A PICTURE, BUT IT'S THE BLUE HOUSE THAT'S
DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS PROJECT.
THE IDEA THAT THIS IS NOT PART OF BEACH PARK IS LUDICROUS.
OUR HOUSE IS DIRECTLY THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY LIGHT POLLUTION, NOISE
POLLUTION, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES ON AT THIS BUILDING.
WE'RE SEPARATED BY LESS THAN A HUNDRED FEET FOR THE HOMES
THERE AT THE END OF SANDPIPER.
WHAT I WILL SAY AND JUST IN CONCLUSION, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE
HERE.
I'M GLAD THIS IS A VOTE.
I STOPPED GOING TO THE MEETINGS WITH THIS GROUP AFTER THEY
SAID THEY HAD A HUNDRED PERCENT SUCCESS RATE PUSHING STUFF
THROUGH.
AND I AM SO GLAD THAT YOU GET TO DECIDE INDEPENDENTLY AND
MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT THIS, AND IT'S NOT BASED ON THE
ATTORNEY, DO I HAVE STANDING, DON'T I HAVE STANDING, OR THE
REST OF THIS GROUP HERE, AND YOU GET TO DO THAT AS AN
INDEPENDENT GROUP AND MAKE THE DECISION FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT IT FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND BE DONE IN
A MATTER OF A YEAR OR TWO.
IT IS GOING TO IMPACT OUR STREET.
AND, BY THE WAY, OUR STREET IS STILL 25% EMPTY FROM THE
HURRICANE.
SO, AGAIN, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE TO EVEN COME HERE
TONIGHT BECAUSE OF THE HOUSES THAT FLOODED DURING HELENE.
BUT, AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION TO ALL OF THIS, AND
I TRULY HOPE THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION AND SAY
THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PROJECT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THANK YOU.
8:19:27PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, PLEASE.
THERE'S BEEN CONTRADICTING INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PARCEL AND
WHERE IT LIES.
ONE IS IT IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT?
TWO, IS IT IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT?
8:19:48PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
THIS IS WITHIN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT AS WELL AS
FROM WHAT I CAN SEE THE BEACH PARK NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS NOT
WITHIN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY.
8:20:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT IS IN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING
DISTRICT.
IT IS NOT IN THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AND IT IS -- NOT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE LIKE STATUTORY.
THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION.
8:20:10PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
CORRECT.
8:20:11PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, THIS IS WITHIN THE
SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT.
8:20:15PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
THAT IS CORRECT.
8:20:16PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I GO TO
REBUTTAL?
MR. BENTLEY.
FIVE PLUS FIVE IF HE NEEDS IT.
8:20:34PM >> MARK BENTLEY, ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
GO OVER A COUPLE OF THE POINTS, FIRST OF ALL, SOME OF THE
TESTIMONY WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND I DON'T NEED TO GO DOWN THAT
PATH AGAIN.
I OBJECTED TO IT.
PEOPLE TESTIFYING ON OTHER PEOPLE'S OPINION AND HEARSAY,
ET CETERA, SO THAT WOULDN'T BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT
EVIDENCE.
LUCKILY THIS IS NOT A REFERENDUM OR POPULARITY CONTEST FOR
THIS PROJECT, BUT IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WHICH
YOUR DECISION HAS TO BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT
EVIDENCE.
JUST THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU
WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THIS ROOM TONIGHT.
THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS IS TRANSPORTATION.
THAT ISSUE CAME UP A LOT AND MISCHARACTERIZATION OF SOME OF
THE FACTS.
ALSO, I'D POINT OUT THAT TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT APPROVED
THE METHODOLOGY AND APPROVED THE REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED BY
MR. COEN.
RANDY.
8:21:36PM >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN.
RANDY COEN.
I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TRAFFIC.
I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN.
THEY MADE SOME ALLEGATIONS REGARDING TRIP GENERATION.
RELATIVE TO THE OFFICE RETAIL PORTION OF THIS PROJECT.
WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, IN READING THE EXPERT'S REPORTS, THEY
COMPARE OFFICE FROM NET EXTERNAL TRAFFIC TO RETAIL BASED
UPON GROSS TRAFFIC.
WHEN YOU APPLY THE INTERNALIZATION RATE THAT WAS APPROVED AS
A PART OF THE METHODOLOGY AND PASS BY CAPTURE, THAT IS A
PART OF THE METHODOLOGY PROCESS IN CALCULATING TRIPS, THE
NUMBERS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME BETWEEN RETAIL AND OFFICE IN
THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
THAT IS BECAUSE BOTH OF THESE ARE RATHER SMALL ELEMENTS,
4,000 SQUARE FEET IN MAXIMUM.
BY THE WAY, THERE WAS ALSO NOT LISTED, BUT THE FACT THAT WE
DIDN'T REVISE THE TRAFFIC STUDY ONCE WE REDUCED THE AMOUNT
OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 300 TO 262 IN THE AMOUNT OF THE
OFFICE FROM 6,000 TO 4,000.
WE OVERESTIMATED TRAFFIC BY 16 TRIPS IN THE MORNING AND 29
TRIPS IN THE AFTERNOON.
CITY OF TAMPA PROCESS IS IF YOU GO DOWN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO
REDO YOUR TRAFFIC STUDY.
DISTRIBUTION.
IT'S GREAT WHEN YOU DECIDE TO DO A DISTRIBUTION BASED UPON
ONE INTERSECTION.
THIS PROPERTY IS SERVED BY TWO INTERSECTIONS.
HOOVER AND MARINER AND HOOVER AND BAY CENTER.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE INTERSECTIONS TOGETHER, TO
GET A TRUE DIRECTION OF APPROACH AND DEPARTURE, OUR NUMBERS
ARE EXACTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODOLOGY, WHICH IS BASED
ON THE TURNING MOVEMENT VOLUMES IN THE AREA.
THOSE TWO INTERSECTIONS PROVIDE ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY.
TALK ABOUT PEAK SEASON.
I THINK THE REVIEWER PERHAPS WAS CONFUSED.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY REQUIRES A PEAK SEASON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS,
CITY OF TAMPA DOES NOT.
MOREOVER, PEAK SEASON WAS NOT A PART OF THE METHODOLOGY,
THEREFORE IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
FOURTH ONE, UNOCCUPIED HOMES.
THAT'S KIND OF A NEW ONE ON ME.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
FIRST, THE QUOTING OF 650 DAILY TRIPS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT
IN A ZONING PROCESS.
WE LOOK AT THE MORNING PEAK HOUR AND WE LOOK IN THE
AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR.
IT'S NOT 650 TRIPS.
IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN A HUNDRED TRIPS.
THIS IS AN EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THEIR CONSULTANT OF WHERE
THESE UNOCCUPIED HOMES ARE.
THIS IS HOOVER.
THIS IS THE PROJECT.
THERE ARE 12 HOMES HERE, IF YOU COME OVER TO HERE, TAKE A
THIRD, 23 HOMES, YOU FIND OUT THAT THE TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE
GENERATED BY THOSE HOMES IS VIRTUALLY THE SAME AS WHAT WE
ESTIMATE PROJECT TRAFFIC BECAUSE WE BROUGHT DOWN THE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FROM 300 TO 262 UNITS.
TOTAL TRAFFIC THOUGH WAS ASSESSED.
ACTUALLY DOES, ONE COULD SAY, INCLUDE THESE HOMES.
HOMES OVER ON WESTSHORE, ET CETERA AND WAY TO THE SOUTH,
WOULD NOT BE COMING UP HERE.
FINALLY, WANT TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS.
VISITOR PARKING, CITY REQUIRES US TO HAVE .25 PARKING SPACES
PER UNIT.
WE'VE PROVIDED THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
SO WE HAVE ADEQUATE VISITOR PARKING.
TWO OTHER THINGS JUST TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE FIRST
IS PROJECT WILL PROVIDE THE CITY WITH SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF
FEES, OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.
8:25:04PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
BRING IT DOWN.
8:25:13PM >> I'M SORRY.
FINAL ITEM, SINCE WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT TRAFFIC IN GENERAL,
YOU COULD BUILD THE SAME SIZE BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY
TODAY UNDER THE OP 1 ZONING AS AN OFFICE BUILDING.
COMPARISON.
OFFICE BUILDING IN BLUE, MULTIFAMILY PROPOSED IN GREEN.
DAILY TRAFFIC MORE THAN DOUBLE.
A.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC --
8:25:37PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THERE IS A WHEEL ON THE TOP OF THAT UNIT,
THERE IS A WHEEL, IF YOU SPIN IT, YOU CAN ZOOM IN TO GET THE
WHOLE DOCUMENT.
I'M ASSUMING YOU NEED ADDITIONAL TIME.
HOW MUCH TIME OF YOUR FIVE DO YOU WANT?
RESET THE TIMER TO FIVE MINUTES, PLEASE.
8:25:54PM >> NOW I GOT IT.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
BLUE REPRESENTS THE SAME SIZE BUILDING AS OFFICE.
THE GREEN IS THE MULTIFAMILY THAT'S PROPOSED.
IF YOU LOOK ON A DAILY BASIS, EQUIVALENT OFFICE BUILDING
THAT COULD BE BUILT TODAY UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING WOULD BE
TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC FOR A WHOLE DAY.
A.M., IT WOULD BE FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AS THE
MULTIFAMILY THAT'S PROPOSED.
P.M., IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT, WE ALSO NEED TO TALK
ABOUT THE USES ON THE PROPERTY.
TRAFFIC IS A CONCERN, THEN CERTAINLY MULTIFAMILY WOULD BE
DESIRABLE OVER OFFICE THAT GENERATES SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
TRAFFIC.
8:26:39PM >> I WANT TO ADDRESS -- MARK BENTLEY.
THE FEMA ISSUE.
8:26:51PM >> BENJAMIN PLANT, NORTH FRANKLIN STREET, FOR THE RECORD, I
HAVE BEEN SWORN.
THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED WITH A SEAWALL, RETAINING WALLS, IF
APPROVED BY THIS COUNCIL, WE WILL APPLY FOR A CONDITIONAL
LETTER OF MAP REVISION WITH FEMA.
THAT WILL MOVE THE LIMITS OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION LINE
TOWARD THE SEAWALL AND THE WATER -- SO THE PROJECT WOULD BE
LANDWARD, MODERATE WAVE ACTION AND NO LONGER IN THAT AREA.
AS FOR STORMWATER, THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY
WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA'S STORMWATER TECHNICAL MANUAL FOR
PROJECT NEW DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ERP APPLICANT HANDBOOK FOR
CRITERIA OF STORMWATER.
8:27:35PM >> I WANT SOME DOCUMENTS TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED, PRIMARILY
CVs AND REPORTS.
I WANT TO MENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE PARKING WAIVER, WHICH
IS 8%, THE COUNCIL HISTORICALLY, I THINK, WILL CONSIDER LIKE
A 10% WAIVER.
ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE PETITIONS BEFORE US RECEIVED A 16%
REDUCTION FOR PARKING TONIGHT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE LIVE LOCAL THAT IT'S A THREAT.
NO, IT IS A PRACTICAL CONCERN.
WE'RE JUST WEIGHING ALL OUR OPTIONS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THEM.
WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS THE BEST OPTION, NOT NECESSARILY
FOR THE CLIENT, BUT CONSIDERATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY
WOULDN'T HAVE ANY INPUT OVER LIVE LOCAL AT ALL, WHETHER
ARCHITECTURALLY ACCESS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THAT'S JUST A PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION BY OUR CLIENT.
ALSO NOTE ONCE AGAIN, BOTH YOUR STAFF REPORTS YOU DID THE
LAW ARE CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
BY PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS.
BOTH STAFFS HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE
AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND ALSO STATED POLICIES.
WITH RESPECT TO THE LOADING DOCKS, HERE AGAIN, WE'RE NOT IN
THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY, BUT IF WE WERE, WE WOULD HAVE MET
THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
WE ASKED TO GO FROM THREE TO ONE.
THAT'S TYPICALLY GRANTED, AND WE ASKED FOR REDUCTION FROM 60
FEET IN LENGTH TO 30.
AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU.
8:29:11PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
8:29:12PM >> ONE OTHER THING, THINGS DIDN'T GO WHAT I WOULD CALL
SMOOTHLY BY DEFINITION, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT
THAT ALL THE EFFORT THE CLIENT MADE, IN OUR LAST MEETING,
WHERE EVERY ASSOCIATION WAS INVITED WAS SEPTEMBER 2, AND ONE
PERSON ATTENDED OUT OF THIS ENTIRE GROUP HERE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW GOOD THEY ARE OF PUTTING OUT THE WORD, BUT
WE WERE BLOWN AWAY, HEY, SOME OF THESE CHANGES HAD REALLY
MADE AN IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.
I HEAR THE CAT CALLS AND THE UNPROFESSIONALISM BY SOME OF
THESE SO-CALLED PROFESSIONALS AND I'LL JUST END RIGHT THERE.
THANK YOU.
8:29:50PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IF YOU HAVE DOCUMENTS, YOU CAN HAND THEM
TO THE ATTORNEY TO BE RECEIVED AND FILED.
AND ADDED TO THE RECORD.
8:29:58PM >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
TAKE CARE.
8:29:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
8:30:02PM >> AM I ABLE TO ADDRESS THE HEARSAY?
NOT EVEN THE HEARSAY ACCUSATIONS?
8:30:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO.
THE TIME IS UP.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY CONCERNS, QUESTIONS?
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, I WOULD LIKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.
8:30:20PM >> [INAUDIBLE]
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
8:30:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NO, NO.
8:30:28PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
-- NO QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, APPROPRIATE
FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE, I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT BEFORE YOU
DO DISCUSS IT AMONGST YOURSELVES.
8:30:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CLOSE IT FIRST AND THEN GET THE ATTORNEY
STATEMENT.
MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
MR. SHELBY.
8:30:46PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AS WE DO ON THURSDAY NIGHTS, I HAVE
PROVIDED TO YOU THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THE PD CODE
CRITERIA SECTION 27-136, THE PURPOSE, WHICH IS ONE THROUGH
NINE.
REVERSE PAGE IS PD PLAN, PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA FOR
SECTION 27-139, SUB 4, THE WAIVERS.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU DO HAVE THE STAFF REPORTS IN FRONT OF YOU,
AND YOU DO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORTS FOR YOUR USE.
MY SUGGESTION, COUNCIL, IS YOU ARE THE FINDERS OF FACT, AND
YOU'VE HEARD, AND YOU KNOW WHAT IS RELEVANT AND MATERIAL
UPON WHICH YOU MUST BASE YOUR DECISION, THAT'S COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
AND MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT YOU LOOK AT THE FACTS AS YOU
FIND THEM TO BE AND YOU COMPARE THEM TO THE CODE CRITERIA IN
FRONT OF YOU, AND IF THERE ARE LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTIONS
THAT YOU WISH TO CITE, DO SO, IF THEY ARE CODE SECTIONS YOU
WISH TO CITE, I WOULD RECOMMEND, I WOULD SUGGEST, PLEASE DO
CITE THE SECTIONS SO THAT IT'S CLEAR FOR THE RECORD THAT IT
COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW.
8:31:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THIS IS
COMPLICATED.
I'LL GIVE COUNCIL A FEW MINUTES TO READ AND REVIEW WHAT MR.
SHELBY JUST SAID AND THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PROVIDED TO
GATHER YOUR THOUGHTS.
8:32:12PM >>BILL CARLSON:
I'M HAPPY TO START WITH A MOTION.
8:32:17PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
IF COUNCILMAN CARLSON WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION,
THAT'S FINE.
I CAN ADD IF NECESSARY.
8:32:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION, COUNCILMAN
CARLSON?
8:32:26PM >>BILL CARLSON:
IF SHE WANTS TO MAKE --
8:32:28PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILMAN CARLSON.
8:32:29PM >>BILL CARLSON:
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE
REQUEST AND I'LL CITE THE STAFF'S REPORT REGARDING REZONING.
THE WAIVERS THAT WERE REQUESTED, THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT
COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER AND SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING
RESIDENTIAL BUILT ENVIRONMENT, LAND USE POLICY 1.2.28 SAYS
LIMIT THE USE OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REZONING
PETITIONS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE
LAND USE DESIGNATION OTHERWISE NOT PERMITTED IN THE CURRENT
STANDARD ZONING SO THE IDEA BEING TO LIMIT THAT.
LAND USE POLICY 8.14.3, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REZONING
PROCESS IS NOT TO BE USED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF WAIVING
ESTABLISHED LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, LAND USE
POLICY 9.6.2, PROMOTE A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN
CONSISTENT WITH COMPACT CITY FORM STRATEGY.
LAND USE POLICY 9.6.4, BALANCE THE OBJECTIVE TO INCREASE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE ADEQUATE
HOUSING FOR TAMPA'S RESIDENTS WITH THE EQUALLY IMPORTANT
OBJECTIVE OF ENSURING THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE
WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
GOING TO THE PD CRITERIA, JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, NUMBER
TWO, PD CODE, SAYS ALLOW THE INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT LAND
USES AND DENSITIES IN ONE DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD NOT
OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED FOR OR ALLOWED UNDER GENERAL ZONING
DISTRICTS, MEANING THAT THIS IS A MONOLITHIC THING THAT
DOESN'T MEET THAT.
NUMBER SIX, PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT WHERE
APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION, CHARACTER AND COMPATIBILITY WITH
THE SURROUNDING IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOOD, BUILT ENVIRONMENT,
EXISTING GEOGRAPHY, WHICH THIS DOES NOT.
SECTION -- I'LL STOP THERE AND LET ANYBODY ADD.
8:34:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, DID YOU WANT TO ADD
ANYTHING TO THAT?
8:34:37PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
WELL, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU COULD ADD THE
ACTUAL SECTION NUMBER FOR THE PD AND FOR THE WAIVERS, THAT
WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I DON'T HAVE THEM ON ME AT THE MOMENT.
8:34:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ASKING TO --
[INDISCERNIBLE]
8:34:57PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
8:34:58PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
8:35:01PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MY SUGGESTION IS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW
SHOULD BE ALL CONSIDERED PART OF THE MOTION UPON WHICH YOU
ARE BASING YOUR DECISION.
ALSO, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY
REFERENCE TO SECTION 27 OR ANY OF THE CRITERIA IN 27-139.
8:35:21PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT WAIVERS.
BY THE WAY, I'M SECONDING THIS TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
BUT, YES, COUNCIL MEMBER CARLSON MENTIONED WAIVERS.
SO I WAS HOPING WE COULD HAVE, JUST CITE THE SECTION.
8:35:37PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THE QUESTION IS FOR ANYONE ON COUNCIL, WHAT
IS IT ABOUT THE WAIVERS THAT MAKE IT AN ISSUE?
8:35:44PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
OH.
WELL, FOR ME, THE WAIVERS ARE -- THE WAIVERS ARE TOO MUCH.
WE TALK ABOUT NEEDING MORE PARKING, BUT REALLY, IN THE AREA
FOR ME AS SOMEONE IN THE PUBLIC MENTIONED, I PARTICULARLY AM
CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING ENOUGH DELIVERY SPACE.
SO THAT'S MY ISSUE WITH THE WAIVERS.
8:36:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THE CASE IS CLOSED NOW.
8:36:33PM >>BILL CARLSON:
JUST GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA, SECTION,
THIS IS THE WAIVER CRITERIA.
DO I NEED TO STATE THE WAIVERS?
THEY ARE ALREADY ON THE RECORD?
8:36:41PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH PARTICULAR WAIVERS?
8:36:45PM >>BILL CARLSON:
THE OTHER CRITERIA, NUMBER ONE, THIS IS
27-139-4, NUMBER ONE IS THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT IS UNIQUE AND THEREFORE IN NEED OF WAIVERS.
FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED, I DIDN'T SEE A JUSTIFICATION
FOR REDUCING THE PARKING OR REDUCING THE DOCK SIZE, REDUCING
THE BUFFER, ET CETERA AND REDUCING THE VEHICLE USE AREA
LANDSCAPE.
NUMBER TWO, THE WAIVER IF ALLOWED WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY
INTERFERE WITH OR INJURE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS WHOSE PROPERTY
WOULD BE AFFECTED BY ALLOWANCE OF THE WAIVERS.
WE SEE CLEARLY THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE
PARKING, AND THEY FEEL THAT IT IS INSUFFICIENT.
THEY ALSO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DELIVERIES, WHICH WOULD BE
AFFECTED BY THE DOCK SIZE.
NUMBER THREE, THE WAIVER IS IN HARMONY WITH AND SERVES THE
GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CHAPTER, OTHER APPLICABLE
CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I WENT THROUGH SOME OF THAT ALREADY FOR ALLOWING THE WAIVER
WOULD RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BEING DONE CONSIDERING
THE PUBLIC BENEFITS INTENDED TO BE SECURED BY THIS CHAPTER,
OTHER APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS,
TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE -- HARDSHIPS SUFFERED BY
FAILURE OF CITY.
FAILURE OF CITY TO GRANT THE WAIVER.
I DON'T SEE ANY HARDSHIPS IN HERE REGARDING WHY THE WAIVERS
OF PARKING, DOCK SIZE REDUCTION, ET CETERA, NEED TO BE
WAIVED.
8:38:20PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
GOING BACK TO NUMBER THREE, MR. CARLSON,
DID YOU SAY BY NUMBER THREE THAT THE APPLICANT MET THAT
CRITERIA OR DID NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA?
8:38:32PM >>BILL CARLSON:
DID NOT.
8:38:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
FOR CLARIFICATION, YOUR STATEMENT WAS
CONTRARY.
8:38:38PM >>BILL CARLSON:
NUMBER THREE SAYS THE WAIVER IS IN HARMONY
WITH AND SERVES GENERAL INTENT.
MY COMMENT WAS I WENT THROUGH SEVERAL OTHER CITATIONS OF
ZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO STATE THAT IT WASN'T.
8:38:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR INITIAL
MOTION, FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR OWN MOTION.
8:38:57PM >>BILL CARLSON:
PLUS THE OTHER THINGS ADDED IN.
8:38:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, I ALREADY HAD A
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA ON THIS, I BELIEVE.
8:39:02PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
OH, OKAY.
8:39:04PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE ALREADY HAD IT SECONDED.
COUNCILMAN VIERA, YOU HAD A QUESTION.
8:39:09PM >>LUIS VIERA:
I HAD A QUESTION.
WHAT IS THAT SAYING, MATCH POINT OR WHATEVER, IT SORT OF CAN
GO EITHER WAY FOR ME.
JUST A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT A LOT OF THE
WAIVERS OF INCOMPATIBILITY THAT ARE ASSERTED, TELL ME IF YOU
ALL AGREE OR DISAGREE, NUMBER ONE, A LOT OF THESE WAIVERS,
LIKE THE PARKING REDUCTION, 8%.
IT'S NOTHING, SOME SIGNIFICANT ISSUE.
THERE ARE ALLEGATIONS OF PARKING, BUT 8% I DON'T THINK RISE
TO THAT LEVEL THAT IS BEING ALLEGED.
SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW ARE THESE WAIVERS RELATED TO THE
COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN ASSERTED
AGAINST THIS PROJECT?
IF I MAY, I ASK THAT AS A GENERAL CURIOUS QUESTION.
IT'S NOT A LEADING QUESTION.
I ASK THAT AS A PILGRIM IN SEARCH OF INFORMATION TO MAKE MY
DECISION.
8:39:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.
8:39:58PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
WELL, I'M GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE
LOADING BERTHS BECAUSE THAT'S MY ISSUE.
THE LOADING BERTHS ARE A BIG DEAL FOR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX
OF THIS SIZE.
AND THE DELIVERIES THAT WILL COME TO THEM.
SO NOT ONLY ARE THEY REDUCING FROM 4 TO 1, BUT THE 1 ISN'T
EVEN GOING TO BE A NORMAL SIZE.
IT'S GOING TO BE HALF THE NORMAL SIZE.
SO TO ME THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT WAIVER.
ALSO, THE DISTANCE SEPARATION IS ALSO AN ISSUE.
AS YOU LOOK AT THE MASS AND SCALE OF WHAT'S NEXT DOOR.
8:40:34PM >>LUIS VIERA:
THANK YOU, MA'AM, VERY MUCH.
8:40:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILMAN VIERA, I WANT TO DRAW YOUR
ATTENTION TO 27-136, REFERENCE FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
FROM THE EUCLIDEAN ZONING, AND I BELIEVE THAT COUNCILMAN
CARLSON'S MOTION ENCOMPASSED QUITE A BIT OF 27-136 --
[INAUDIBLE] COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
8:40:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
NO, HAD -- [INAUDIBLE]
8:40:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
OKAY.
VERY GOOD.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
8:41:04PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[INAUDIBLE]
8:41:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS AND CLERK, WOULD YOU
PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
CALL THE VOTE.
8:41:20PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
8:41:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
MOTION TO DENY WAS MADE BY COUNCILMAN BILL CARLSON.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
IT WAS WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE MADE TO THE INITIAL
MOTION.
8:41:32PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
8:41:33PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
8:41:33PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
8:41:35PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
8:41:38PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
8:41:38PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
8:41:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
8:41:42PM >>THE CLERK:
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY FOR MOTION TO
DENY.
8:41:47PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[ APPLAUSE ]
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER.
I'LL ASK YOU ALL TO LEAVE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
LET'S DO A TEN-MINUTE BREAK.
REAL TEN-MINUTE BREAK.
8:43.
BACK AT 8:53.
WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL 8:53.
[RECESS]
8:56:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WELCOME BACK.
CALLING THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
8:57:07PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
HERE.
8:57:07PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
HERE.
8:57:07PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
HERE.
8:57:07PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
HERE.
8:57:07PM >> VIERA? CARLSON?
8:57:08PM >>BILL CARLSON:
HERE.
8:57:14PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HERE.
8:57:14PM >>THE CLERK:
WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM.
THANK YOU, ITEM NUMBER 5.
[AUDIO INTERFERENCE]
8:57:23PM >> [INAUDIBLE] -- SOUTH MARTINDALE AVENUE FROM PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, APPROVED FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED.
I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
8:57:54PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, SWORN IN, WITH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
REZ 26-64, LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTH TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT
AND THE INTERBAY SOUTH OF GANDY NEIGHBORHOOD.
SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE A AND B.
SURROUNDING AREA CONTAINS MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
HOMES WITH SOME MULTIFAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES.
COMMERCIAL USES ARE SCATTERED TO THE NORTH ALONG INTERBAY
BOULEVARD, PARTICULARLY NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF INTERBAY
BOULEVARD AND SOUTH MacDILL AVENUE.
SOUTH IS THE CARIBBEAN AMERICAN CLUB AND SKY VIEW PARK, MACK
STILL AIR FORCE BASE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH
OF THE SITE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION.
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH AND
RESIDENTIAL 10 IS LOCATED DIRECTLY WEST AND NORTH OF THE
SITE.
TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE SITE THERE IS A PORTION OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA DESIGNATED COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 AT THE
INTERSECTION OF INTERBAY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH MacDILL
AVENUE.
THE PROPOSED REQUEST AS EXISTING APPROVED REZONING
ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE REZ 22-51 AND NOT PROPOSING AN
INCREASE IN UNITS FOR THE NEW REQUEST.
WHILE THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE R-20 FLU
CATEGORY ITS ALLOWABLE DENSITY IS LIMITED TO TEN DWELLING
UNITS AN ACRE DUE TO THE SITE'S LOCATION WITHIN THE MACDILL
AIR FORCE BASE FLIGHT PATH, THE REQUEST PROPOSES
APPROXIMATELY 5.74 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE AND THEREFORE
CONSISTENT WITH LU POLICY 8.1.3 ON THE FLIGHT PATH, LIMITING
DENSITY WITHIN THE FLIGHT PATH.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND FOUND THE
PROPOSAL MEETING POLICY DIRECTION FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON
UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS AND COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.
ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO IMPROVE SOUTH
6th STREET AND THE PD PROPOSES THE ADDITION OF SIDEWALKS
ALONG INTERBAY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH MARTINDALE AVENUE WHERE
SIDEWALKS ARE CURRENTLY LACKING.
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MOBILITY POLICIES.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND I'M
AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
8:59:58PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, CHRISTOPHER.
9:00:17PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER
DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
BEFORE I JUMP INTO MY PRESENTATION, I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT
THIS EVENING DUE TO THE VERY NARROW SCOPE OF THIS
APPLICATION, WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT ON
HAND IN CASE THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE
SPECIFIC CHANGE THAT IS BEING ASKED THIS EVENING BY THE
APPLICANT.
WE'LL START WITH THE PRESENTATION -- WE'LL START THE
PRESENTATION OFF WITH AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
COMPRISED OF FIVE PARCELS.
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF INTERBAY BOULEVARD.
TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 6th STREET AND EAST
OF THE SUBJECT SITE WE HAVE SOUTH MARTINDALE AVENUE.
THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE COMPRISED OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLINGS TO THE NORTH.
WE HAVE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND RS 50 ZONING TO THE
NORTH.
SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE HAVE RS 60, EAST OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE HAVE A MIX OF RM 16, RS 60 AS WELL AS
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING.
THE PROPERTIES TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
ARE COMPRISED OF VACANT PARCELS, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND
SINGLE-FAMILY SEMI DETACHED.
WEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WE DO HAVE A PROPERTY ZONED
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT IS APPROVED FOR STRIP SHOPPING
CENTER, RESTAURANT, DAY CARE, AS WELL AS SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLINGS.
THAT SITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND I WILL POINT
THAT OUT DURING THE PHOTO PHASE OF MY PRESENTATION.
NEXT WE HAVE SITE PLAN.
SUBJECT PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 38,951 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
THE APPLICANT THROUGH THIS PD REZONING PROPOSES A
MODIFICATION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WATER CONDITIONS.
THESE CONDITIONS DETAIL HOW EACH OF THE FIVE PARCELS RECEIVE
WATER SERVICE FROM THE CITY.
THE PD REQUEST BEFORE YOU RETAINS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS.
SO THERE'S NO PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE LAYOUT OF THE PD, THE
NUMBER OF PARCELS.
THIS IS STRICTLY A CHANGE RELATING TO THE WATER CONDITIONS.
ALL PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS REMAIN THE SAME.
I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, PARCELS ONE
AND TWO ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
PARCEL THREE IS VACANT.
PARCEL FOUR IS CONSTRUCTED WITH A HOME, HOWEVER THERE IS NOT
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL
AND NORTH OF THE PROJECT, PARCEL FOUR IS PARCEL FIVE, WHICH
IS VACANT.
AND, OF COURSE, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE PARCELS ARE
UNDEVELOPED, I CAN'T SHOW YOU ELEVATIONS.
THERE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY ELEVATION PROPOSED AS WELL AS A TWO
STORY ELEVATION OPTION.
MAX HEIGHT IS 30 FEET, AS NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN.
THERE ARE NO WAIVERS WITH THE REQUESTED APPLICATION.
AND I DO WANT TO PUT FORTH ON THE SCREEN THE WATER
CONDITIONS AND OUR FRIENDS AT THE WATER DEPARTMENT MADE US
AWARE OF A VERY MINOR CHANGE THAT WE WANT TO ENTER INTO THE
RECORD.
WE HAVE THE PROPOSED WATER CONDITION HERE.
THE AREA HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE THERE IS THE NEW LANGUAGE
PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
IF IT'S COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, I CAN SHOW YOU THE OLD CONDITION
AS WELL.
THE NEW CONDITION IS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE.
THERE IS ONE VERY MINOR EDIT THAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF THIS
EVENING.
IT RELATES TO THE SECOND SENTENCE, SO IT SHOULD READ, THERE
ARE NOT EXISTING WATER FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN 6th
STREET.
AND THEN IT KIND OF GOES ON THERE, AND THEN IT JUMPS INTO
THE NEW LANGUAGE.
I DO WANT TO ENTER THAT CHANGE INTO THE RECORD.
HAVING A LOOK HERE AT THE SUBJECT PARCELS, WE HAVE PARCEL
ONE ALONG INTERBAY.
PARCEL TWO NEXT DOOR.
ANOTHER VIEW OF PARCEL TWO.
SOUTH OF PARCEL TWO, WE HAVE PARCEL THREE.
JUMPING OVER TO MARTINDALE, WE HAVE PARCEL FOUR.
THAT'S THE HOUSE THAT DOES NOT HAVE A CO ISSUED JUST YET.
PARCEL FIVE IS VACANT.
NORTH OF INTERBAY, SOUTH OF PARCEL 5 ON MARTINDALE.
IMMEDIATELY EAST OF PARCEL ONE.
THIS IS EAST OF PARCELS FOUR AND FIVE ON MARTINDALE, AND
WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ALONG 6th STREET AND THIS IS THE
PD SITE.
A PORTION OF THE PD SITE THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF REVIEWED THE
PETITION.
WE DO FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY
OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE
APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE
COMPLETED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO CHECK ONE LAST THING.
WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THAT REVISION SHEET UNDER DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION, AND, OF COURSE, THE ITEM I ASKED TO BE ENTERED
INTO THE RECORD AS WELL.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL THIS EVENING.
9:06:15PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, APPLICANT.
9:06:27PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
MATT NEWTON FROM SCHUMAKER, 101 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD,
SUITE 2800 HERE FOR THE APPLICANT.
I DO HAVE A VERY LENGTHY PRESENTATION PREPARED, BUT AS I SAT
THERE FOR THE LAST FOUR HOURS, I THOUGHT WHAT CAN I DO TO
MAKE CITY COUNCIL'S LIFE EASIER TONIGHT?
YOU WANT TO HEAR IT ALL.
ALL RIGHT.
9:06:50PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE'LL SAY WHAT MRS. MANISCALCO SAYS NO,
NO, MR. MANISCALCO.
9:06:59PM >> I WILL KEEP IT VERY BRIEF.
ARTIFACT FROM 2022, IT ONLY AFFECTS THIS LOT, LOT THREE.
THIS IS THE PLAT FROM 1912, BY THE WAY.
INSERT THE JOKE ABOUT CHARLIE MIRANDA.
APOLOGIZE, COUNCILMAN.
WENT AS WELL AS I THOUGHT IT WOULD.
9:07:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I'M THE ONLY FUNNY ONE ON COUNCIL.
9:07:22PM >> ONLY ALLOWS WATER THIS WAY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S TYPICALLY IN FRONT OF STAFF AS
OPPOSED TO CITY COUNCIL.
WE'RE REQUESTING THE FLEXIBILITY WHICH STAFF FINDS
CONSISTENT TO HAVE THE OPTION TO GET WATER THROUGH AN
EASEMENT THIS WAY FROM WHAT USED TO BE PORT TAMPA BOULEVARD
BUT IS NOW INTERBAY OR THROUGH THIS LOT AS WELL.
THAT'S IT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO
ELABORATE MORE, I AM HAPPY TO DO SO.
9:07:50PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WHY NOT GO DOWN THE STREET?
9:07:52PM >> WE HAVE AN ENGINEER HERE THAT CAN TESTIFY AS TO THE
LOGISTICAL OBSTACLES.
REALLY, IT'S ABOUT MONEY.
GOING DOWN THE STREET, WOULD HE TESTIFY COST 100 TO 200
THOUSAND DOLLARS BASED ON ENGINEERING CONCERNS.
THIS WAY IT COSTS ABOUT 40,000.
SO WHEN YOU PRICE A PROJECT AND CONSIDER CONDITIONS, THERE'S
SUPPOSED TO BE A PROPORTIONATE CONSIDERATION AS TO WHAT THAT
WOULD COST.
TO ADD THAT HUNDRED, TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR COST TO
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FOR ONE HOUSE TO BUILD THAT LINE --
9:08:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DO YOU HAVE PERMISSION FROM THOSE
SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES?
9:08:25PM >> WE DO.
WE NEGOTIATED AN EASEMENT WITH THIS LOT.
9:08:39PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SO YOU NEGOTIATED AN EASEMENT WITH THE LOT
OWNER.
9:08:44PM >> WITH THIS LOT FOR THE WESTERN 7.5 FEET FOR LOT 2.
9:08:50PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
FOR AN EASEMENT.
IS THAT IN PERPETUITY?
9:08:54PM >> YES.
I HAVE A COPY OF IT RIGHT HERE.
9:08:56PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
STAFF IS THAT GOOD AND COVER FOR THE CITY?
9:09:02PM >> CHAD BAILEY, CHIEF ENGINEER FROM THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE FINE WITH HAVING THE EASEMENT RUN THROUGH A PRIVATE
LOT.
WHAT WE REQUIRE A JOINT USE AND PRIVATE USE AGREEMENT IN
PERPETUITY AND NEEDS TO BE FILED WITH THE CLERK PRIOR TO THE
WATER DEPARTMENT PROVIDING A COMMITMENT FOR WATER SERVICE
FOR SAID LOT.
9:09:19PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IS THERE ANYTHING NEGATIVE FOR THE CITY
FOR GRANTING THIS TYPE OF EASEMENT FOR THE WATER SUPPLY FOR
THIS LOT?
9:09:24PM >> NO, WE HAVE THE FIDUCIARY RIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE
PROTECTING FUTURE HOMEOWNERS AND EXISTING HOMEOWNERS.
AND THIS IS CONSISTENT.
9:09:30PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CONSISTENT WITH YOUR PART.
9:09:32PM >> YES, SIR.
9:09:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
9:09:35PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
I HAVE A QUESTION.
9:09:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
LET ME GET YOU BACK UP ON TV SO WE CAN SEE.
WE GOT YOU.
9:09:48PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
I'M CURIOUS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PREVENT
PEOPLE FROM BUILDING ON TOP OF THIS EASEMENT?
9:09:56PM >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
MATT NEWTON FOR THE RECORD.
EASEMENT AGREEMENTS PROVIDE THAT -- I CAN PULL UP SOME
LANGUAGE OF THIS PROPOSED ONE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER LEAVE
THAT CLEAR, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE MAINTENANCE IN THE FUTURE.
9:10:15PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
WELL, MY QUESTION ISN'T REALLY ABOUT THE
LEGALITY.
IT'S ABOUT THE PRACTICALITY.
PEOPLE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BUILD IN ALLEYS AND THEY DO IT ALL
THE TIME.
MY CONCERN IS THAT SOMEBODY BUILDS LIKE A BIG BARBEQUE GRILL
ON TOP OF THIS LIKE TWO HOMEOWNERS IN, AND THEN YOU NEED TO
ACCESS IT, WHAT PROTECTIONS DOES THE CITY HAVE TO ACCESS
THAT WATER?
9:10:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THIS WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
9:10:44PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
SURE.
9:10:48PM >> CHAD BAILEY, CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE WATER DEPARTMENT.
SO THE WATER DEPARTMENT -- THE NOTES ACTUALLY GIVE OPTIONS
FOR EITHER-OR OPTIONS.
THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT OF A WATER MAIN RUNNING DOWN 6th
STREET OR RUNNING THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY IN AN EASEMENT.
SHOWN HERE, WE HAVE THE SOLID LINE THAT WOULD REPRESENT THE
WATER SERVICE GOING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
9:11:17PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
I CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE THE WOLF ISN'T ON.
9:11:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE WE SHOW THAT
IT IS.
9:11:25PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
NOW I CAN SEE IT.
9:11:28PM >> THE SOLID LINE HERE ON 6th STREET SHOWS THE ORIGINAL
REQUIREMENT OF RUNNING A PUBLIC WATER MAIN DOWN 6th
STREET.
THE REVISED LANGUAGE PROVIDES THE OPTION TO RUN EITHER ONE.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE HERE, YOU CAN SEE A SOLID LINE.
THAT WOULD REPRESENT THE PUBLIC SIDE WITH THE WATER METER
RIGHT THERE AT THE PROPERTY LINE.
EVERYTHING DASHED THERE WOULD BE PRIVATE.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IF YOU HAVE A TOWNHOME COMPLEX WITH
PRIVATE EASEMENTS RUNNING THAT WAY.
TYPICALLY WHEN WE SEE THESE OCCUR, THEY ARE SET ON OR WITHIN
THE SETBACK AREA, TOO, AS WELL.
SO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN ABOUT IF
THERE IS A PRIVATE DISPUTE, IF IT IS DAMAGED IN SOME SORT OF
WAY, THAT'S WHAT THE EASEMENT IS FOR, RECORDED WITH THE
CLERK'S OFFICE AND GIVES MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT.
IF ONE IS DAMAGED, IT WILL OUTLINE WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
WHAT IN WHATEVER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT'S DAMAGED.
9:12:21PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
OKAY.
I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE SOUTH ON 6th STREET?
9:12:27PM >> ACTUALLY A BENEFIT TO THE CITY TO HAVE SHORTER SERVICE
LINE.
THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER GREATER BENEFIT TO THE CITY TO RUN A
WATER MAIN DOWN 6th STREET SO NO ONE ELSE COULD BENEFIT
FROM IT.
ALL THE OTHER LOTS THAT POTENTIALLY HAVE IT, HAVE THE GIANT
HURDLE OF A DITCH RUNNING DOWN 6th STREET AND ALSO SERVICE
COMING OFF A DIFFERENT SIDE STREET.
9:12:48PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
OH, OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THAT'S IT.
9:12:50PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?
WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
9:13:01PM >>LUIS VIERA:
I'LL TAKE THIS ONE, IF I MAY.
MOTION TO DENY -- I'M JOKING.
I MOVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL
VICINITY OF 6200 AND 6202 INTERBAY BOULEVARD, 6206 SOUTH
6th STREET AND 6205 AND 6207 SOUTH MARTINDALE AVENUE IN
THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED TO PD,
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
9:13:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WITH THE REVISION.
9:13:42PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
WATER NOTE FROM THE WATER DEPARTMENT,
ONTO IT.
9:13:46PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES, SIR.
9:13:50PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
INCLUDE NOT ONLY THE REVISION SHEET BUT THIS ITEM THAT WE
ENTERED INTO THE RECORD WITH THE ONE WORD WE'RE ADDING.
9:13:58PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WITH THE REVISION AND SAID ITEM.
REVISION AND NOTE FROM WATER.
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, RIGHT?
ALL -- ROLL CALL.
9:14:17PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
9:14:19PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
9:14:22PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
9:14:25PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
9:14:26PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
9:14:27PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
9:14:28PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
9:14:30PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD OCTOBER 1st,
2026, AT 10 A.M. AT OLD CITY HALL, 315 EAST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD, THIRD, FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602.
9:14:45PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ITEM NUMBER 6.
9:14:48PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
REZ 26-66, REQUEST TO REZONE 2910 EAST CLARK STREET FROM RM
16 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED USES.
I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
9:15:12PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
REZ 26-66, LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING
DISTRICT AND THE PALMETTO BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE A AS WELL
AS COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA.
SURROUNDING AREA CONTAINS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL USES WITH A
MIXTURE OF TWO FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.
TO THE WEST OF SOUTH 30th STREET AND INDUSTRIAL USES
GENERALLY EAST OF SOUTH 30th STREET.
PUBLIC QUASI-PUBLIC USES ARE LOCATED EAST OF THE SITE.
DE SOTO PARK AND DE SOTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ARE LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY ONE BLOCK SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF THE SITE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 35 FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION.
RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
DESIGNATIONS EXIST SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THE RESIDENTIAL 10 DESIGNATION GENERALLY EXISTS TO THE WEST
APPROXIMATELY ONE BLOCK FROM THE SUBJECT SITE WITH POCKETS
OF RESIDENTIAL 20 TO THE NORTH AND SOUTHWEST AND COMMERCIAL
USES ARE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 FLU DESIGNATION
ALONG TO THE WEST ALONG NORTH 22nd STREET.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND
FOUND NO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE REZONING WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN THE
PALMETTO BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD IN PROXIMITY TO EMPLOYMENT
GENERATING INDUSTRIAL USES AND MEETS POLICY DIRECTION FOR
INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL 35
SUPPORTS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING
ATTACHED AND DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY.
DUE TO THE MIXTURE OF RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN PROXIMITY TO
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL EAST OF SOUTH 30th STREET, PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
FOR FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS AT A DENSITY OF
APPROXIMATELY 21 UNITS PER ACRE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE
SURROUNDING AREA.
WHILE THIS IS HIGHER THAN AVERAGE -- HIGHER THAN THE
EXISTING AVERAGE DENSITY ALONG THIS PORTION OF EAST CLARK
STREET, THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY THAT
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED HOUSING AT SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITIES
IN SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO EAST
CLARK STREET IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY ENCOURAGING
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE FRONT DOORS
FACING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH CONNECTION TO NEIGHBORHOOD
SIDEWALKS.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
9:17:38PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, CHRISTOPHER.
9:17:45PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER
DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
WE'LL START WITH AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN
RED.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST CLARK
STREET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A BLOCK LOCATED BETWEEN
SOUTH 30th STREET TO THE EAST AND NORTH 28th STREET TO
THE WEST.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
DWELLING, SURROUNDING ZONING IS RM 16.
WE DO HAVE AN RM 24 ZONING SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS AREA TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST IS MADE
UP OF A MIXTURE OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND SEMI DETACHED
USES.
EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE DO HAVE IG ZONING.
THERE IS LIGHT MANUFACTURING.
THERE IS A LIGHT MANUFACTURING USE THERE.
THE APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN SHOWS A SUBJECT PROPERTY TOTALING
8,583 SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
IT INCLUDES ONE STRUCTURE WHICH HAS FOUR UNITS.
EACH UNIT IS TWO STORIES.
CONTAINING A ONE-CAR GARAGE AND EACH FRONT DOOR HAS A
COVERED ENTRYWAY.
THERE IS A COVERED PORCH ON THE REAR OF EACH UNIT AS WELL.
EACH OF THE UNITS DOES CONNECT TO A SIDEWALK, RUNNING EAST
TO WEST ALONG EAST CLARK STREET.
THERE IS ONE GUEST PARKING SPOT THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE
DRIVEWAY ON UNIT NUMBER 3.
NEXT WE HAVE ELEVATIONS.
ELEVATIONS PROPOSED FOR THE SITE.
MAX HEIGHT IS PROPOSED AT 35 FEET.
THERE IS ONE WAIVER REQUEST WITH THIS APPLICATION.
IT IS SECTION 27-282.
THIS IS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED ENCLOSED PARKING SPACES FROM
2 TO 1.
EACH UNIT WOULD HAVE ONE ENCLOSED PARKING SPACE, AND THEN
THE SECOND SPACE FOR EACH UNIT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE
DRIVEWAY.
NEXT WE HAVE PHOTOS.
SUBJECT SITE.
NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THAT'S IG ZONED PROPERTY.
AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
PETITION.
WE DO FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY
OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND SHOULD IT BE THE
PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, FURTHER
MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE
APPLICANT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
9:21:03PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, APPLICANT.
GOOD EVENING.
START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE.
9:21:15PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS MATAN KLAFF.
I AM THE AUTHORIZED AGENT AND OWNER FOR REZ 26-66 LOCATED AT
2910 EAST CLARK STREET IN PALMETTO BEACH NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ARE REQUESTING A REZONING FROM RM 16 TO PD.
BEFORE SUBMITTING, WE REACHED OUT TO OUR NEIGHBORS AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE RECEIVED 16 LETTERS OF
SUPPORT.
WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
I AM PLEASED TO NOTE THAT CITY OF TAMPA STAFF REVIEWED THE
APPLICATION AND FOUND IT CONSISTENT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
9:21:54PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO
THIS ITEM?
WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO READ THIS ONE?
GO AHEAD, COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
9:22:11PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
ITEM 6, REZ 26-66, AN ORDINANCE BEING
PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE
REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 2910 EAST CLARK
STREET IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
RM 16, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT,
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, ATTACHED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
9:22:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
CLERK?
9:22:39PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
9:22:41PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
9:22:42PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
9:22:44PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
9:22:45PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
9:22:46PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
9:22:47PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
9:22:48PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 1, 2026
AT 10 A.M. AT OLD CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 315 EAST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602.
9:23:04PM >> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME.
9:23:06PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TONIGHT.
NUMBER 8.
9:23:11PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
AGENDA ITEM 8 IS REZ 25-119, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 915
EAST 23rd AVENUE FROM RS 50 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED USES.
I'LL TURN IT OVER NOW TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
9:23:35PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
MEAGHAN McCARTHY, PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF.
REZ 25-119 LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING
DISTRICT.
THE EAST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE AND VM YBOR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE E.
THE SURROUNDING AREA CONTAINS MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
HOMES WITH SOME TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE AREA.
COMMERCIAL USES ARE CONCENTRATED ALONG NORTH NEBRASKA
AVENUE.
INTERSTATE 275 IS FURTHER TO THE WEST OF THE SITE.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 20 FUTURE LAND
USE DESIGNATION, SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT SITE, THE
RESIDENTIAL 10 DESIGNATION IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF NORTH
10th STREET AND THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 IS LOCATED TO
THE WEST ALONG NORTH NEBRASKA AVENUE.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND
FOUND NO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE REZONING WILL ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING WITHIN THE
EAST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE AND MEETS POLICY DIRECTION FOR
INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL
20 SUPPORTS LOW TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
INCLUDING ATTACHED AND DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY, AS WELL AS
MULTIFAMILY.
WHILE THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF APPROXIMATELY 15.6 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE IS HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING DENSITY ALONG
THIS PORTION OF EAST 23rd AVENUE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE DENSITY ANTICIPATED UNDER THE R-20 DESIGNATION AND
SUPPORTS POLICY THAT ALLOWS SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED HOUSING
AT SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITIES IN SINGLE-FAMILY AREAS.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED DESIGN MEETS THE INTENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 9.2.6 BY ORIENTING UNITS TOWARD
EAST 23rd AVENUE WITH REMAINING UNITS FACING INTERNAL
SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS STILL POTENTIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN CONFLICT
WITH VEHICLES AS CARS BACK OUT OF GARAGES.
THE REQUEST SUPPORTS COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL INFILL
DEVELOPMENT IN APPROPRIATE LOCATION WITHIN AN URBAN VILLAGE,
INCORPORATES DESIGN ELEMENTS THAT ENHANCE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER AND PROVIDES SIDEWALKS IN AN AREA WHERE THEY ARE
CURRENTLY LACKING.
BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
FINDS THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
9:25:41PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
9:25:51PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER
DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM CITY COUNCIL AT THE EVENING
MEETING HELD ON JUNE 11 OF THIS YEAR TO TONIGHT'S MEETING,
SEPTEMBER 10, 2026.
DURING THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL WHEN
THE CASE WAS CONTINUED REGARDING CONCERNS OVER THE
FOLLOWING: PROPOSED BUILDING MASSING COMPARED TO
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
TWO BUILDINGS, PROJECT CURRENTLY PROPOSED WOULD BE DIFFERENT
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT ALTOGETHER.
TWO WAY DRIVE AISLE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WAS A CONCERN,
AND THE BUILDING SETBACK IN RELATION TO EAST 23rd AVENUE
AND COMPARED TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
ADDITIONALLY, CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT.
COUNCIL PREFERS FORWARD FACING UNITS ONLY ON EAST 23rd
AVENUE IN A SINGLE BUILDING AS WELL AS REAR ENTRY GARAGES.
TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK AND BETTER
ELEVATIONS THAT ARE MORE TIED AESTHETICALLY TO THE EXISTING
NEIGHBORHOOD.
TO DATE, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED A REVISED SITE PLAN
TO REVIEW, AND WE HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY ANALYSIS GIVEN THAT
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A NEW PLAN.
STAFF'S FINDINGS AS STATED IN THIS STAFF REPORT ARE BASED ON
THE PREVIOUS ANALYSIS THAT WE HAD COMPLETED FOR THE JUNE 11
HEARING.
STAFF HAS BEEN INFORMED THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE
PRESENTING UPDATED ELEVATION BEFORE COUNCIL THIS EVENING.
STAFF HAS NOT REVIEWED OR FORMALLY COMMENTED ON THE
ELEVATIONS.
I'D LIKE TO ASK IF IT IS THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO
HEAR A FULL PRESENTATION OF STAFF OR MORE OF A CONDENSED
VERSION.
9:27:38PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CONDENSED BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE
EVERYTHING THAT HE'S GOT, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING?
9:27:44PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
THAT'S CORRECT.
THEY WILL BE SHOWING SOME ELEVATIONS.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN OFFICIALLY SUBMITTED TO STAFF TO REVIEW,
PROVIDE ANALYSIS.
SO OUR STAFF REPORT REFLECTS WHAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE
COUNCIL IN JUNE.
9:27:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
9:27:59PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
I'M NOT SURE HOW WE COULD HEAR THIS TONIGHT
IF OUR STAFF HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE NEW
ELEVATIONS, IF THERE ARE NEW ELEVATIONS.
I'M NOT COMFORTABLE VOTING ON THAT.
9:28:16PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. SHELBY OR SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY.
9:28:20PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MY SUGGESTION, THIS IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING.
PERHAPS WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER AND SEE WHETHER
IT'S NECESSARY FOR YOU TO HAVE TO GO FORWARD AFTER HE
EXPLAINS --
9:28:34PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. MICHELINI, DO YOU REPRESENT --
9:28:40PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YES, COUNCILWOMAN.
I'M SORRY.
9:28:42PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YOU SPECIFICALLY READ FROM THE RECORD -- OR
FROM OUR RULES TODAY THAT IF WE START A PRESENTATION, WE
NEED TO FINISH IT.
9:28:53PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THAT'S TRUE.
BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN ON JUNE 11.
COUNCIL GAVE SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO COME BACK WITH CERTAIN
WORK PRODUCT THAT WAS TO HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY THIS
DATE.
AND FROM WHAT STAFF SAYS, HE HAS NOT DONE THAT.
WE'RE SORT OF -- I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION, AND I ACCEPT
IT, IT MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE TO HEAR FROM THE PETITIONER.
AT LEAST YOU SHOULD BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE AS WHY HE WAS
ASKED BY COUNCIL TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND HE HAS NOT.
9:29:28PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IN THE INTEREST OF THE RECORD, I'LL ASK
MR. MICHELINI TO COME TO THE PODIUM.
WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE PRESENTATION, COULD YOU ADDRESS
THESE CONCERNS, PLEASE?
9:29:43PM >> STEVE MICHELINI REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER.
WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT FOLLOWING THE FIRST HEARING BACK IN
JUNE, THE OWNER AND THE REPRESENTATIVES MET WITH THE
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION TO DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE
LOOKING FOR.
I HAVE AN E-MAIL FROM THEM SUPPORTING WHAT WE WERE
PRESENTING TONIGHT.
THE REASON THAT THE STAFF DIDN'T HAVE SOMETHING TO REVIEW
WAS BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN DIDN'T CHANGE.
WHAT CHANGED WAS THE ELEVATIONS THAT ADDRESSED THE COMMENTS
FROM COUNCIL AND FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
AND I HAVE VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTION FROM THEM, WHICH WE HAD
PLANNED TO PRESENT INTO THE RECORD AND MAKE THOSE REVISIONS,
PRESENT IT TO STAFF.
NORMALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD BE WE WOULD HAVE TO PRESENT
THOSE WITHIN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THIS EVENING.
WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE CHANGES IN THE ELEVATIONS UNTIL IT WAS
INSIDE THE 30 DAYS.
AND THERE WERE NO SITE PLAN CHANGES.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A DRC TO REVIEW SITE PLAN CHANGES.
I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS READY TO PRESENT TO YOU.
IT WOULD BE FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AND THAT THOSE
CHANGES WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND
READING, WHICH WE WERE AGREEABLE TO MAKING.
9:31:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. MICHELINI, A COUPLE OF POINTS.
ONE, COUNCIL WOULD NOT HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO
REVIEW THESE DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC MEETING AND
SEEING THEM FOR THE FIRST TIME, WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GIVE
THIS A FAIR HEARING.
WE DID GIVE VERY SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS, COME BACK WITH A
REVISED SITE PLAN, NOT JUST ELEVATIONS I BELIEVE IN THAT
FIRST HEARING.
9:31:44PM >> WHAT HAPPENED, CHAIR, WAS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT US TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE
SITE PLAN, AND THEY WERE THE ONES DRIVING THAT.
I WAS SURPRISED AS ANYONE ELSE WAS BECAUSE I WAS PREPARED
BASED UPON THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT YOU ALL GAVE ME WAS TO COME
BACK WITH A REVISED PLAN.
9:32:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THIS DOESN'T SEEM RIPE TO BE ABLE TO BE
HEARD THIS EVENING.
MR. SHELBY, WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?
9:32:14PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
WELL, YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO GRANT A
CONTINUANCE IF MR. MICHELINI WANTS IT.
OR THE QUESTION THEN IS, IN LIGHT OF WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT
OF YOU NOW, DO YOU WISH TO HEAR A PRESENTATION AND THEN MAKE
A VOTE?
HAVE YOU HAD AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE RECORD TO
BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION?
9:32:33PM >> I THINK PROBABLY TO CLEAR THE RECORD AND MAKE IT MOST
EXPEDIENT, THAT WE PROBABLY WOULD APPRECIATE A CONTINUANCE
SO THAT WE CAN, WITH A MOTION FROM COUNCIL, ALLOWING US TO
SUBMIT THE REVISIONS TO STAFF SO THAT THEY WILL HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON IT AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU AT A
FUTURE DATE.
9:32:56PM >>LUIS VIERA:
SO MOVED, IF I MAY.
9:32:58PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
SECOND.
9:33:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I NEED A DATE.
I HAVE A MOTION.
I HAVE A SECOND.
I NEED A STATE FROM STAFF OF WHEN IT CAN BE HEARD.
HOLD ON.
I'LL GET TO YOU IN ONE SECOND BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE.
9:33:18PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THE DATE REALLY HAS TO BE AGREED TO BY THE
PETITIONER AND TO BE ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE TIME IT
COMES BACK.
9:33:28PM >> WE HAVE DISCUSSED THESE CHANGES WITH STAFF, SO THEY KNOW
WHAT'S THERE, BUT THEY NEED THE TIME TO LOOK AT THEM.
9:33:36PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
MR. MICHELINI, AT THAT FUTURE HEARING, WILL
YOU HAVE THE NEIGHBORS HERE TO PRESENT TESTIMONY OR WHAT
EVIDENCE WOULD YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION?
9:33:47PM >> I HAVE AN E-MAIL FROM THEM TELLING US THEY SUPPORT THE
PETITION AS REVISED.
9:33:51PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AND THEM BEING ALL THE NEIGHBORS?
9:33:55PM >> SHE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION.
SHE HAS A FAMILY ISSUE.
9:33:59PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS RELEVANT.
I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.
I NEED A DATE.
9:34:09PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
COULD STAFF RECEIVE SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL?
BECAUSE WHEN WE WERE HERE IN JUNE, THE IDEA WAS THAT THERE
WERE GOING TO BE SOME REVISIONS MADE NOT JUST TO THE
ELEVATIONS AND SITE PLANS.
OUR INTENT WAS TO HAVE THIS GO BEFORE DRC AGAIN, ROUTE IT TO
STAFF, GET NEW COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, PUT TOGETHER A NEW STAFF
REPORT AND THEN ME BACK BEFORE YOU ON THIS DATE.
BUT HERE WE ARE --
9:34:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I SEE YOU, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
LET ME FINISH THIS UP.
9:34:38PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY.
9:34:42PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
I'LL GET TO YOU FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S SELF-EVIDENT.
CHRISTOPHER WHAT YOU SAID I THINK IS SELF-EVIDENT.
9:34:53PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
AND WE CAN'T SUGGEST A DATE TO YOU UNLESS WE KNOW WHETHER
WE'LL GO BACK TO DRC OR IF THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE A REVIEW
OF THE ELEVATIONS BECAUSE WE'VE GOT --
9:35:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I'M GOING TO PAUSE YOU FOR A SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
9:35:12PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
THANK YOU.
WHILE I APPRECIATE THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED OR WROTE A
LETTER, THAT WAS NOT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION.
COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS A NEW SITE PLAN.
SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THINGS, WE REALLY
SHOULD BE GOING BY WHAT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION WAS.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR.
MY ASSUMPTION THEN WOULD BE TO PUT A DECEMBER DATE AND JUST
GO WITH THAT.
AND THAT WOULD BE MY DIRECTION TO MR. DEMANCHE AND THE STAFF
IS WHAT COUNCIL ASKED FOR, NOT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DID.
9:35:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I AGREE, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
STAFF, CAN WE GET A DATE IN DECEMBER?
IS THERE ONE AVAILABLE?
9:36:00PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
DECEMBER 10.
9:36:03PM >>LUIS VIERA:
SO MOVE ON THAT DATE.
9:36:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MR. MICHELINI, DO YOU CONCUR?
9:36:07PM >>STEVE MICHELINI:
I PREFER NOVEMBER IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
9:36:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS.
9:36:12PM >> I'LL TAKE IT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
9:36:22PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
IS THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL FOR
THEM TO GO BACK TO DRC?
9:36:26PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
9:36:27PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
NEW PLANS, NEW ELEVATIONS, ROUTE IT,
AND THEN WE COME BACK TO YOU IN DECEMBER, YOU HAVE A FRESH
STAFF REPORT --
9:36:37PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I BELIEVE WHERE WE ARE NOW, THAT IS WHAT
WE NEED TO DO.
YES.
9:36:43PM >> INCLUDING THE NOTES THAT WE RECEIVED THAT I'VE SENT TO
THE STAFF REGARDING THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
9:36:49PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WHAT YOU ALL DO BACK THERE IS FINE, BUT
YOU HAVE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO
DECEMBER 10 AT 5:01 P.M.
315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA,
33602.
ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
9:37:18PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
9:37:20PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
9:37:22PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
9:37:23PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES.
9:37:24PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
9:37:25PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
9:37:27PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
9:37:28PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO HAVE ITEM 8
CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 10.
9:37:35PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
9:37:39PM >> CHAIR, I HAVE A PROCEDURAL QUESTION REGARDING THE
PREVIOUS HEARING THAT I HAD.
205 FREMONT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU READ THE BONUS AGREEMENT, THE
RESOLUTION.
OKAY.
YOU DON'T.
GOT IT.
I'M GOOD.
THANK YOU.
9:37:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT'S GETTING LATE.
WE KNOW.
LAST ORDER OF BUSINESS, NUMBER 9.
9:38:06PM >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE:
FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER
DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION.
AGENDA ITEM 9, REZ 26-23.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 104 SOUTH TAMPANIA AVENUE AND
2522 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED FOR RESTAURANT, OFFICE AND ALL CG USES TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT FOR MEDICAL OFFICE AND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL
OFFICE USES.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
9:38:36PM >>MEAGHAN McCARTHY:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF.
REZ 26-23, LOCATED WITHIN THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING
DISTRICT AND THE PALMA CEIA PINES NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN EVACUATION ZONE C.
THE SURROUNDING AREA PRIMARILY CONTAINS COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT FRONTING WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, WHICH IS A
MIXED USE CENTER AND TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR.
MOVING NORTH AND SOUTH OFF THE CORRIDOR ARE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS CONTAINING A MIXTURE OF HOUSING TYPES.
THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE BLOCK FRONT SOUTH ARMENIA AVENUE,
ALSO A MIXED USE CENTER AND TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR AND
CONTAINS A MIXTURE OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY USES.
THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN TWO FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.
THE RESIDENTIAL 20 DESIGNATION AND THE URBAN MIXED USE 60
DESIGNATION.
THE SURROUNDING AREA IS PREDOMINANTLY DESIGNATED UMU 60
ALONG WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH ARMENIA AVENUE, BOTH
OF WHICH MIXED USE AND TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDORS.
FURTHER TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, TRANSITIONS TO THE
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE R-20 AND R 35 FLU
DESIGNATIONS.
THE PROPOSED PD IS UTILIZING LAND USE POLICY 5.1.6 TO BLEND
ENTITLEMENTS FROM BOTH FLU DESIGNATIONS ACROSS THE SITE AS
THE SITE IS LOCATED ALONG AN ARTERIAL ROADWAY AND IS WITHIN
ONE HALF MILE OF AN URBAN VILLAGE.
ALLOWING THE PROPOSED 10,628 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE TO
BE LOCATED ANYWHERE ON THE SITE.
WITH THIS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REQUEST THAT BETWEEN
FIRST AND SECOND READINGS, THE APPLICANT REVISE THE PROPOSED
F.A.R. TO .63 AS A PORTION OF THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE
UMU 60 DESIGNATION, PROPOSING AN ENTRYWAY ORIENTED TOWARD
WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD WITH THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO THE
PUBLIC SIDEWALK.
CONSISTENT WITH MIXED USE POLICY DIRECTION OF THE TAMPA
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHILE THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING ALONG
PORTIONS OF THE GROUND FLOOR PARKING AREA, ADDITIONAL
SCREENING ALONG THE PARKING AREA FRONTING WEST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD WOULD BETTER SATISFY THE INTENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY, DIRECTING PARKING AREAS TO BE
ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATELY SCREENED.
FURTHERMORE, ADDITIONAL GROUND FLOOR ACTIVATION ALONG WEST
KENNEDY BOULEVARD WOULD BETTER REINFORCE THE PEDESTRIAN
ORIENTED CHARACTER ENVISIONED FOR MIXED USE CENTERS AND
TRANSIT CORRIDORS.
ENHANCEMENT TO PARKING AND SCREENING AND GROUND FLOOR WOULD
FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE SITE'S CONTRIBUTION TO PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENTS AND CORRIDOR CHARACTER ALONG WEST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS FOUND TO BE
COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND CONSISTENT WITH THE
TAMPA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
9:41:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
YES, SIR.
9:41:27PM >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT
COORDINATION.
AGENDA ITEM 9 AS I INTRODUCED, THIS ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY
CONTINUED AT THE JULY 23rd, 2026 COUNCIL HEARING.
THE APPLICANT SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THAT CONTINUANCE HAS
WORKED WITH STAFF.
THEY HAVE REVISED THEIR PARKING WAIVER REQUEST IN REDUCING
THE NUMBER OF SPACES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED.
ADDITIONALLY, THEY HAVE ALSO REDUCED THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE
BUILDING FROM THREE STORIES DOWN TO TWO.
WE DID NOT GO THROUGH A PRESENTATION IN JULY, SO I'LL RUN
YOU THROUGH.
BRIEFLY HERE.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN RED.
IT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD AND NORTH TAMPANIA AVENUE.
SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE STOREFRONT RESIDENTIAL USES AND
MEDICAL OFFICE USES ALONG, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WEST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD.
OF COURSE, HAVE PD ZONING THERE, CG ZONING.
SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE RO 1 ZONING, WHERE THERE
IS AN OFFICE BUILDING.
EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, RM 24 ZONING.
THERE IS A BANK TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE,
AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE CG ZONING WHERE THERE
IS A GAS STATION.
SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE WE DO HAVE AN ESTABLISHED
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS COMPRISED OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED,
SEMI-DETACHED, ATTACHED, AS WELL AS MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING
UNITS.
THERE IS A REAL MIX OF HOUSING SOUTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT
SITE.
THROUGH THIS PD REZONING REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS 16,938
SQUARE FEET IN AREA.
THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE WITH TWO-WAY
DRIVEWAY ON NORTH TAMPANIA AVENUE.
THERE ARE FOUR PARKING SPACES AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE
SITE AS YOU ENTER IT.
THE REMAINDER OF THE PARKING SPACES WOULD BE LOCATED UNDER
THE TWO-STORY BUILDING.
THE PROPOSED HEIGHT FOR THE BUILDING IS 45 FEET.
THE PARKING WAIVER REDUCTION THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOW
PROPOSING IS BASED ON 7700 SQUARE FEET OF USES, THAT'S 7700
SQUARE FEET IS BROKEN DOWN BY HAVING 2700 SQUARE FEET OF
BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES, AND 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR
MEDICAL OFFICE USES.
THE SITE ALSO PROPOSES SIDEWALKS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE AND
THE WEST SIDE, WHICH DO CONNECT TO EXISTING SIDEWALKS, BOTH
ALONG WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD AND NORTH TAMPANIA AVENUE.
PRIMARY BUSINESS ACCESS IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A TOTAL OF THREE WAIVERS.
THE FIRST IS TO SECTION 27-283.
THIS IS THE PARKING WAIVER THAT THEY AMENDED FROM JULY TO
REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING FROM 39 SPACES TO 31
SPACES.
THAT REPRESENTS A 20.5 PERCENT REDUCTION.
THE PREVIOUS WAIVER WAS FROM 64 SPACES TO 31, 52% REDUCTION
IN PARKING.
SECOND WAIVER, SECTION 27-243.
THIS IS TO OMIT THE KENNEDY BOULEVARD CORRIDOR DISTRICT
STREETSCAPE STANDARDS AS THEY RELATE TO PLANTING LOCATIONS
AND SPECIES.
AND THE THIRD WAIVER IS TO SECTION 27-243.
THIS IS TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PLACE ALL UTILITY LINES
UNDERGROUND ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND WITHIN ADJACENT
RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
WE DO HAVE PHOTOS TO SHOW NEXT.
FIRST IS OF THE SUBJECT SITE.
THIS IS FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER LOOKING OUT TOWARDS
KENNEDY.
THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM KENNEDY LOOKING
SOUTH.
VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THIS IS FROM NORTH TAMPANIA AVENUE
LOOKING EAST.
THIS IS LOOKING NORTH DIRECTLY ACROSS KENNEDY.
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THIS IS THE OFFICE
USE.
THIS IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST TOWARDS THAT RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD.
LOOKING NORTHEAST AND LOOKING EAST AND LOOKING WEST.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE
APPLICATION.
WE DO FIND THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY
OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCONSISTENT FINDING
IS FROM DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AND TRANSPORTATION AND
SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS
APPLICATION, FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE
COMPLETED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING AS STATED ON THE
REVISION SHEET.
AND THESE REVISIONS WILL NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF
TRANSPORTATION'S INCONSISTENT FINDING.
STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
9:46:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, APPLICANT.
9:46:51PM >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
CLAY MATTHEWS, 100 SOUTH ASHLEY DRIVE, SUITE 850.
WE REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE, WHO HAS JOINED US.
DARIUSH GHAEENZADEH, HE IS THE OWNER OF THE ENTITY THAT OWNS
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WE ARE ALSO HERE WITH OUR CLIENT'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER, RANDY
COEN, AND HIS CIVIL ENGINEER AZAM ELSHEIKH.
I'LL BE BRIEF.
STAFF SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL.
OUR CLIENT IS SEEKING TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE
7700-SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING, COMPRISED OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF
MEDICAL OFFICE AND 2700 SQUARE FEET OF PROFESSIONAL OFFICE.
WE DID CONTINUE THIS MATTER FROM JULY 23rd TO ADDRESS A
NUMBER OF ISSUES RAISED BY STAFF AND REDUCE THE EXTENT OF
OUR PARKING WAIVER, WHICH WE DID.
PLANNING COMMISSION HAS FOUND THE PROPOSED REZONING
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.
CITY STAFF HAS FOUND THE REZONING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UNDER ALMOST ALL OF THE
DISCIPLINES OTHER THAN TRANSPORTATION, WHICH I THINK IS THE
MAIN ISSUE.
I THINK MR. DEMANCHE ALSO NOTED AN INCONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION, BUT THAT WAS ONLY AS TO REVISING A
WAIVER TO REFLECT WHAT'S WRITTEN ON THE PAGE OF THE STAFF
REPORT.
THAT'S REVISING WAIVER LANGUAGE ON THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH I
SORT OF CONSIDER NON-SUBSTANTIVE.
SUBSTANTIVE, INCONSISTENCY OUT THERE IS THE TRANSPORTATION.
INCONSISTENCY DUE TO THE PARKING ISSUE.
MR. DEMANCHE NOTED REDUCED FROM 52% TO 20.5%.
CLIENT IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THAT WAIVER AFTER THE
CONTINUANCE REDUCED MEDICAL OFFICE SPACE FROM 7700 SQUARE
FEET TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH REDUCED THE REQUIRED
PARKING AND REDUCED THE WAIVER FROM 52% TO 20.5%.
WHICH WE THINK IS REASONABLE AND SUPPORTABLE.
FOR JUSTIFICATION OUR CLIENT ENGAGED MR. COEN TO TESTIFY
ABOUT THAT, PROVIDE SUPPORT.
I KNOW IT'S LATE, BUT PUT ON MR. COEN BRIEFLY TO PROVIDE
JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT PARKING WAIVER.
9:48:51PM >> GOOD EVENING.
RANDY COEN, I HAVE BEEN SWORN.
JUST BRIEFLY ON PARKING JUSTIFICATION.
THEY ASKED ME TO LOOK AT PARKING AND DETERMINE WHAT WAS
ACTUALLY NEEDED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
SO I CONSULTED THE ITE TRIP PARKING GENERATION MANUAL
PUBLISHED ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO TO SEE WHAT THE CURRENT
STANDARDS ARE FROM THEM.
THEY WOULD COME UP WITH A TOTAL OF 23 SPACES BEING REQUIRED
FOR THIS PROJECT WHILE CITY OF TAMPA CODE REQUIRES 39.
I THEN LOOKED AT THE WESTSHORE OVERLAY, WHICH HAS NEW
PARKING RATIOS IN IT THAT ARE MOST CURRENT THAT ARE PROVIDED
AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF TAMPA.
AND UNDER THAT CODE, WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 28 SPACES.
AGAIN, THEY ARE PROVIDING 31 SPACES, SO I THINK WE HAVE VERY
GOOD ASSURANCE THAT THE PARKING IS ADEQUATE.
THREE SPACES MORE THAN WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THE
WESTSHORE OVERLAY JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS SITE.
AND WE WOULD BE EIGHT SPACES GREATER THAN THE ITE PARKING
GENERATION MANUAL WOULD REQUIRE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
9:49:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE.
9:49:58PM >> THANK YOU, MR. COEN.
JUST TO WRAP UP WITH RESPECT TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY,
GIVEN MR. COEN'S ANALYSIS AND TESTIMONY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE
OFFICE USE WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN A COMPATIBLE
MANNER WITH THE ADJACENT NONRESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL
USES.
AS MR. DEMANCHE WENT THROUGH, THERE'S PLENTY OF VERY INTENSE
NONRESIDENTIAL USES AROUND THIS USE GIVEN THAT IT FRONTS
KENNEDY.
HE SHOWED YOU ALL THIS, SO I WON'T GO THROUGH THOSE.
RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH, WE'RE UNAWARE OF ANY
OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT.
IN FACT, WE'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR
THE PROJECT.
AND FROM OWNERS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO WHOM WE SENT GOOD
NEIGHBOR NOTICES, INCLUDING ONE INDIVIDUAL WHO LIVES TWO
PARCELS TO THE SOUTH.
SO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO LIVES IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE LAW
OFFICE THAT IS IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF US, HE EXPRESSED SOME
SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT.
AS SUCH, WE BELIEVE THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ALL
OF THE SURROUNDING USES, BOTH NONRESIDENTIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL.
SO WITH THAT, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL AND
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
9:50:58PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
HEARING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS
ITEM?
SEEING NONE, MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO, WOULD YOU MIND READING THIS ONE.
9:51:11PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I HAVE AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING
CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL
VICINITY OF 104 SOUTH TAMPANIA AVENUE AND 2522 WEST KENNEDY
BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, BUSINESS
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICE, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE, AND WITH THE REVISION SHEET, THE REVISED REVISION
SHEET.
9:51:38PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
REVISION BETWEEN ONE AND TWO.
VERY GOOD.
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE?
9:51:51PM >> HURTAK?
9:51:56PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
DID WE LOSE HER?
9:51:58PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
CAN YOU NOT HEAR ME?
YES.
9:52:03PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
9:52:06PM >> VIERA?
9:52:08PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
9:52:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
YES.
9:52:10PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
YES.
9:52:11PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
9:52:13PM >>THE CLERK:
MOTION CARRIED WITH VIERA ABSENT AT VOTE.
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 1st,
2026 AT 10 A.M. AT OLD CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 315 EAST
KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602.
9:52:28PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THANK YOU.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
9:52:30PM >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
9:52:32PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT CONCLUDES REGULAR SCHEDULED PROGRAM.
NEW BUSINESS, COUNCILMAN CARLSON.
COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG.
9:52:37PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YES.
I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE NOISE MOTION THAT
STATED STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITH ACOUSTIC DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR NEW AND EXISTING OPERATORS, PARTICULARLY THOSE
WITHIN FEET OF RESIDENTIAL TOWERS FROM THE SEPTEMBER 24,
2026 WORKSHOP TO THE OCTOBER WORKSHOP IN CONJUNCTION WITH
OTHER NOISE PRESENTATION SUGGESTIONS THAT WE RECEIVED.
9:53:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CAN WE DO THE OTHER NOISE FOR THE SAME ONE
-- IT'S COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK'S AND MINE.
9:53:20PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
IS THAT THE ONE THAT YOU ALREADY --
9:53:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK?
THE REASON I SAY THIS, WE HAVE TO CLEAR THE 24th BECAUSE
OF THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS AND ANY
RECOMMENDATIONS COUNCIL MAKES.
COULD WE MOVE THE ONE ON THE MUFFLERS, THAT WAS MINE.
9:53:37PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
THE REASON I MOVED MINE IS WE GOT A MEMO THAT
ONE OF THE NOISE MOTIONS BEING MOVED.
I'M MOVING MINE SO THEY CAN ALL BE HEARD TOGETHER.
9:53:47PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YEAH, I THINK I ALREADY MOVED MINE.
9:53:51PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
CLERK, DO YOU SHOW THAT?
BECAUSE IT'S STILL SHOWING ON THE 24th.
9:53:59PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
I THINK WE GOT A MEMO.
9:54:02PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THERE WAS A MEMO.
I RECALL SEEING IT.
9:54:06PM >> SHE MIGHT NOT HAVE UPDATED THE CALENDAR.
9:54:11PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE BOTH.
CITY STAFF TO PRESENT SUGGESTIONS FOR PROPOSED ENFORCEABLE
RULE CHANGES TO NOISE ORDINANCE AND CURRENT STATE OF LAW AS
IT RELATES TO VEHICLE EXHAUST SYSTEMS AND MUFFLERS INCLUDING
THE ANALYSIS FROM COLLIER.
IT SHOWS HURTAK BUT IT WAS MINE.
9:54:28PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YEAH, I DID NOT MAKE THAT.
9:54:30PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YEAH, THAT WAS MINE.
SEPTEMBER 24, THE SECOND ITEM.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE SECOND AND THIRD ITEM TO 10/22.
9:54:43PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
CHANGE THAT FROM HURTAK TO CLENDENIN?
9:54:46PM >>THE CLERK:
YEAH.
SO THIS ONE -- [INAUDIBLE]
9:54:55PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THE THIRD BULLET IS --
9:54:58PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE'LL MOVE THOSE TO 10/22/26 WORKSHOP.
I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG.
A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
LET ME INJECT BECAUSE WE MAY WANT TO MOVE SOMETHING ELSE,
MAYBE.
WE NEED TO ADD THE CRC, CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSION.
INCLUDED IN THAT IS IF COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE SOMETHING
CONSIDERED, THIS WOULD BE THE WORKSHOP ABOVE AND BEYOND,
THIS WOULD BE THE WORKSHOP TO BRING THOSE FORWARD.
COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
9:55:44PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
I'M NOT SURE I COULD DO THAT IF I DON'T KNOW
WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE.
9:55:50PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.
9:55:52PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY.
I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE
DELIVERED TO CITY COUNCIL VIA E-MAIL ANY DAY NOW.
CERTAINLY YOU WILL HAVE IT WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE 17th,
NEXT WEEK, SO YOU WILL HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THEM
BY THAT POINT AND EVEN IF YOU WISH TO BEGIN THE DISCUSSION
UNDER NEW BUSINESS TO SEE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO APPROACH IT AT
THE WORKSHOP.
9:56:21PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN.
9:56:23PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SO THAT BEING SAID, AND THIS IS COUNCILMAN
MIRANDA -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FEEL LIKE HOW MUCH TIME WE'LL
NEED ON THE WORKSHOP.
BUT WE HAVE THE VISIT TAMPA BAY AND THE CONVENTION CENTER.
ARE THEY LOCKED INTO THIS TIME?
9:56:40PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
SAYS TIME CERTAIN 11:00.
9:56:43PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
[INAUDIBLE]
9:56:44PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
WAS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAD
REQUESTED?
THE VISIT TAMPA BAY AND THE CONVENTION CENTER.
9:56:54PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
WE NEVER MET BUT WE TALKED ABOUT WE HAVE
TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER OR LOSE A LOT OF
BUSINESS.
9:57:00PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE DISCUSSION WOULD
BE SCHEDULED TO TAKE?
9:57:04PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT'S ABOUT THE FUTURE PLANNING, SO I HAVE
TO THINK IT IS A LENGTHIER DISCUSSION.
9:57:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD TAKE 25, 30
MINUTES.
9:57:13PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
ON THAT AGENDA, WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT -- I
DON'T THINK -- I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS AT THIS
COUNCIL AND NOT DUMP IT ON THE NEXT COUNCIL, COUNCIL
SALARIES.
WE KICKED THAT THING DOWN THE BLOCK SO MANY TIMES, I FEEL
LIKE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
9:57:30PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
9:57:30PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
ALSO, I WOULD SUSPECT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REPORT FROM ABBYE FEELEY.
9:57:40PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT REPORT, TOO.
9:57:42PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FEE STUDY AT THAT
POINT, TOO.
SO I SUSPECT YOU'RE GOING TO --
9:57:47PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, WOULD YOU MIND
COORDINATING WITH THE TWO ENTITIES AND COMING UP WITH A
DIFFERENT DATE?
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY TIME CRITICAL.
9:57:57PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
I'LL TRY TO GET IT DONE TOMORROW.
9:58:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THAT WON'T BE A MOTION -- VISIT TAMPA BAY
AND THE CONVENTION CENTER.
9:58:08PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER.
9:58:09PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IF YOU COULD COORDINATE WITH THEM AND SEE
IF WE CAN COME UP WITH ANOTHER DATE.
THAT WILL CLEAR UP THE SPACE AND GIVE US PLENTY OF TIME.
THAT BEING SAID, VOTE ON THE TWO OF THOSE.
THE OTHER MOTION, I NEED TO ADD THE CHARTER REVIEW
COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SESSION ON OCTOBER
24, 2026.
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON.
SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN YOUNG.
9:58:33PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YOU SAID OCTOBER.
DID YOU MEAN SEPTEMBER?
9:58:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SORRY, SEPTEMBER.
I DID SAY THAT.
MOTION TO ADD IT TO SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 WORKSHOP.
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON, A SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN
HURTAK.
9:58:49PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
GIVE ME A DATE SO I CAN TELL THEM WHAT
DATE YOU HAVE AVAILABLE.
9:58:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
NOVEMBER 19 WOULD BE PERFECT.
NOVEMBER 19 OF THIS YEAR.
9:59:02PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
9:59:05PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
CARLSON AND NAYA YOUNG.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
9:59:10PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
9:59:11PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
OPPOSED.
AYES HAVE IT.
9:59:15PM >>BILL CARLSON:
WE ALSO HAVE THE ISSUE WHERE COUNCIL MEMBER
HURTAK AND I WERE ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
SEVERAL OF YOU AS COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVED RECOMMENDATIONS
AND NOW SCOTT STEADY IS SAYING SOMEHOW THE CITY ATTORNEY AT
THE TIME DIDN'T INCLUDE SOME OF THAT.
DID I REMEMBER THAT MEMO CORRECTLY?
9:59:32PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YES.
9:59:33PM >>BILL CARLSON:
SHOULDN'T WE PUT THAT ON THE SAME AGENDA SO
WE CAN SEE WHAT WAS LEFT OUT.
9:59:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
LEAVE IT BROAD ENOUGH TO INCLUDE
EVERYTHING.
WHEN WE TALK TO SCOTT TO SEE WHERE THAT LANDED.
9:59:44PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
THE OTHER THING IS WHEN YOU HAVE THE
REPORT, YOU'LL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS NEXT
WEEK UNDER NEW BUSINESS HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD TO
CONDUCT THAT WORKSHOP.
I WILL BRING THAT UP WITH MR. STEADY IF YOU'D LIKE.
10:00:01PM >>BILL CARLSON:
WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WERE
CATCHALL DESCRIPTIONS THAT CAPTURED EVERYTHING, AND THAT'S
WHAT WE REPRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC.
IF SOMEBODY DID THAT BY ACCIDENT OR DELIBERATELY, I THINK WE
NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
10:00:14PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION, IS THAT ANYTHING
THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK ON THE BALLOT?
10:00:20PM >>BILL CARLSON:
YES.
10:00:21PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT WOULD IF -- YES.
10:00:23PM >>BILL CARLSON:
WE WERE TOLD THERE WERE SUMMARIES THAT WERE
BUCKETS OF SEVERAL THINGS, AND NOW SCOTT'S INTERPRETATION IS
THAT SEVERAL THINGS WEREN'T INCLUDED.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS BEHIND ALL THIS, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT
A TRANSPARENT DISCUSSION.
10:00:34PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IF I CAN, COUNCILMAN CARLSON, MR. CHAIRMAN,
I WILL TALK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND I WILL HAVE
DIRECTION BY NEXT WEEK UNDER NEW BUSINESS, AND WE WILL HAVE
THAT ADDRESSED IF IT HAS TO BE ON THE 24th.
10:00:49PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I SUPPORT THAT DIRECTION.
I THINK THAT WILL BE GOOD.
THEN WE CAN COME BACK FOR DISCUSSION, AT LEAST WE'LL HAVE
THE CONCRETE INFORMATION.
10:00:58PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE NEXT WEEK
AFTER DETERMINING HOW THE CITY ATTORNEY PLANS ON GOING ABOUT
THIS TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT ON THAT WORKSHOP ON THE 24th.
YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ADD IT NEXT WEEK.
THAT SUBJECT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW HE INTENDED TO PROCEED ON THIS.
I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HIM ON BOARD BEFORE COUNCIL
MAKES A MOTION.
10:01:22PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
BROAD ENOUGH TO CAPTURE THE INTENT.
10:01:24PM >>BILL CARLSON:
ASK ONE QUESTION, BECAUSE I'M NOT ALLOWED TO
TALK TO COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK OUTSIDE.
SHE ENDED UP BEING THE SPOKESPERSON -- UNOFFICIAL
SPOKESPERSON FOR CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION.
WENT TO THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS AND ALL THE DIFFERENT
GROUPS.
WASN'T IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT THE FOUR OR FIVE CATEGORIES
CAPTURED ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO PUT?
10:01:42PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BUT WE WERE CONCERNED
AT THE TIME THAT THEY WOULDN'T.
LO AND BEHOLD --
10:01:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
GO AHEAD, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK.
10:01:56PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
NO.
CAN YOU NOT HEAR ME?
I SAID LO AND BEHOLD AND KIND OF WENT ON.
IT DIDN'T.
IT DIDN'T INCORPORATE WHAT WE WANTED IT TO INCORPORATE, SO I
THINK WE'LL HAVE TO BE VERY SPECIFIC WITH THE AMENDMENTS
THAT GO FORWARD TO THE BALLOT AND NOT GROUP THEM IN BUCKETS.
I THINK THAT WILL BE WHAT WILL HAVE TO HAPPEN.
10:02:21PM >>BILL CARLSON:
THERE WAS A MISREPRESENTATION OF IT.
BECAUSE COUNCIL VOTED --
10:02:25PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
YEAH.
10:02:26PM >>BILL CARLSON:
WE APPROVED IT AND COUNCIL VOTED ON IT.
SOMEHOW IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR SOMETHING, IT
DIDN'T GET IN THERE.
SAME CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT SAID IT WAS OKAY FOR THE
CITY ATTORNEY TO NOT HAVE COUNCIL APPROVE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS.
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT THAT I THINK GO BEYOND JUST WHAT
NEEDS TO BE ON THE BALLOT.
10:02:47PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I'LL HAVE A REPORT FOR YOU NEXT WEEK.
10:02:49PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I'VE GOT TWO LITTLE THINGS --
10:02:53PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
I WASN'T FINISHED.
I HAVE TWO ANNOUNCEMENTS.
10:03:00PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
GOOD LORD.
GO AHEAD.
10:03:03PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
YOU ALL WILL BE SURPRISED.
THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY WATCH THE MEETINGS ALL THE
WAY TO THE END.
THEY SAY, OH, THANK YOU SO MUCH --
10:03:10PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YOUR GRANDMOTHER.
10:03:11PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
MY MOM.
10:03:13PM >>NAYA YOUNG:
THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT
WATCH US ALL THE WAY TO THE END.
TWO QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS.
ALREADY GIVING OUT THE INFORMATION EARLIER TODAY DURING THE
CRA MEETING, BUT FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FOR ANYONE THAT
IS STILL WITH US, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE, SOCIAL ACTION
ARTS FUNDING APPLICATIONS ARE OPEN AND THEY WILL BE OPEN
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30 AND ALSO THE MAYOR'S YOUTH CORPS WHICH IS
FOR STUDENTS IN GRADES 9, 10, 11 WHO LIVE IN AND/OR ATTEND A
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL WITHIN CITY OF TAMPA LIMITS.
THOSE APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE AS WELL AND THEY WILL BE
ACCEPTED UNTIL OCTOBER 22, 2026 AT 5 P.M.
10:03:53PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
I NEED TO CORRECT THE DATE ON MY PREVIOUS
MOTION.
CM 26-24829, DATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN FEBRUARY 18, 2026 -- I
THINK IT'S 2027.
UNDER STAFF REPORTS.
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA, ASK HE HAD FROM COUNCILMAN
MANISCALCO.
I JUST HAVE A DATE CORRECTION.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
10:04:22PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
10:04:23PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MIRANDA AND MANISCALCO.
10:04:26PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
IT'S BEEN A LONG EVENING.
YOU DID VOTE ON ADDING THE WORKSHOP ON THE 24th OF
SEPTEMBER?
FOR THE CHARTER REVIEW.
10:04:37PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YES.
10:04:39PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
10:04:44PM >> WE DID IT.
10:04:45PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CLERK NOTED ABOUT
-- ADDING THE CHARTER REVIEW --
10:04:51PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
10:04:52PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
AND A VOTE.
10:04:55PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
HOW DARE YOU QUESTION US.
LASTLY, I HAD A PREVIOUS MOTION TO PROVIDE COMMENDATION TO
CRC MEMBERS ON A DATE TO BE DETERMINED.
NOW DETERMINED THAT DATE SHALL BE NOVEMBER 5, 2026.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
OPPOSED?
AYES HAVE IT.
JUST ME AND NAYA.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO.
10:05:24PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
I'D LIKE TO WISH MAYOR DICK GRECO A
HAPPY BIRTHDAY.
IT'S COMING UP I BELIEVE ON MONDAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE WATCHES.
BUT WE ALWAYS THINK OF HIM.
OF COURSE, TOMORROW IS THE 25th ANNIVERSARY OF SEPTEMBER
11th.
I KNOW SEVERAL OF US WILL BE AT THE FIREFIGHTERS MUSEUM
TOMORROW MORNING.
IT'S AMAZING THAT A QUARTER OF A CENTURY HAS ALREADY PASSED.
BUT WE'LL NEVER FORGET.
OF COURSE, THERE'S GOING TO BE MEMORIALS AND EVENTS
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, THROUGHOUT THE DAY AS WE REMEMBER
THAT DAY.
THAT'S IT.
10:05:57PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
SEEMS LIKE YESTERDAY.
CRAZY.
10:05:59PM >>GUIDO MANISCALCO:
UNBELIEVABLE.
25 YEARS.
10:06:04PM >> I REMEMBER WHERE I WAS.
10:06:07PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
10:06:09PM >>CHARLIE MIRANDA:
NONE.
10:06:09PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE -- COUNCILMAN
VIERA.
10:06:11PM >>LUIS VIERA:
IF I MAY, JUST A REALLY QUICK ONE, IF I MAY.
I WANT TO GET THIS ON MY DOCKET BECAUSE MY LAST COUNCIL
MEETING, I THINK, IS OCTOBER 22.
LONG STORY SHORT, YOU GUYS KNOW WE HAVE A BUNCH OF
HISTORICAL MARKERS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, CITY OF TAMPA.
BUT THERE'S ONE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ONE THAT THE
COUNTY TRADITIONALLY DOES, THE EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE
MARKER ON THE HISTORY OF RACIAL LYNCHINGS IN THE CITY OF
TAMPA.
IT IS ON THE RIVERWALK.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS IN OTHER COMMUNITIES ON
THOSE BEING MOVED, ET CETERA, BECAUSE I'M A PARANOID PERSON,
I WANT STAFF TO REPORT ON OCTOBER 15 ON LEGAL I GUESS IT
WOULD BE ON AN ORDINANCE WHERE TAMPA CITY COUNCIL WOULD GET
NOTICE BEFORE THAT MARKER IS EVER MOVED FROM ITS PRESENT
LOCATION ON THE RIVERWALK BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT
MARKER.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAYS THERE LONG AFTER WE'RE
GONE BECAUSE THINGS ARE CRAZY.
THAT'S ALL.
10:07:12PM >> YOU WANT LEGAL?
10:07:12PM >>LUIS VIERA:
YES, MA'AM.
10:07:13PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN VIERA.
SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE.
10:07:18PM >>LYNN HURTAK:
AYE.
10:07:20PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
10:07:24PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
10:07:27PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
IT WAS TO MOVE THOSE TWO ITEMS.
10:07:31PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
10:07:32PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
THEY ARE MOVING TOGETHER.
10:07:35PM >>MARTIN SHELBY:
TWO SEPARATE ITEMS.
10:07:36PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
TWO SEPARATE ITEMS.
10:07:41PM >>THE CLERK:
[INAUDIBLE]
10:07:43PM >>ALAN CLENDENIN:
YEP.
MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE.
MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.
SECOND FROM VIERA.
ALL IN FAVOR, AYE.
OPPOSED?
WE ARE ADJOURNED.
[ SOUNDING GAVEL ]
DISCLAIMER:
THIS FILE REPRESENTS AN UNEDITED VERSION OF REALTIME
CAPTIONING WHICH SHOULD NEITHER BE RELIED UPON FOR COMPLETE
ACCURACY NOR USED AS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT.
ANY PERSON WHO NEEDS A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE
PROCEEDINGS MAY NEED TO HIRE A COURT REPORTER.