City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

I'd like to call this meeting of Tampa City Council to order. Clerk, would you call the roll, please?

Miranda, Maniscalco, Hertek, Young, Vieira, Carlson, Clendenin. We have a physical quorum.

Councilwoman Hertek will not be joining us this evening. She was not feeling well, just FYI. But Councilwoman Young will be here shortly. I'd like to recognize Ms. LaShawn. Would you like to clear the agenda for us?

Yes, sir. Thank you so much, Chairman and Council. LaShawn Dock Development Coordination. There are three items to clear on this evening's agenda. The first item is item number nine, which is file number REZ 2622. This item needs to be removed from the agenda. It will not be heard. This case is withdrawn.

I have a motion to withdraw item nine. A second from Councilman Carlson. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

And the next item, Chairman, is item number 10, which is file number REZ 2612. This item needs to be removed from the agenda. This is a misnotice.

I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, a second from Councilman Maniscalco to remove item 10 for the misnotice. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

And the last item to clear is item 11. This is REZ 2643. This item needs to be removed from the agenda. It is a misnotice.

I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Vieira to remove item 11 for misnotice. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Is that all?

And that completes it. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? Motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco to approve the agenda as amended. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Okay. Item number one is... I'm sorry, open to all public hearings from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it. Item number one. Hello, Mr. Shelby.

Good evening.

Hi, good afternoon. I have a PowerPoint presentation. Okay. Hopefully.

CTTV, she has a PowerPoint presentation. Item number one. Don't have it?

It was transmitted a week ago. If not, I can old school it if I need to.

Yeah, you can use the wolf there. You can put it on there. If you just lay it on the glass and we'll see what it looks like. It's perfect right there.

All right.

Okay.

We'll try that. It should be short and sweet. Can you all see it? Great. So I'm Michelle Boone, Housing and Community Development. I'm here to talk tonight about the ESG rush funding substantial amendment to our annual action plan. Some of the things we'll discuss today, the background, the purpose, the eligible uses of the funding, the objectives and outcomes and the next steps in this process. So in 2023, the city of Tampa received a special allocation of ESG rapid unsheltered survivor housing or ESG rush and about $800,000. This funding was intended to provide assistance to homeless and special needs or special supportive services for those communities that were affected by hurricanes. In this instance, it was Hurricane Ian. 2025, the city received a second allocation of a million dollars to support again, homeless services for the Pauline and Milton hurricanes. Those funds have been expended or nearly expended. So in April of 2026, we were awarded an additional $1,066,228. of this funding. So the city is required to provide a plan for its allocation, present the plan to the public, receive any public comments, and then ask for approval for submission to HUD. So similar to our regular ESG funding, um, eligible uses are emergency shelter operations, rental housing assistance for rapid rehousing and homeless prevention activities, outreach, and other activities that assist those homeless or at risk of being homeless. Um, they, again, they target, uh, homelessness or those that aren't able to access funds, um, provided by other federal programs, such as FEMA. The city's intention is to work with our current partners that we are funding under existing agreements to increase their allocations to streamline the programs and continue the programs and services. Sorry, there we go. So for the programs that are outcomes, these are our, we can fund emergency shelters. We anticipate serving 400 persons, uh, rental assistance for rapid rehousing, uh, 50 households and homeless prevention services, uh, in the forms of rental or utility assistance, approximately a hundred persons. And then we have some planning and administration. Our anticipated budget, out of the $1,066,228, 7.5% is our allocated administration costs. Rapid rehousing, approximately $400,000. Homeless prevention, approximately $191,000. And street outreach and other services, $394,000. So again, total $1,066,000. Through this process, we're required to update our existing annual action plan, which is the current year that we're in, um, within 60 days of award, which our deadline is June 16th, 2026 to be submitted to HUD. Um, we have a five day public comment period, which started June the fifth and ends, uh, at the end of the day today for any public comment, um, match requirement, there's no match requirement and the funds must be expended within 24 months. So approximately July of 2028. This is our calendar and next steps. Again, we are here at our public hearing on June the 11th. We are required for one public hearing in the evening. Again, our public comment period ends today as well. Our deadline to be submitted is Tuesday, June the 16th, and funds should be available once they approve the plan around July. At this time, we can accept any public comments.

Does council have any questions at the presentation? Hearing none, is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to item number one? Okay, nobody in the public wishes to speak to item one. I have a motion opposed from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Can I get a motion to approve the resolution? We have a motion to approve the resolution. Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes have it.

Thank you. If there's any questions, this is our email or information to, you know, submit any public.

You scooch that up a little bit for those of us watching at home. There we go. One more time. There you go.

There we go. Any questions or comments, feel free to email or call our office.

Very good. Well, thank you very much for the presentation. Have a wonderful evening. Thank you. Okay, on to public hearings. The rest of the proceedings tonight are quasi-judicial. If you are planning to speak or testify in any one of these hearings, I need you to stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. Thank you so much. On to item two.

Thank you so much, Chairman and Council LaShawn Dot Development Coordination. And if I may, Council, take a second to introduce the new staff member.

Sorry, you're right.

I have Joseph Cermak. I would like to introduce him. He is our forester examiner, and he will work in development coordination and doing the natural resources reviews. He was in the city of Tampa's permitting department, and he has moved over to review of the public hearing processes. So we're glad to have him on our team. Um, he earned his bachelor's degree from Iowa State University, um, interdisciplinary studies with three core study areas being, um, community and regional planning, landscape architecture, and environmental studies. So he's here to answer any natural resources questions you may have. Um, thank you for allowing the name one more time. It is, um, Joe, sir, Mike, Joe, sir. Mike.

Okay. Joe. Nice to meet you, Joe. Welcome on board. Yeah. I apologize in advance. That's not a good sign. Very good.

And thank you. Council item number two is R E Z 26 0 7. This is for the property at 42 0 1 east Osborne avenue. The request is to rezone the property from RS 50 residential single family to PD plan development for the use of daycare and nursery facility. And with that, I'll turn it over to Emily with planning commission and I'll come back and get my report.

Thank you. Good evening, Emily.

Good evening. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the East Tampa Urban Village, the Eastern Heights Neighborhood, and Evacuation Zone E. This is an aerial of the subject site, which is located here, outlined in purple. The surrounding area is predominantly single-family detached homes, and commercial and multifamily uses are further to the west, concentrated along North 40th Street. There are some scattered public and quasi-public and educational uses in the area as well. This is the adopted future land use map. The subject site is located here again outlined in purple. It's represented with the Residential 10 designation which does surround the subject site and further to the west where those commercial uses are along 40th Street is the Community Commercial 35 designation. The existing daycare is on site and the request is to add 1,600 square feet for a total FAR of 0.24. This is below the maximum 0.35 FAR allowed under the Residential 10 designation. Daycares can be considered within the R10 designation. Given the site is within the East Tampa Urban Village and the East Tampa overlay, the comprehensive plan encourages development that supports a pedestrian-oriented environment, promotes compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, and contributes to a cohesive mixed-use community setting while emphasizing the importance of adhering to the overlay standards. The existing daycare has operated within the neighborhood for several years and serves the neighborhood. However, the proposed expansion intensifies a non-residential use within an area predominantly single family. The request increases the number of children served, but only five parking spaces are available, potentially further contributing to a parking spillover, queue over, and drop off activity onto residential streets. These conditions may limit safe and accessible pedestrian areas and create additional conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Planning Commission's analysis is based on the site plan uploaded on March 26th. A waiver to reduce the required 10-foot used to use buffer to zero feet along the eastern boundary and five feet along the southern boundary is necessary to accommodate an existing playground. City staff noted that the waivers for parking, vehicular use area buffers, and landscape buffers were inconsistent with the intent of the East Tampa overlay and sections of the land development code. As proposed, the site lacks an appropriate transition between the non-residential daycare use and the surrounding residential properties. Planning Commission staff is aware that the city staff report has been modified and the applicant has addressed some of the original waivers listed on the site plan. In conclusion, the request is inconsistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. It would intensify a non-residential use within a predominantly single-family residential area and does not adequately mitigate impacts related to compatibility, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood protection policies. And that concludes my presentation, if you have any questions.

Thank you. Any questions? Hearing none, okay.

Thank you again, Council LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. And I will place an aerial up of the subject property. So this request would allow the expansion of an existing daycare facility on the property. So I'll show you the site plan momentarily to show you the addition, the location of the addition. The site itself, the lot has 100 feet of width and the depth is 135 feet. The maximum building height that is proposed with this request is 35 feet. This is the property that's outlined here in red. This is Osborne Avenue. And just for orientation, this is 40th Street, and this is 42nd Street. So you can see the RS-50 zoning that's surrounding the property. As you head further west, you have the CI zoning that is predominant on 40th Street. And then further south of the subject property, you have a couple of PD rezonings. These are older rezonings, and they're for... place of religious assembly both of those pds one is from um 2014 and one is from 2019. and i have the site plan that's submitted by the applicant so this is osborne avenue and this is 42nd street um The subject, this is the property boundary. This is the existing building that is on the property. This is the proposed new building. It contains approximately 1600 square feet. You would enter the site here on 42nd Street and you can exit the site on Osborne with the one-way travel there. There are pedestrian connections provided with walkways from each point of entry to sidewalks or either walkways internally on the site. What was referenced is at the time the staff report was initially drafted with Planning Commission, Urban Design's comments were not updated. Urban Design comments were updated. This site is in the East Tampa overlay. They are allowed parking offsets. Those parking offsets adjust their required parking so the required parking is five spaces they're providing five spaces they do not need a transportation waiver and they do not need a waiver to the overlay they are meeting the standards the one inconsistency that remains on the site is related to the trees so To the south boundary, you have a tree that is located here, and that is marked for removal. That is a tree that's rated B7, and that was the area of concern for natural resources. There's a tree in the center of the site, near the center, that will be removed. But there was not an objection to that removal, just given its proximity to the site in a new building. But that's the one remaining inconsistent on the site. And I have the aerials. So the existing building, I have photographs of the existing building. Let me zoom out a little bit. So this is the north elevation of that modular. This is the east elevation. This is the south. And then this is the west elevation. And then I have the elevations of the new building. And so this will be the north elevation. This is the south elevation. This is the east. And then this is the west. And then I have pictures of the site. So this is the property, um, on 42nd. That's if you're looking at the site looking east. This is a better view of the property that's entering the site. This is that drive for the entry. That parking exists on the site today. And that was through the 2001 approval, which they currently have for special use for a daycare. This is another view of the site. This is the west end of the property, location of the new structure. This is west of the property across the street. This is northwest of the property. This is north of the site. And then this is south. There were a total, there's a total of two waivers that are requested on the site. One is to reduce the eight foot VUA along the north to zero and along the south to five feet. Um, there's a request to reduce the landscape buffer from 15 feet to in a six foot masonry wall to five feet with a six foot PVC fence on the south and then to zero on the east for the playground equipment. Um, and the applicant can talk a little more about that because they are gonna provide the 10 feet. If playground equipment is on the site, then it's not considered as open landscape area. So they're agreeing to provide that 10 feet, um, and put that on the site plan in between first and second reading. The second waiver is the 27284.2.5, and that's a request to remove two non-hazardous grand laurel oaks, and those are the ones I showed on the site plan earlier. One is tree number six, 34-inch grand oak, rated C7. The other is tree 18, a 39-inch, rated B7. With that, staff found the request inconsistent, and that is due to the findings from Natural Resources on the site. There are site plan changes to be made between first and second reading should Council approve the request. I'm available for questions.

Council have questions. I have a question about the parking. Sure. So, we're doubling the amount of students. They have five spots, but it doesn't require any additional parking?

So, the parking itself is based upon employees. So that would be the breakout of the parking.

How many employees?

I believe they have allotted for one employee, well, I think there's eight. If this would zoom in, if it focuses in.

Maybe CTTV might help you with the focus.

I think there's eight. five spots and eight employees eight employees 0.05 per employee is required interesting and no for eight and no parking spots for the use itself no it's that in any vehicles they may have like if a daycare facility had a a van or a pickup van that they utilize for the kids that would count also towards parking but not for I guess because the occupants of the daycare are typically kids or you know the age group yeah they don't parachute in they don't but I think the thought is that adults drop them off and then they come pick them up and leave it's momentarily it's not that they park there but is there a drop-off area is that and that is there that would be this circle drive area which is why they created this with that one-way entry and exit.

Gotcha.

Yeah, so that way they can pull in, drop off, and leave out, and it kind of controls the traffic with the one-way directional versus having two-way.

Okay, thank you. Councilwoman Young?

The removal of the tree, is there a reason why? Can you put the plan back up so I can see?

Hey, it sounds like Joe is up.

His debut. So I believe the applicant is going to speak to that a little bit, but I think the thought is that they may attempt to save this tree. The thought was to try to save it. The waiver is there in case they cannot save it. As you know with the PD, if they don't request a waiver now, they won't be able to come back and get it after. Or if they go to permitting, they won't be able to obtain it. But through speaking with them, through the applicant and their team, they stated that they felt like they may be able to pave this area at that additional paving and still maintain the health of this tree okay okay all right thank you absolutely you're welcome thank you that's it applicant good evening william henry i'm a

Just by way of introduction, I'm a former chairman of the Planning Commission, probably during the time that Councilwoman Miranda was first elected, so I'm a blast from the past, but I'm here to represent the architectural firm. Janae King, who's the applicant, is here to speak to some of these topics. We've done everything possible to save that tree. The tree requires a 10-foot green area radius on it, and by sliding the buildings north we lose the parking spaces and we can't accommodate the parking. So that's not gonna be, I know we've had conversations with the Sean trying to work it out, but there's an agreement in place with the owner to the south to remove the tree and we have to make that request and ask for that waiver. There will be a PVC six foot high fence

to buffer it, and a single family attached and residential single family semi-detached approved through a PD northeast. And this was developed directly to the east by right, those units that are there. Further north of the actual property is a commercial business office.

Secondly, pedestrian safety. We have children.

We have people that walk to vehicle use area. and meet the other code requirements.

And then if the public objected to that, there's some kind of complaint and appeal process or something like that, right?

There is an appeal. You could appeal the decision, but if the standards are met, then the application would likely, it would be approved through the special use one criteria.

Mr. Shelby, are you reaching for your mic?

No, I'm just going to ask Mr. Michelini to return the folder of the documents. So we can review?

Yes. Very good. Thank you, LaShonda. Thank you. Mr. Michelini?

I'll be happy to return them as soon as I finish looking at them. There's probably 25, 30 pages here. But I won't leave with them. How's that? We're going to have to have time to review them as well. Do you want the opportunity to review them?

I've seen what they say. Let's take a 10-minute recess, a real 10-minute recess. We'll be back here at 6.30, okay? And in the meantime, could you give us enough time to copy them so we'll make copies for council as well?

Thank you. Okay, thank you.

you you Thank you.

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

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Michelini, rebuttal?

Well, some of these comments are completely new to me.

And I understand that that's not an excuse. It's simply an explanation. But I think if the council is looking for assurances that this site will be brought into compliance, including the removal of And I was already told today that the web page and all of that stuff was going to be removed as of this afternoon. The owners are not in the country. And I did speak with them at length, and they instructed the staff to ensure that the trucks and all of the associated issues regarding that would be removed. So I would respectfully request that this matter be continued to September 10. to make sure that all of the electronic notifications, all of the signs, and all of the vehicles are removed from the site to bring it into compliance. Now, the northern part of this property could already, as CI, be used for that, but I'm not trying to push that issue. I would rather have the time to bring the site into compliance, make sure that there are no issues related to it, and respectfully request a continuance to September 10th. Move to continue to September 10th. Second.

Okay, we have a, Mr. Shelby, would you please read the rule?

I'm reading from Council Rules 6J3. It states as follows, no request for a continuance by the applicant slash petitioner shall be granted at a quasi-auditial public hearing after the applicant petitioner has completed its initial presentation unless upon determination by city council that it is necessary for the purposes of procedural due process.

Can I ask it?

Mr. Carlson.

Can I connect to this? Can I ask who's here from legal? Susan. So but if it's continued they can't change the the use that they're asking for right they can't change from ci to something else and then and then the second question is you know on um on alcohol we can limit the hours and we can limit outdoor amplified sound is there's no way that when he comes back he can say uh we're not going to apply for the s1

Susan Johnsonville as legal department. So I think I'll let Ms. Doc answer your first question, which is whether or not they could change the category. But I think that's possible under the procedures that staff follows with regard to rezoning applications. As far as your second question, if the applicant continues to seek a CI zoning or really any other Euclidean zoning category, then the nature of that type of zoning district is that the uses that are in the use table that Ms. Dock ran through earlier in the hearing would be uses that are available, any of those uses would be available to the applicant, whether it is as a permitted use or they are able to apply for a special use, any special use that's allowed under that category as well.

If we vote to provide us an exception in this case to allow a continuance, I would just ask that You all talk because there seems to be out of a whole list of uses. There's one use that the neighborhood is concerned about, and it sounds like they don't intend to do that anyway. And so if there's any way to to codify that in the application, when they come back, that would be helpful.

So Lashon, Dr. Development coordination during this time of continuance, if it is granted, since the application is for a request for commercial intensive zoning, If that request were to change, then the applicant would go back to, he would have to re-notice the property, and we would likely have to come back and ask for this to be considered as yet another first reading. This would be a continuous of a first reading for this.

What's a similar category that doesn't include parking?

Well, the applicant would have to request like a PD, a planned development. and then specify the use through that plan development, through a site plan submittal.

Anyway, if we grant that out, then you guys can work that out. But there's only one, it seems there's one narrow concern and

um so he's already stated that the the kind of theoretical intention of the property that's not for that category and so if there's some way to that that can be handled um so anyway i seconded the motion in addition if i may counsel um this request is to continue to september 10th the applicant would need to re-notice the um public again yeah we agree it would require renoticing and um a waiver of the 180 day miss doc don't go far miss doc so right now there's i we see in the submissions from the one of the persons in public comment that there is a code enforcement record on this property how does that affect this request so what um what i saw was the acmp record which is a complaint record so that means a complaint was filed under investigation the applicant likely as a result submitted for rezoning but it has not yet been open as a violation as a code enforcement violation case okay so what did it would it affect the outcome of this one way or another um it would not the applicant can still move forward with this rezoning and likely what would happen is if this rezoning is approved then that would close that out completely it would not turn into a violation

Is there anything the applicant can do to restrict usage with this application period? So the application that's pending today, even continued or not, is there anything that the applicant can do to restrict the usage?

They could not. Not with the request of a CI Euclidean district. A Euclidean zoning district, we cannot condition.

Okay, and Susan, would you like to say something for the record on that as well? Yes.

Susan Johnson of the Leslie Eagle Department. I'll just confirm that. As I stated earlier in response to Mr. Carlson's question, any of the uses that are allowed under the use table are potential uses for the property once it's fully zoned CI, or the special uses they can apply for as well for administrative approval of those uses as well.

So that's not going to change between now and September?

I think that's a question for me. It could change.

How would it change?

I can't speak for the owners. I'm just saying that there are alternatives that it could change.

You've been in this business a lot longer than I have. Tell me, if it's just a continuation, if it's not a new application, what could change?

Well, first we have to re-notice. So if we re-notice, the type of request could change.

Would that be a new application?

No, we could amend this application.

So LaShawn? So what are the possibilities? They get the example of a PD.

Probably they wouldn't do it. We could amend it to a PD. I might, I I'm not speaking as a commitment for the owners. I'm just saying there are possibilities of making this more palatable.

Yes. Well, Sean, not development coordination. So if this request were amended to a PD, it will require a DRC meeting. Um, and then from there they will resubmit plans and come back before council. They could try to make that, I can establish deadlines. to keep them on track for the September 10th hearing date, or they may need just till October if they're going to convert it to a PD.

So my question to council would be, in light of the council rule, the rule is just for due process. What is the nexus between what we are hearing tonight and due process? So what due process is being denied the applicant?

Could I explain what I think the issue is regarding due process? It has to do with not knowing that there were issues related to objections with parking. You have two notices that go out. You have a filing notice and you have a notice of a hearing. If you don't receive any communication from someone else saying, hey, we've got a problem with this, I mean, but the initial issue was for two notices, it was supposed to provide ample time to notify the petitioner that there were issues. If that doesn't happen, and I'm only learning about that tonight.

With all due respect, Mr. Mulligan-Lee, even though you are the applicant's representative here tonight, clearly the applicant understood he's got a code enforcement complaint that he's not he's got a notice you have a person who is a prof and this is this is an applicant that is fully vested in this business in the city of tampa i would assume that as a subject matter expert they would be aware of what the code requirements are for the city of tampa to provide semi-tractor trailer parking in a overlay district i mean this we're not talking about just a some someone who is a you know, a one-off type of person. This is their business. They're a subject matter expert that they're doing tractor trailer parking. So saying that they're not aware that there's gambling in this establishment is disingenuous.

All I'm saying is I accept the admonishment. What I'm asking for is an opportunity to resolve the issue. And the only way I can get that is if you allow that to move forward, except the time restriction of September or October, so that we can come back and figure out how to resolve the one sticking point that seems to be the major issue here. They don't have current development plans, but if that restriction can be handled through a PD or through some other mechanism, I'm willing to explore that.

I'd suggest you could unify the property with RM24.

No, sir, I don't think that's going to happen.

but you're concerned about unification of the property.

Everything to the west is all CI.

Everything to the east is all RM24.

So I think they can work that out, Mr. Chair. Okay, go ahead. I think they can work that out during this time. Susan can cut me off, but I think there are a few different tracks of this. So if we continue as we are, we can either approve it or not approve it. And if we don't, either way we have to justify our vote. And then based on that, either the public or they can decide to appeal, and then there's a whole litigation process. Instead, we might be able to avoid the whole appeal process by waiting two months, let them try to figure out how to work it out, and then they come back. The only thing we lost is the 20 minutes or so that they presented, or 30 minutes. But we give it a chance that it's going to work out, and we won't end up in lots of fighting afterwards by either the committee objecting or the owners objecting.

Councilman beer.

Yes, Sir, in in in looking at this request, I don't know if I'm going to butcher this thing announcer prevention is worth a pound of cure is that it Mister Shelby or whatever the is that it that I say it right, I was but you're things yes, so well well the the the the land use color corollary to that. is an ounce of procedure is worth a pound of litigation there you go that's what that's what i'm talking about so so this you know this continues to me doesn't go to the merits of this case i i certainly have my views upon hearing what i've been hearing and i think we all do here on i don't want to speak for everybody i just i know i certainly do um but i think councilman carlson's points are very well taken which is if we deny this request for a continuance with a claim of due process challenges, that there's going to be some deprivation of some property interest or what have you here, the Tampa City Council will have a roll in for this property owner. It could ultimately result in a sequel to any potential denial if council chooses to go that way, which may not be favorable to folks who would want that denial. So, yeah, I mean, I'm prepared to support the continuance for those reasons. Again, it doesn't go to the merit of this case whatsoever. It more so just goes to trying to do this thing procedurally right and everything like that. Because, again, if we don't do it right right now and we ultimately end up denying it, there's going to be a sequel and it's going to come back to haunt us. I believe that. Councilwoman Young.

um lashaun i have a question could you um restate please um what would with the continuance so we don't know if it coming back if it if it's going to come back as the same thing or a plan that's what we're allowing the continuance for um yes lashaun dr development coordination so at this point the continue

If the continuous is granted, the applicant could come back with this same request, which would be the request for CI zoning.

Okay.

And maybe in that time he's met, spoke with neighbors and has actually conducted what he's gonna do on the property. Um, as far as clearing the property, but, or the applicant could decide that they are going to amend that request, the, um, rezoning request, and maybe it would be a PD. or a plan development with a site plan. And because the applicant has to do notice, they must decide before it is time to notice the hearing. So they have to provide notice 30 days prior to the hearing at least. So by mid-August, they would know, they would have to decide long before then the route they're going to take.

I would think that with all of those options being considered, we would probably need to go to October and not September.

And then just one more question. I was looking over the permitted uses for CI. I know you went through a few of them. Is this a heliport?

Yes. See, it's not just one use.

OK. Yes, that is correct. Lashawn.developmentcoordination, that's correct. It is a heliport.

OK.

It's allowed in CI and then in the industrial zones and, um, industrial general and industrial heavy zones.

Okay. Thank you.

I have one last question. This would be to our attorney and our council attorney, both. So there has been insinuation that there is a due process issue with this hearing. Have you, in your professional opinion, have you been able to identify any due process concerns? I'm asking both of you. You can pick which one goes first, arm wrestle if you like.

I mean, I think Susan Johnson-Velez, legal department, Mr. Michelinie has discussed his difficulty with reviewing the documents that were submitted to counsel that he's had a limited time to review and in order to be able to respond to at this time.

Okay. I don't need to hear from you. That's enough for me. Thank you. Okay. Um, so I, we, uh, Mr. McElhinney, would you prefer an October date? I think that's a safer date. And what date would that be? LaShawn?

Um, yes. LaShawn development coordination. That date would be October 8th, 2026.

Okay. The maker of the motion, please make a new motion.

I'd like to make a motion to continue item are easy 26 dash 36 to October 8th 5. 0, 1, p.m. second 3. 15 East Kennedy Boulevard 3rd for Tampa 4 to 3, 3, 6, 0, 2, we require a renotice as well and requiring renotice and waving the 180 and waving the 180 days.

thank you we have a motion from councilman maniscalco i have a second from councilman vieira councilman vera yes sir thank you mr chairman and i and i wanted to just for the folks who came here this evening is to say again this isn't something we take lightly because you all waited a while um but there are again procedural issues where if we turn this thing a certain way it could potentially go the other way If we don't adhere to proper procedure, and I know we have at least one fine attorney. Mr Alex field in the audience and in procedure is important So again, that's my rationale. Thank you.

Yeah, and for the folks in the audience on this as well I mean, I think you probably heard my voice on this I'm going to end up supporting this continuance based on the information that I just only just based on the information that I got from our city attorney to ensure that our case is strong and can be upheld So it means if they present the same case in October, please come back. And we can talk about this again. And hopefully, they'll come back with a better case. And unfortunately, at this point, we won't be taking any further public comment on this. But I don't know. Do I need to take a? No, sir. No, I didn't think so. OK. Just making sure, checking myself. Yeah, I didn't think so. We have a motion, and I have a second. all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed okay thank you council thank you do you have to announce that madam clerk no did you announce the vote okay motion carried unanimously with her tech being absent thank you thank you thank you guys for turning out thank you okay we're moving on to number well let's give them a second to finish this and then we'll OK, moving on to item number four.

Good evening, Council. For the record, Christopher to launch development coordination. Agenda item number four is RZ 2646. This is a request to rezone 3705 North Darwin Avenue from RS 50 residential single family 50 to plan development for residential single family detached uses. I'll turn it over now to planning commission staff.

Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Tampa Heights Urban Village, the Tampa Heights neighborhood, and evacuation zone D. The subject site is located here, outlined in purple. It is predominantly single-family, detached to the north and east of the subject site. Directly to the west is Calvin Taylor Park, and to the south is Woodlawn Cemetery. North Florida Avenue, a transit emphasis corridor, is six blocks to the east of the site. This is the adopted future land use map of the subject site, again outlined in purple. The residential 10 designation is to the north, east, and south of the subject site. All of this green is the recreational and open space, and that is the park and the cemetery. Planning Commission staff reviewed the existing development patterns along North Darwin Avenue within the Residential 10 designation. Along the segment between West Indiana Avenue and West Virginia Avenue, excluding the subject site, 15 parcels reflect an existing density of approximately 5.79 dwelling units per acre, and the proposed plan development would allow two dwelling units on the subject site, resulting in a density of approximately 6.45 dwelling units per acre. The density is comparable to the existing development pattern. It is consistent with the density anticipated under the Residential 10 designation. Additionally, the proposed 49-foot wide lots are comparable to the lot widths along the block, and the proposed unit heights of 35 feet are consistent with the RS50 zoning district, and the request is compatible with the surrounding development pattern. the subject site is located within the tampa heights urban village where the comprehensive plan encourages enhanced urban design that promotes a pedestrian friendly development pattern and residential density supportive of transit use as such the request proposes a sidewalk along north darwin avenue where sidewalks are currently absent Although the applicant proposes vehicular access from North Darwin Avenue, access from the alley would be more consistent with the comprehensive plan guidance, which encourages the use of alleys to preserve the established character of Tampa's traditional neighborhoods. The request supports many policies related to housing the city's population within the comprehensive plan and ensures an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs of Tampa's present and future populations, Additionally, the comprehensive plan directs the greatest share of growth to urban villages. The proposed plan development would allow for development that is comparable and compatible with the character of the surrounding uses and is consistent with the development pattern anticipated under the Residential 10 Future Land Use Designation. That concludes my presentation.

Does Council have any questions? If not, next. What?

You're hot.

I didn't want you to say that. Not hot that way.

All right. For the record, Christopher Demache, Development Coordination, We'll start with having a look at the aerial of the subject site. It's outlined in red. The subject property is located on the east side of North Darwin Avenue. The subject property and the subject block face is located south of West Virginia Avenue and north of West Indiana Avenue. Surrounding zoning to the north, south, east, and west is all RS50. The surrounding uses include single family detached units to the north, to the east, and to the south. then west the subject property is the ken suarez sports complex we do have a site plan from the applicant the applicant proposes the construction of two single-family detached dwellings each on lots 49 feet in width and 141 feet in depth each dwelling unit is proposed with two-car garage And the front doors for each dwelling unit is oriented to North Darwin Avenue. The max height proposed would be 35 feet. We have aerial for parcel A. This is the parcel on the north side of the subject property.

And then we have parcel B.

There are no waivers associated with this application. We do have some site photos to show. We do have a photo of the subject lot. This is from North Darwin looking east. Immediately north of the subject site. South of the subject site. East of the subject site. two photos for east and then of course looking west at the sports complex across the street from the subject site this would be looking north on north darwin and looking south on north darwin development view and compliance staff we reviewed this application we do find the request consistent with the city of tampa land development regulations and should it be the pleasure of city council to approve this application further modifications uh the site plan would need to be completed between First and second reading of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet and I'm available for any questions.

You also have any questions hearing? None applicant.

Thank you, sir.

Good evening council for Henry domain homes, 3104 North Armenia Avenue, suite two, Tampa, Florida, 3, 3, 6 0 7. I've been sworn. And I appreciate staff's help with the rezone. And I'm here for any questions you may have. And I appreciate your time and consideration. And if you'd like, yeah, I'm available for any questions. And also, I know there was a question mentioned earlier about the alley. You know, we deferred to Natural Resources because of the Grand Live Oak on the back of that property to defer to use the front of the property for loading. and that's pictured there, and it's a 10-foot alley. We were advised to stay clear of that tree, and so we're just doing the best we can to protect that.

Does Council have any questions? Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Got to get a motion. Who wishes to speak to this item? Okay. I think so. Yes, ma'am. Start with your name, please.

Hi, my name is Nicole Federica. I'm again coming to you tonight from the Tampa Heights Community Association, specifically our land use committee. We discussed this a couple of times. Our first discussion was around a conditional approval from our board. And then we sort of changed position to we wanted to oppose. The reason being that we as a community want to encourage and really promote the use of alleys as much as possible. So we would really prefer the design to look at a way to use that alley. I understand the issue with the tree, and of course I support keeping as much tree canopy as possible as well. So again, as an individual, I would encourage domain to reach out to the association and discuss design opportunities where I just saw an example the other day actually in South Tampa of a house with an attached garage front access with a portico share and a recess garage. So it's not front loaded. But I digress back to the association's position is, you know, We want to encourage street parking when we have these curb cuts for driveways, for front-loaded garages. We take away from street parking. At a ballpark, that becomes an issue. I don't know how active the park is, but if you've got Little League or whatnot using the park, we want to encourage that street parking. So, I would just encourage them to consider reaching out to the association and maybe consider some different design opportunities. Thank you.

Chair Greg Musil Thank you very much. Anybody else in the public wish to speak to this item? Can I get a motion? Chair Greg Musil Supposedly. Chair Greg Musil Motion opposed. Councilman Fiora?

Councilman Fiora Do you need me to rebuttal?

Chair Greg Musil Do you want to rebuttal?

Councilman Fiora Yeah, just briefly. I appreciate the association's input and at first I heard about the question about the alley use. A picture of the alley I took today, and of course you see the Grand Live Oak there. We were asked not to disturb. I'm aware that the 10-foot alley is being used some. That's a picture looking towards the south. This is looking towards the north. It really is impassable the way it is. Like I said, we use alleys all the time, but in this instance, we just defer to the professionals to protect that Grand Live Oak, and we're just trying to do the best thing we can to do that. i'll be happy to speak to anyone at the association you know and that wants to speak about this and by the way to add to that and i understand the parking concerns uh these houses are set back uh the north is set back and excuse me for looking close to this um over 20 feet on that driveway up to the north and the south is 2010. It each allows for four cars to be parked without getting into a sidewalk, which I try hard to do because I do the site plan. So I want to keep the cars off the sidewalks as well. So I appreciate your time and consideration. Any further questions from the applicant?

Councilwoman Young. Can you put the first picture up that has the tree, with the alley, the one that has the tree?

the first one looking south. And that's a portion of the alley looking from the property south. This is from looking at the property north. Once again, it's only a 10-foot alley, so two cars couldn't pass on it. And with the north side not being used, that's going to be an issue at some point with two cars. Someone's got to choose where they're going, who's going to win, because the alleys aren't marked one way and those kinds of things that I'm sure you all have talked about before. But like I said, we deferred natural resources on. not trying to put any more things around that tree. So we decided to front load it for that reason. And staff found it consistent.

So for staff, so would that be considered, this would be considered an alley that you can't use?

You're welcome to keep that if you want.

Yeah, Jonathan Scott, Mobility. That alley with the tree and stuff, it's tricky. To say that it's not used, it's probably not accurate. I mean, it looks like people are using it. And it's an open alley. So it's really just kind of protecting the tree and to make them enter, to do something to that tree. I don't know if it's really worth it in this case. But it is looks like it is used.

And I just ask, I mean, we've talked about allies a lot. I would really love for us to figure out this alley situation. And I know I'm sure it will be coming in at some point because this has come up so many times. And I mean, It's it's obvious that we need to you know, figure out like can they be used? Can they not like all I mean, it's it's been coming up Quite a lot in cotton in conversation. So I look forward to the day where we can have said yes No, you know, whatever the case may be because it looks like you can drive through it to me.

So Councilman Carlson then councilman Bureau.

Yeah before you leave it so He was talking about if you had the garages or the exits on the alleyway, it could endanger the tree. And so would your natural resources agree with that, that making the homes accessible from the back would endanger the tree in some way or crowd the tree out? JOE DUNLAP, JR.: Joe?

Joseph Cermak, Forrester Examiner. Yeah, given the spacing.

I know that's a good shot of the other there. How are you doing, by the way? Good to see you. That's kind of a wide shot. Ricky gave it a C7 with the boating that was next to it. We're just trying to have a 20-foot point. She wants to stay clear of that thing if we could.

Right. So it would really be a question of, developing the alley could they possibly use the materials that would be safe they would still be encroaching closer than we'd like to see with any kind of permeable on grade if there was even an available option it also would bring the fact that they would be putting driveways up to two sides in the right in the rear of the lot they would now need driveways off either side while they could remain clear of the tree they would involve having to do some root pruning and other impacts to the tree uh is that a live oak it is gray live oak 46 inches i believe right and the c7 rating that that one was given i think it was

Number 22, 46-inch. This was done last year.

This one up there.

Right up here is Southern Live Oak, and you'll see it right there.

OK, can we zoom it in on that?

It's on the right-hand side, guys. Up over top.

I was actually looking at the grand tree table on there, which is that one on the left, yes. Perfect. So yeah, that's specifically addressing that tree as a C7. Right, that is preservation quality. Yeah, I would say that in this case, asking to use parking in the front rather than having to improve the alley would be to the benefit of that tree. Could it be strictly said that it would be detrimental? Can't be 100% certain. CHRIS RODGERS. Thank you very much. Is that sufficient?

OK. Councilman Rivera. actually actually um so is that yeah i'm sorry is uh is that it we're good okay can i get a motion to close from councilman vera second from second second councilman carlson all those in favor say aye aye opposed i just have a councilman vera yes sir mr chairman i read an ordinance presented for first reading consideration ordinance rezoning property general vicinity 3705 north darwin avenue in the city of tampa florida

more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification rs 50 residential single family the pd plan development residential single family detached providing an effective date i have a motion councilman vera second councilman mascot call those in favor say aye aye opposed the eyes have it

okay thank you motion carried unanimously with her tech being absent second reading and adoption will be held on july 16th 2026 at 10 a.m at old city hall located at 315 east kennedy boulevard third floor tampa florida three three six zero two okay very good these next ones we're gonna fly through right this is gonna be record time on item five six seven and eight let's go five

Bria Dixon, Development Coordination, Agenda Item Number 5 for RAZ 2651, request to rezone 9710 and 9720 North Armenia Avenue from our residential office to see in commercial neighborhood, turning it over to Planning Commission.

Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. The subject site is located within the University Planning District, the historic Forest Hills, and is not within an evacuation zone. This is the aerial, the subject site is outlined here in purple. This blue line is the jurisdictional line between the city of Tampa and the unincorporated Hillsborough County. To the north of the site are also commercial uses that continue towards Linebaugh Avenue. To the east is single family detached and to the west and south are a mix of single family and multi-family uses. this is the adopted future land use map the subject site is here outlined in purple it's represented with the residential 20 designation which does extend going this way then jumps to r10 and then to cmu 35 along linebaugh closer to north armenia avenue and the residential 20 is also to the south residential 10 is to the east This yellow color is the unincorporated Hillsborough County Residential 4 designation. The proposed CN district can be considered with the R20 designation given the site that is already zoned R01. The site does not have to meet locational criteria outlined in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan promotes pedestrian safety and encourages commercial development that enhances the city's character and ambiance. In doing so, the plan requires new commercial development to connect building entrances to public rights away and encourages sidewalks in areas where it is practical and feasible. To ensure consistency with policy direction, future development should promote uses in context with the community and enhance the pedestrian experience by orienting proposed buildings to the street and placing parking in the rear. Additionally, the comprehensive plan requires any commercial uses to be buffered from any residential development and future development of the site should be sensitive to the residential uses to the west of the site. The request supports many policies related to the growing need for employment opportunities within the city of Tampa and promotes a development pattern consistent with Tampa's character and encouraged by the compact city form strategy. Overall, the request is comparable and compatible with the surrounding area and is consistent with the development pattern. And that concludes my presentation, if you have any questions.

Thank you. Does Council have any questions? Hearing none, next.

Maria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with an area view of the subject parcel. The subject parcel is here, outlined in red. You can see that it has, oops, upside down, sorry. You can see that it has frontages here on Armenia Avenue. Uh, this is Barclay right here as well as Tiffany Oaks. Um, I also have photos, but before we're going to have the survey, sorry, they're all upside down. This is a survey of the parcel outlined here in red. It is a fairly large parcel is almost approximately one acre at 0.94 acres. Um, It meets the minimum lot requirements for the CN commercial neighborhood zoning. The CN zoning is compatible with residential R20 future land use designation. Therefore, it's also consistent with the surrounding area. I also have photos. This is the subject parcels. Here it is again. This is one of the two buildings. This is north. east second part b to the east one of the properties to the south and this is one west view as well as multi-family multi-family view and development coordination and compliance staff again find this to be consistent with city of tampa land development regulations i'm available for any questions i also have any questions hearing none applicant

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, city council members. My name is Tu Mai, office address is 14031 North Yalmabee Highway, Tampa, Florida, 33618. I'm here representing the applicant, Frank Cholura, who's here with me tonight, along with his family. Subject site is located at the northwest corner of North Armenia Avenue and West Barclay Road. Total land is 0.94 acres. Current zoning is R01 with future land use res 20. Existing water and wastewater service is provided by the city. The applicant is requesting to rezone from R01 to CN to allow for the development of the property with commercial neighborhood uses. There are two one-story buildings on the subject site that serve as a business professional office use. An ingress and egress on Tiffany Oaks Lane and West Barclays serve as a direct access to the project site. This request is simply to add neighborhood serving commercial uses such as a sandwich shop for the subject site for the residents of the historic Forest Hills neighborhood. The proposed CN zoning is compatible with the neighborhood. It meets land use objective 9.3, policy 9.3.1, objective 15.2, policy 15.2.1 for the overall development and commercial areas of the city's comprehensive plan. We received no objections from the neighbors. Development review and compliance staff finds this rezoning consistent with the city of Tampa code and ordinances. Planning commission staff finds this request consistent with the city comprehensive plan. Thank you to the staff for their staff report and findings, and we respectfully request the council's approval.

Thank you very much. Does this council have any questions of the applicant? Hearing none, is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item? Can I get a motion to close? Motion to close. We have a motion to close. Councilman Scott, Councilman Randall, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Young.

all right file number rez-26-551 or is being presented for first reading consideration ordinance rezoning property in general vicinity of 9710 and 9720 north armenia avenue in the city of tampa florida and more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification ro1 residential office to cn commercial neighborhood providing an effective date thank you i have a motion councilwoman young i have second councilman maniscalco all those in favor say aye aye opposed eyes have it

okay motion carried unanimously with her tech being absent second Regan adoption will be held on July 16th 2026 at 10 a.m at Old City Hall located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard third floor Tampa Florida three three six zero two

Thank you so much.

Item number six, development coordination agenda. Item number six is RZ 2653 request to rezone three, eight, one seven, three, eight, one nine. Temple street from RM 16, residential, multiple family and CG commercial general to RM 18, residential, multiple family 18. I will now turn it over to commission.

Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. The sites within the Central Tampa Planning District, the Grant Park neighborhood, the East Tampa Urban Village, and Evacuation Zone E. This is an aerial of the subject site, which is outlined in purple. And again, that blue line is a jurisdictional boundary between unincorporated Hillsborough County and the city of Tampa. The surrounding area is a mix of residential, commercial, public, and industrial uses. The commercial, public, and residential uses are concentrated along the transit emphasis corridor of North 50th Street and also East Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The south and east are primarily single family and two family. The subject site is right here. It's located in the Residential 20 designation, which is to the north. east and south of the subject site. To the west, this red color is the Community Commercial 35 district, and the pink on the City of Tampa side is the Community Mixed Use 35. On the county side, it's Community Mixed Use 12. Planning Commission staff reviewed the existing development pattern along Temple Street between East Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and East 32nd Avenue. Excluding the subject site and vacant parcels, the area reflects an existing density of approximately 10.94 dwelling units per acre. The proposed PD would allow up to four dwelling units, resulting in a potential density of approximately 16.66 dwelling units per acre. While it exceeds the existing density along this portion of Temple Street, it remains consistent with the density anticipated under the Residential 20 designation and policies encouraging attached to multifamily housing types at slightly higher densities in single family areas. Overall, the request would provide for development that is comparable and compatible with the surrounding residential development pattern. The request supports many policies related to housing the city's population within the comprehensive plan and ensures an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs of Tampa's present and future populations. The comprehensive plan directs the greatest share of growth towards urban villages. Additionally, the site is located approximately 120 feet, 125 feet south of East Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and one block east of North 50th Street. Both designated transit emphasis corridors, which comprehensive plan identifies as appropriate locations for redevelopment and increased density and intensity to support alternative modes of transportation. Land use policy 9.2.6 encourages single-family attached and multi-family development to orient front entrances toward neighborhood sidewalks and streets. Since the applicant is proposing a Euclidean zoning district, applicable urban village and site design policies should be addressed at the time of permitting. The RM18 zoning district will provide for a development that is comparable and compatible with the surrounding area, and the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation, if you have any questions.

Council have any questions? Hearing none, next.

Brea Dixon, Development Coordination. Here is an aerial view. As you can see, the subject parcel is outlined here in red, and it only has frontage here on Temple Street. North is East Dr. Martin Luther King, as well as 50th to the West. Single-family detached and multiple-family residential developments such as duplexes are throughout the area, and presently both of the subject parcels are vacant and undeveloped. here we also have a survey where the parcels are outlined here in bold and temple street is fronting on this site photos of the subject site and surrounding area are subject property This is that second parcel. This is north. There is a place of assembly. East behind first parcel, east behind the second parcel, residents to the south, commercial to the west. subject size approximately 0.24 acres and meets the minimum lot requirements required for residential multiple family rm18 zoning the proposed rm18 zoning is compatible with the residential r20 future land use and is consistent with the surrounding development pattern development coordination and compliance staff reviewed the application and find the request to be consistent with the city of tampa and develop regulations i'm available for questions any questions hearing none applicant

Good evening City Council, James Lascara representing the request for RZ 2653 located at 3817 and 3819 Temple Street. Requesting Euclidean rezoning to RM18. We're encouraged to hear that the findings of staff were consistent across the board. We have no waivers as this is Euclidean rezoning. Community support has been strong with 10 letters of support and no opposition. Available for any questions should there be any.

Council have any questions? Hearing none. Is there anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Hearing none. Can I get a motion to close?

So moved.

A motion to close to Councilman Maniscalco. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Maniscalco.

All right.

I'll take a stab at it, see where it goes. Hey, there'll be no humor in Tampa City Council today.

I'm sorry. This is a sad place. I have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Ordinance for zoning property in the general vicinity of 3817 and 3819 Temple Street in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly described in Section 1 from zoning district classification RM16 residential multifamily and CG commercial general to RM18 residential multifamily providing an effective date.

I have a motion from Councilman Menescalco. A second from? Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Okay, motion carried unanimously with Kurtek being absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on July 16th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Okay, we've got two more lightning speed. I expect to be out of here at 735.

Go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher Dimanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item number seven is REZ 2586. This is a request to rezone 3101 North Nebraska Avenue from RS 50 Residential Single Family 50 and CG Commercial General to plan development for storefront residential and to allow for all CG Commercial General uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Now I know she can read fast.

Didn't have any caffeine today, so I don't know. Emily Phelan, Planning Commission staff. This site is within the Central Tampa Planning District, the East Tampa Urban Village, the VME Board neighborhood, and evacuation zone E. The subject site is located here, outlined in purple. There is a mix of single family and two family to the north, east, and south of the subject site. They're mostly moving east. And then along North Nebraska Avenue are a concentration of commercial uses with some public quasi-public uses. And further to the west here is Interstate 275. This is the adopted future land use map of the subject site, which is outlined here in purple. It does have a split future land use designation on the site between the residential 20, which is also to the north, east, and south of the subject site, and the community mixed use 35 designation, which is to the north, west, and south of the subject site. The site is within the East Tampa Urban Village where the comprehensive plan encourages enhanced design that promotes a pedestrian friendly pattern and the site is along North Nebraska Avenue, a transit emphasis corridor recognized by the comprehensive plan as suitable for redevelopment and intensification. Given the site is within two future land use designations and within an urban village, the site is eligible to utilize land use policy 5.1.6 to proportionally weigh the density and intensity across the entire site, and the applicant is choosing to use this policy. The proposed request aligns with the density anticipated under the R20 and CMU35 designations and supports policy direction that allows multifamily housing at slightly higher density overall compatible with the surrounding development pattern. As described in land use policy 6.1.13, the portion of the parcel designated CMU35 is considered to be within a mixed use corridor which the comprehensive plan identifies as appropriate locations for redevelopment and increased density and intensity to support alternative modes of transportation the proposed plan development supports many of these principles by placing parking behind the building orienting primary residential and commercial entrances towards the street providing bicycle storage and six foot sidewalks around the parcel The request supports many policies related to housing the city's population within the comprehensive plan and ensures an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs of Tampa's present and future populations. Additionally, the comprehensive plan directs the greatest share of growth towards urban villages. Overall, the proposed PD is comparable and compatible with the existing development pattern and is consistent with the comprehensive plan. That concludes my presentation.

Yay. Good job. Okay.

All right. For the record, again, again, for the record, Christopher Dimanche, development coordination. We'll start with an aerial of the subject site. Such a property is outlined in red. It is located on the north side of East 23rd Avenue. and east of North Nebraska. It's actually located on that northeast corner of that intersection between those two streets. Surrounding uses, we do have CG zoning and RS 50 zoning to the north. So we have a convenience store, a gas station on the CG zone property and single family detached dwellings on the RS 50 portions to the north. East of the subject site, we have single family detached dwellings. So RS 50 and south of the subject site, we have single family detached dwellings with RS 50 zoning as well as CG zoning. And west of the subject site, we do have commercial uses as well as vacant partial zoned CG. Now, I do want to before I jump into this site plan, I want to preface what I'm going to say. by noting that this application was continued at the April 9th hearing. And during that continuance period, the applicant met with the neighborhood association, talked about the site, heard their concerns and made some adjustments. So tonight I'm gonna show you the site plan and elevations of record. The applicant will show you the changes. And of course, if you approve those items tonight, they would be made between first and second reading. The revision sheet you have reflects the changes that we've reviewed from the applicant. We don't have any issues with them and so they are reflected in the revision sheet and staff report packet that you do have. So with that said, having a look here at the subject property, the building is outlined in the dotted line. The site is broken up between R20 future land use designation on the east side of the property and CMU 35 on the west. On the ground floor, we have 1850 square feet of retail space. There are entrances to this retail space off North Nebraska, as well as East 23rd Avenue. There's also 41 parking spaces. ground level parking spaces to service this development as well as a two-way ingress-egress located on that north side of East 23rd Avenue. Access to the residential units would be by way of the interior parking area as well as a door located on North Nebraska Avenue. The proposed development is three stories in height. And you'll see as the applicant will show you that there has been a minor change here to the elevation, particularly on the south elevation. You're only gonna see one level above the covered parking area instead of two levels above the parking area. It'll also be reflected here on the north elevation where you will only see one level above the parking. That's the major change that they made and we've reviewed. Additionally, we have the west elevation, which this is the view from North Nebraska Avenue and the east elevation from those are 50 zone properties. And of course, the applicant does have one waiver. It's the section 27 to 84. This is a request to amend the required 15 foot use landscape buffer and six foot tall masonry wall. to provide for a 15 foot use landscape buffer and a six foot tall PVC fence along the east property line adjacent to the RS 50 zoning and the single family detached dwelling use. We do have photos. This is a photo of the subject site as of today. Oops. That's not the one I wanted to show you. subject property north of the subject site. We do have an alleyway that bisects the two properties there. We have the gas station and convenience store additionally north of the subject property with single family detached dwellings south of the subject sites to be across East 23rd immediately east of the subject site looking across north Nebraska Avenue One additional look, that would be the vacant parcel. And then we have looking down east 23rd and looking west down east 23rd. Development coordination compliance staff has reviewed this application. We do find the request consistent with the city of Tampa land development regulations. And should it be the pleasure of city council to approve this application, modifications to the site plan as shown on the submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading. And I'm available for any questions.

Does council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant I suspect this will be easier than the last one.

Should I be speedy?

Yes, please. We've been here all day.

We really appreciate the continuance that was granted in April. You might have seen a few comments that were in your packet. They all were before we had a meeting with the neighborhood association. And we spent a very lively time speaking with them and discussing issues that they wanted to have resolved. I believe that we have resolved them. We notched the building out to save these trees on the north side. limited this side of the development to one story over the parking. So we eliminated one entire floor and we reduced the number of units. So we addressed the issue regarding density that they wanted addressed. This is a neighborhood serving commercial retail space. We've put in the covered bicycle. We meet the landscaping requirements. We increased the buffers on this side. And we thought in our discussion that the PVC fence on this side was more appropriate than a masonry wall. We also discussed the issues with TPD. And apparently, this is not part of this petition, but I just want to bring it to your attention. There are serious crime related issues regarding this alley and the property at the corner, the convenience store. So TPD is doing their thing and I don't want to go into what they're doing. But we also agreed that at our expense that we would petition to vacate the alley and that will be coming to you later on. So, uh, we are working very closely with the neighborhood association. This, although is, is related to the one that you're gonna hear right after this, um, zoning petition, but I believe that we have addressed the issues that we were asked to address. They asked for some, uh, design amenities, which we will go over when it comes through the design review, uh, including adding balconies and some fenestration that they wanted. Um, so this side next to nebraska avenue is three stories this side over here is is one story over over the garage it is on a transit corridor we value the input that we received and we've had a couple of meetings with the neighborhood group and i believe the representatives are here to talk about that The consistency issue was resolved with both the Planning Commission and the city staff. I'll be happy to answer any questions. We do have a split land use designation, so we had to blend and reduce the density on the east side.

Councilwoman Young um well one I'm glad you know that you all got to that you got to meet with the neighborhood Association and making those changes um just me um you know I would I'm glad to hear that you may be adding some additional design elements to it um because you know just just you know looking at the pictures of the you know surrounding area and you know and in eborn and also you know kind of similar in tampa heights you have the you know the pitch roofs and the columns and the porches and so i i'm happy to happy to see some development happening on nebraska because i know we're wanting to revitalize that area and bring some you know some housing um but i would love to just see maybe just be a little bit more prettier On the west side, it's kind of blank. So we'll be seeing a lot of just kind of space. So I don't know if it's adding more windows or something, but something just to make it a little, I don't know if the only word I could think of is prettier. But I think having something on Nebraska I think is good and it's adding more housing and also having that retail space.

We're removing an older apartment building that's there. But one of the things that I think probably in the process We're required to put elevations in that show something, but it's not necessarily the final product. As we go through the process, it does get more attractive. There's architectural fenestration as well as the balconies and the windows. Those things will come back and we will stay in touch with the neighborhood group to address that. You know, we've had some, as I said, exciting discussions, but at the end of the day, I think it was all useful and very productive, and I believe they'll say the same thing. Thank you. So we appreciate it.

Anything else? Okay, is anybody in the public here wish to speak to this item? Hearing none, can I get a motion to close? Oh, did you want to speak? Okay, go ahead.

That's a neighborhood group.

Okay, come on up. Start with your name, and then you have three minutes.

Hello, sir.

Hello, good evening.

well you have to get up you have to get up here to the podium first the microphone is embedded in the podium so straight with your name Michael Bailey thank you I live at 910 East 23rd and the property you're speaking of right now is about a hundred yards to the west of me and me and my wife play a little game of Was that a backfire or a gunshot from the gas station next door? It's been roped off twice within the past six weeks because of drugs, TPD, trying to collect everybody up that sells drugs there. And, oh, let me excuse the attire. I wasn't expecting this. My biggest concern is between the parcel, I think it's called 9- 19 where they have the five lots is the amount of housing they're looking to put there and then you double that down with this property you triple the amount of activity of people exiting to get onto nebraska avenue it's hard enough as it is right now there's no bike lane so when i come up i have to look to my right to make sure i can pull out make sure i'm not going to get hit then i have to look to the left to make sure no one's coming this direction and then have to look again because no bike lane everybody if there's little motor scooters are using the sidewalk to travel so i'm like this this for safety reason making sure i don't hit a pedestrian that makes it Troublesome for me to get out onto Nebraska Avenue living a hundred yards away from this point I've actually had maybe two years ago a young Hispanic kid hit the side of my vehicle and I guess maybe there was some reason but he just got it on his bike gave me a dirty look and took off We could make guesses as to what that's about but I know from what I see, what I saw in the development, the units are going to be built north-south. Now, if everything was built east-west, and the tree that's going to come down anyway, if that could be allowed to come down and have everyone exit directly onto Nebraska Avenue versus a residential street, that would be grand. Otherwise, I see I have 17 seconds left. There's an alley there. And that alley is used. I don't know why. People can walk up and down 24th and 23rd, but they use that alley. I've had objects thrown over the fence into my yard.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Okay, start with your name.

Good evening, Kim Headland. I reside at 1023 East 17th Avenue, just a few blocks from this property. I do want to say that as a longtime resident of VM Ebor, I strongly support continued investment along that corridor for a few reasons. We need housing, the mixed use development It can contribute to the long term vitality, economic development of that corridor and quite honestly, the stability. We need the stability. I think you've heard why we need a little bit of stability. Projects of this scale should be thoughtfully designed to respect adjacent neighborhoods, particularly at transitions to lower density residential areas. And I think you touched on the importance of that in Nebraska Avenue elevation, but also the 23rd Avenue elevation. I do really want to thank the applicant. They met with us, the VME Board Neighborhood Association, last month, just in May. They listened and they revised the plan considerably in response. Most significantly was the reduction of units on the R20 parcel to five and the reduction of height. That makes that transition to the single family nature of the rest of 23rd Avenue more successful. I do want to say that the design still presents a large, long, primarily blank wall with a dumpster enclosure at the pedestrian level along 23rd Avenue, along with the blank facades on Nebraska. We continue to ask that the applicant consider adding articulation, fenestration, landscaping along that stretch, along both stretches actually, but also we understand that that that facade design will be more fully realized as the applicant moves forward through through permitting and they'll have to comply with these Tampa overlay. So we're hopeful that some of those items will be addressed as the design is evolving. But one other important thing to note is that the parking is basically one space per residential unit and eight spaces for the retail but it has no visitor parking. I think you could see in some of the photos there's some concern about what that means for 23rd Avenue going forward when you have the dumpster enclosure, the ingress, egress, all kind of coming off that first few hundred feet of 23rd Avenue. uh it's it's a lot and then add visitor parking to that we just hope that maybe this could be conditionally approved with some stipulation about visitor parking and how maybe those eight retail spaces work with visitor parking on site so it doesn't further choke 23rd avenue with that thank you for working with us on this and listening to the community and just really appreciate it

Thank you so much. Anybody else in public wish to speak to this item? Mr. McElhinney.

We appreciate all of it. We've gotten to a better product and one that satisfies the neighborhood. And as Kim just said, we took an entire floor off of the east side to provide that better transition between this project and the single family further to the east. We explored... and access onto Nebraska in several different reiterations. And as Jonathan can tell you, that was not even beginning to be successful. And the neighbor that spoke about trying to get that done, we did. It went nowhere. But anyway, we have a better product. We've been found to be consistent. We have the support of the neighbors. And we'd appreciate your consideration and favorably pass this.

Mr. McElhinney, would you be willing between first and second reading to have more complete sort of binding elevations on the two faces that the people are concerned about so we can have a better look at what this architectural features would look like?

Yes, sir.

OK. Thank you.

And we are committing to making the changes that have been requested by staff between first and second reading.

and can you can you maybe help me with what that would look like the revision sheet absolutely christopher demache development coordination i would uh ask the council maybe specify the specific facades the directional whether it's you know it's difficult because we're not going to design it from the days but i think that i think that we would like some more detail on those two elevations with uh so elevations with detail to show that you're breaking up those facades so that they're aesthetically blend with the neighborhood and that you're building a quality product as we you know we're trying to break that up we would suggest maybe the west and south facades the the 23rd street and the nebraska side nebraska and then the east 23rd side we can work with the applicant between first and second readings and and get those uh elevations updated perfect thank you mr mccleany for consenting to do that okay anybody anything else hearing none can i get a motion to close Motion to close. Councilman Scott was second. Councilman Randall is a very sad. I oppose. The ayes have it. Councilman Randall, could you please read this with the revision sheets and the agreement between first and second reading?

Number seven, R&D point five, eight, six. Or is it presented for first consideration? We join property general setting of 3101. North Nebraska Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida more particularly described in section 1 from zoning districts classification RS 50 Residential single-family and CG commercial general PD plan development source fund residential commercial and all CG uses providing an effective date along with the revision sheet and The requested elevation changes between first and second. As stated by the chairman and approved, notified by the petitioner. West and south sides.

West and south sides. Second. Okay, we have a motion from Councilman Miranda. I have a second from Councilman Maniscalco. Anything else before I take this vote? Okay, good.

those in favor say aye aye aye opposed the eyes have it thank you very much thank you council thank you motion carried unanimously with her tech being absent second reading and adoption will be held on july 16th 2026 at 10 a.m at old city hall located at 315 east kennedy boulevard third floor tampa florida 33602 okay we missed that deadline let's shoot for another one go thank you mr chairman again for the record christopher de montreal and coordination

Agenda item number eight is REZ 25119. This is a request to rezone 915 East 23rd Avenue from RS 50 residential single family 50 to plan development for residential single family attached uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Did you have coffee?

no um emily phelan planning commission staff this site is within the central tampa planning district the east tampa urban village the vm eborn neighborhood and evacuation zone e this is the surrounding area of the subject site it's outlined in purple the site we just heard was here the surrounding area is predominantly residential with single family detached and some two family and that commercial activity is along north nebraska avenue This is the adopted future land use map of the subject site, which is outlined in purple. It is surrounded by the Residential 20 designation. To the east of the site is the Residential 10, and to the west along North Nebraska is the Community Mixed Use 35 designation. Planning Commission staff reviewed the existing development pattern along East 23rd Avenue within the residential 20 designation along this segment between North Nebraska Avenue and North 10th Street, excluding the subject site and vacant parcels. 11 samples had an existing density of approximately 9.75 dwelling units per acre. The proposed PD would allow 10 dwelling units, resulting in a density of approximately 15.6 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the Residential 20 designation. While it is nearly double the existing density along this portion of East 23rd Avenue, it aligns with the density anticipated under the R20 and supports policy direction that allows single family attached housing at slightly higher densities in single family areas. And overall the request is comparable and compatible with the surrounding residential development and the proposed rezoning will provide infill development and better utilization of the land in an area plan for 20 dwelling units per acre. The subject site is within the East Tampa Urban Village where the comprehensive plan encourages enhanced design that promotes a pedestrian friendly development pattern with densities that encourage transit use. The comprehensive plan encourages single-family attached development to be designed with front door oriented towards a neighborhood sidewalk and street. The proposed design orients the units of 6 through 10 towards East 23rd Avenue with a pedestrian connection and units 1 through 5 face an internal drive aisle with a sidewalk along the drive aisle and a crosswalk connecting them to the sidewalk along East 23rd Avenue. While this does provide a safe pedestrian connection and the design meets the intent of land use policy 9.2.6, there is still potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts with cars backing out of garages. The request supports many policies related to housing the city's population within the comprehensive plan and ensures an adequate supply of housing is available to meet the needs of Tampa's present and future populations. The comprehensive plan also directs the greatest share of growths for the urban villages. Overall, the proposed development is comparable and compatible and consistent with the future land use designation comprehensive plan and that concludes my presentation if you have any questions.

Any questions? Hearing none, next.

For the record, Christopher Demange, Development Coordination. This particular site is located east. item number seven which was just heard by this council the subject property outlined in red is located on the south side of east 23rd avenue the subject block face and the subject site is located between north nebraska avenue and north 10th street the subject property is developed with a multiple family building as well as some open land area that has not that that is uh immediately east of the subject site looking at surrounding uses we do have rs50 zoning to the north with single family detached dwellings there is a planned development zone property located northeast of the subject site this site was approved in june of 2025 for two single family detached dwellings east of the subject site rs50 zoning with single family detached dwellings west of the subject site we have RS 50 zoning with single family detached dwellings and south of the subject site we have RS 50 zoning with single family detached dwellings as well as RM 16 zoning and there is one single family semi-detached dwelling unit located immediately south of the subject site much like The last case, this item was continued at the April 9th hearing. The applicant met with the neighborhood association. There have been some changes made. I'll make reference to them, but the applicant will show you those changes as part of their presentation. We're gonna show you the site plan of record. So we do have the subject site. and we do show it on the south side of East 23rd Avenue. The subject property proposes 10 single family attached dwelling units. Uh, there are two access points on the northwest corner. There's a two way access point and on northeast corner we have a two way access point. There is a two way internal driveway. units one through five the front doors of those units face the internal driveway whereas units six through ten face east 23rd avenue the uh all 10 units propose two car garages these are three-story structures and then i do want to note that the applicant has Requested a total of three waivers. First is the Section 27284. This request to remove a non-hazardous Grand Live Oak. Waiver number two is to Section 27240. This request to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 15 feet to the proposed 10-foot setback. And the third waiver. is to section 27240. This is a request to have the front door orientation of units one through five face an internal drive rather than the right of way. now what the applicant changed with coordination from the neighborhood association is the addition of front porches along units 6 through 10 facing east 23rd avenue as well as some additional landscaping which is not shown on this site plan but there is some additional landscaping proposed that will be part of their presentation Staff has reviewed both these additions. We have no objection to them and they've been incorporated into the Revision sheet that is part of your staff report packet And lastly we want to show you those elevations So we have the north elevation south elevation and East and west elevations those would be for units six through ten these are for units one through five similar design but on six through ten you'll see with the applicant's presentation the addition of those those porches Photos next. Subject property. Additional to the subject property, this east of the building you just saw, north of the subject site, south of the subject site, east of the subject site, and west of the subject site. and development coordination compliance staff has reviewed this application. We do find it consistent with the city of Tampa land development regulations and should it be the pleasure of city council to approve this application and modifications to the site plan as shown on the submitted revision sheet would be completed between first and second reading and I'm available for any questions.

Does council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant.

Good evening, councilor Steve Michelinie. I have been sworn. And, uh, again, this was one of those projects that, uh, benefited greatly from our neighborhood meeting. Uh, we, we had a lot of discussion about how to incorporate some of the changes that they were asking for. And we, um, we included more green space and it's, it's actually kind of a recreation area, uh, on one side of the property. It takes the parking issue off of, uh, 23rd Avenue. and takes it internal to the site. And each of those units has two covered enclosed parking spaces. It is close to a transit corridor. We've added the green space. It takes the parking off of the main street. The porches and the balconies were added And if you looked at it at the elevations that Christopher showed you, it emulates the bungalow style of houses that are in the immediate area. So, uh, we'll be reusing that, uh, on the new elevations you asked for, for the previous case. Um, it is consistent by both planning commission and the city staff. It is a R 20 land use classification, which allows for the density we're requesting. And, um, Basically, the oak, we tried to avoid having to take that one oak out, but unfortunately it's in the middle of a dry vial. The front setback from 15 to 10 feet is consistent with the setbacks that occur along the street, so it's not pushing it out any further than any of the other properties. and the front door access has to do with the rear units when we shifted them around to keep the parking on the back and access that requires that waiver. I'll be happy to go through all the rest of the report, the land use classifications and policies and conditions that are consistent with if you like or I just have to ask that they be received and filed and made part of the record.

We can receive and file them. You're kidding. No more kidding tonight. It's 8.02. So anyway, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Again, Kim and the Neighborhood Association, we had extensive discussions regarding this and how to address their issues, and I think we've done that. So I'll turn it over.

Okay. Come on up. Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Start with your name. You have three minutes.

I live adjacent from this development proposal and what I believe I just heard name, say your name please.

Michael Bailey. I'm sorry. That's all right.

What I just heard is that this development will be consistent with the homes in the area. And it's not, there's nothing like that in the area streets behind us in front of us. So it wouldn't be consistent at all. The trees, the building across the street from me that caught on fire a year ago, I would love to see that building go. I'm fine with that. But that would bring, once again, more traffic on to 23rd, heading towards Nebraska. So you're doubling the amount of traffic that's looking to exit onto nebraska avenue we already have a sewage problem on our side of 23rd and that's i don't know if the city's going to do something about that or that's already been reflected in how this comes about how this is built but i'm not good at this There's an elderly man that lives at the bottom at 10th and 23rd. I don't know how he's going to do with his electric wheelchair and getting up. I know last year one of the city crew workers came with the grinders that eat up the high spots. I don't know how he's going to fare with this. My biggest concern is the traffic, and I don't know. who my new neighbors are going to be that are basically as far as you are to me right now. I've been sideswiped. My wife's vehicle has been sideswiped. The officer coming to see me said, what did you expect when you moved here? My jaw dropped on the ground. This isn't going to get any better for me. My property value is probably going to fall. And this also sets a president, if that's the right word, for this to be built in other areas of our historic neighborhood. Now, on the other side of I-4 is historical, but on the north side of 22nd, We consider it's considered VME board, Victor Martinez.

Thank you very much.

There's really no.

Thank you, sir. Your time is expired. Thank you. Next speaker. Start with your name, please. You have three minutes.

Good evening. Kim Headland, um, reside at 10 23 East 17th Avenue. Um, I do want to start off again by faking the applicant and acknowledging that they, um, both the civil engineer and Mr. McElhinney met with our group two times in person over the last eight months and hosted two very lively community meetings where we discussed a lot of this. So I do want to acknowledge that several of the community concerns were addressed, specifically the added front porches, the evergreen landscaping to further buffer the dumpster, the replaced surface retention pond. They replaced that with the design for an underground stormwater system and also significantly reduced the number of trees slated for removal from the original app. The one continued concern is massing, and I think Michael touched on this. Um, it is a significant departure to have two. East. Let's see. Yeah. East west masses on those contiguous lots. Um, the ultimate goal obviously is compatibility and to provide housing and to infill some of these important vacant parcels so we can have a more vibrant community. Um, but a building that reads like a kind of large. generic suburban townhome isn't necessarily compatible with the historic nature of the community, even if it's not a designated historic district. However, that being said, I think in general, we are hopeful that ultimately when an architect and a design team comes together and takes what is an approved PD and develops those buildings that there will be some sensitivity to both the neighborhood and the East Tampa overlay and that we've been fairly

happy pleasantly surprised to have the feedback and the communication that's been readily available from um the applicant and his team so thank you thank you mr michaelini before you start your rebuttal i have my concerns because mine is the uh again the massing and having those two buildings on the street you're starting a different form so maybe you could address that and convince me that it's the right way to go because right now i'm a little apprehensive In other words, when I look at that parcel, I would see if you're going to develop townhomes that you would have townhomes that go all the way through and have a backyard, real front yard.

I think that's why we, if you were those pictures, Chris, See, what we tried to do was to pick up that kind of design element with the bungalow-style roof. If you look, I guess, look at them like, well, it's not, there we go. So, I mean, it's not an exact replication, but again, we'll have to meet the East Tampa overlay design guidelines. And these are generically representative of what we're trying to do. But you see the peaks here and the peaks here and how you break. This is actually the rest of the wall there is recessed. This comes out. So I mean, it's not real clear because these are not design documents. But the elements are there, and we're trying to replicate that so that it breaks up that facade. And the street side is going to be far more attractive. That's the side that we added the balconies and the porches to. You're seeing the back side on this one. What's that?

Those are for 1 through 5, and that's 6 through 10. Yeah.

You see where the entrances are? We put the little parapets over here. I mean, these little cupilos were the entryways. This is the side that's facing the street. And again, this portion of the building is brought forward, and these windows, and this is the wall section here. That's recessed. So you do have a lot more design elements here than you normally would see. And again, if you look back to see, this is what that picks up those design elements from things like that.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. But if you could address this concern. My concern is not this design element, because I see what you're saying.

You're picking up your front porch.

But you're bringing this front building really close to the street, really close to the street than what I saw in some of these other pictures for these other homes. correct you or you should you should you have a you have a block frontage.

We haven't done that average but we can bring it back to you and but these are not 20 feet back. These houses this one this one is for that one is.

Now it is so my question again when I look at this block is this we know we've used you've heard to say this before too much on you too much on too little that this was one building of townhouses With the appropriate setback with the design elements you're talking about the front porches But adding that drive out on the back with the six with the were having five or six units you have in the back really kind of The massing and scale because that's that you're introducing a completely different element into a single-family neighborhood townhouses itself appear to be a completely different element but by adding that second building you're really totally putting a totally different type of construction in this area and

Well, there are others that have something similar to that, but you see that this is pretty close to the street. The right-of-way line is right here where the back of the sidewalk is, and so is this one. You can see that they're pretty close to the right-of-way, but you also have about another 10 feet or so between the sidewalk and the edge of the curb.

Do you have any other examples in this neighborhood where there's two buildings running parallel to the street that, you know, this type of construction, like alley type of construction?

I didn't, I didn't come with anything like that, but I can, I can bring it to back to you. I don't know. I think there are some, but I just don't, it's further down. Yeah. So it's not completely brand new to this area. one you see the driveway here this goes behind is there other is there other single-family houses bar other houses behind that i didn't take that picture i believe so but christopher can talk about christopher de montavelma coordination these photos here

this is across the street from item number seven so these are closest to um nebraska but they are examples of of the homeless being but this is on nebraska though right this is on east this is on the same street east 23rd they're just closer to nebraska so what's behind these houses we have to bring the aerial up well that's across the street just a moment i mean do we see anything like that in this area these are the two holes in question on that photo we just showed you

Yeah, that's that's kind of bordering Nebraska, though. I mean, I know it's a side yard, but yeah, that's different.

Subject houses, subject properties right here. And then these are examples that we just provided here as well as here.

That's in a CG. That's CG over there, too. So we're kind of apples and oranges here.

This is residential down in here.

But I'm seeing the parcels that he was showing to me before. But I don't see any other alley style development anywhere in this. Well, it's not it's not how they were creating the drive I'll be I mean, yeah, I mean still yeah building on top of the again it just seems like you've got to you've got us. Well we have a single family depth lot and we're squeezing to to to to deep on there.

Well, it's it's very deep this lot is where the dimensions on that week. Yeah, it's 139. That's almost 40 feet deeper than a regular lot.

But you're putting in a driveway and a building.

Well, we can... we can you know modify it some if the staff allows it so it's narrower and you know we wanted the wider driveway on the further east side for the for the dumpster and the dumpster access which is what they asked for with additional landscaping and buffering on that end

But wouldn't this make more sense to, again, have townhouses just through townhouses with one building with a legitimate setback on the front yard and a legitimate setback on the backyard? And you're still introducing something new because there's townhouses in this neighborhood, but you would have less mass.

Well, the mass is really viewed from the street side, not from the back. You're not going to, the massing is not going to occur in terms of mass and density.

How's that?

Well, the density complies with your R20. So this whole neighborhood is, is already, you know, have an R20 designation.

Yeah. I mean, I don't, I don't care for it, but I'll let other council members chime in on this councilwoman young.

I have some of the same concerns. You know, I do, you know, like that you introduce, you know, having, you know, kind of like a front porch style to kind of fit in with the, you know, surrounding homes in the area. But I mean, my concern also was going to be just the the massing. And I do see, you know, what you're trying to do as far as like the elements on the surrounding homes. But I would have to kind of agree with Councilman Clinton.

Well, you know, if you'd like to see some reworking of the site plan and reworking of some of the elements, we would probably have to go back to DRC, right?

Send it back to first reading?

We would have to go back to DRC. We would not... I don't think you could have a first reading, but that's really up to LaShawn and Susan. Those kind of changes are dramatic. And so reviewing those back again with staff, if the council wishes for us to do that, you'd probably have to send us back to staff to work the site plan conditions.

So some staff give us some guidance.

CHRISTOPHER DEMONTCH, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. IF THEY WERE TO DO SOME REDESIGN OF THE SITE, THIS WOULD NEED TO GO BACK TO DRC. THIS WOULD, AT A MINIMUM, THREE DEPARTMENTS, TRANSPORTATION, ZONING.

SO WHAT WOULD YOU NEED FROM US THIS EVENING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN?

WE WOULD REQUEST, THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED, GIVE ME A DATE. WE NEED A DATE HERE.

The issue of eliminating the second building is only is a strictly it's a financial issue. I mean, your land costs dictate, you know, what you what you you have to have in order to get back. So I'm guessing what do you want to do? Request a continuance here. I mean, you're going to have I can't.

I apologize. LaShawn Dock Development Coordination. So we can request a continuance, but staff needs clear direction as to what the applicant is to work on in between that time of continuance. Okay.

Well, let's see if we can reach a consensus up here before we do that. I mean, I think the two of us agree. It is that second building is the problem, but if you're saying this is not developable without that second building, I mean, well, you have such a deep plot.

I don't. Two things have to happen. Either you increase the size of the front units. or you decrease the size of both units so that you make them fit and come into your view of what you'd like to see.

To me, it seems like just forward-facing, what is it, 23rd Street, forward-facing townhouses that run through, if there have to be larger units, then so be it.

Again, I can't commit for the owners on this. I can commit to go back and see what we can do.

I'm empathetic with the cause, but this is introducing a totally different element in this neighborhood.

How does everybody else feel?

I understand what you're saying. The mass of it is not... What's on those sides of it.

Right. OK. So it seems like we're asking you to, if you're able to go back and re-envision this with the single building, re-envision it with the rear loading garages, man, that would even be more perfect. But if you don't, if you can't, you can't.

What's the date, Chris?

Can he go back? Yeah, that's what he's doing now. But also in between now and then go speaking with the neighborhood association again?

Go ahead, Councilman Carlson.

Yeah, I think, Steve, I agree with Chair's comments. It's...

it's different than the rest of the neighborhood i think that's not far away from what we did earlier today on the gentleman on 21st the affordable housing yeah about two blocks away um besides meeting the neighborhood association with mr bailey also and

see if there's some way to.

Yeah, we're very familiar with working with Kim and her organizing meetings. We'd have to go back to them too.

The trade-off is we need density. We need more accessible pricing on housing. But at the same time, we can't just disrupt existing neighborhoods that don't have any pattern. So I think that's the trade-off.

Yeah.

What day do we have? September 10th, it looks like.

September 10th, we can do that? The earliest DRC we could get them on would be July 21st or 22nd. If they were to work with getting a quick turnaround after DRC is held, we could aim to get them back before you on September 10th. The more protracted way, and I would say if you were applying for a new application altogether, if you went

to drc in july you would be on october 8th but we could try for that are you comfortable with september 10th yeah let's let's try for that and if we run into a time issue we'll come back to you and ask for an additional okay time that's good i think that's probably i need a motion with the date and time

September 10th at 5 p.m., 5.01 p.m. at 315 East Kennedy, Tampa, Florida.

Okay, we have a motion to continue this to, as stated by Councilman Vieira, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

The justification is the requested changes.

To not introducing the double buildings into the neighborhood.

The site plan and et cetera. But I think you have to say that as well, don't you?

Well, I think we gave the guidance to them because they were looking for guidance of what we were looking for, for you guys to discuss behind the scenes. Oh, yes, sir.

Go ahead. So your guidance would be for them to look to designing a single building with rear vehicular access to the site or access to garages behind the units.

Yeah. And well, and well, I mean, I think that'll take care of that'll take you, that'll resolve the issue or an alternative with,

meet your considerations, concerns.

Trying to be more aesthetic into the neighborhood. OK, very good.

And don't you also want better elevations?

That would not hurt. Yes. Si. Si, senor.

Just reading your mind tonight.

Gracias, por favor.

Thank you very much, Counsel.

Okay. Okay. You want to announce it? Yeah. Yeah, we're good.

Okay. Motion carried unanimously with her tech being absent.

Okay. Thank you so much. That concludes our regular scheduled program. New business.

I have three hopefully quick ones. The first two were requested by members of the community. First is I would like to make a motion for staff to provide a written report with an inventory of each existing city master plan and its age. for the July 16th meeting.

I have a motion from Councilman Carlson. Is there a second? We have a second from Councilman Vieira. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. That other is closed so we don't have anything else. There's no more public comment on that. But you're welcome to email us or send or you can call individual council members. But you can email us if you'd like.

That doesn't do. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, sir.

Should this have been Publicly noted so that not just the people on the Association, but it is it is it is it is it might be maybe I want to ask one of the signage for Steve. That was there. Yeah, the signage three weeks ago.

The stakes in the ground, saying that the meeting is at this date, that's... By the way, sir, sir, if I can, you can speak to staff, a Martin Shelby City Council attorney, just to let you know to make a note of the date and time. You will not get any notice in the mail, and there will not be posted signs. It's not required by the code. So please do take the advantage of talking to staff to be able to be clear.

Yeah, they'll let you know. Okay? Okay, very good.

The staff is who?

Any of these...

This gentleman right here, or Ms. Dock over there?

Ms. Dock, Ms. Dock, whoever the door is waving you over, sir. So look, look to your other side that way. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Carlson.

Uh, second one is I would like to make a motion for staff to provide a written report on the study and recommendations completed for land development code construction services fees and their times lines for, uh, July 16th meeting.

I have a motion from Councilman Carlson, second from Councilman Beer. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Ayes have it. The last one is just one that I added. I've been hearing that. I haven't listened to all the Charter Review Commission meetings, but I've been hearing that they dismiss most or all of our questions that we asked, and now the mayor's political advisor is sitting there. Some members feel intimidated by that and bullied to follow certain things by the mayor. It's one thing if the mayor wants to send memos, but to push the committee in a certain I guess what it means is if they're going to do that, then we should go sit there as well. So that's a side issue. But I would like to make a motion to ask the Charter Review Committee to give us an update on the answers to our questions on July 30th.

Okay.

We have a representative come and give us their response to our questions. We had about 30 questions. We need to know whether they're going to answer our questions or not as kind of a midpoint. And if they're not, then we need to figure out what we're going to do about it.

I have been advised they've dismissed all of our questions. So I have a motion for Councilman Carlson, a second from?

So if I may, I'll second that, but can we get it like time limited, like maybe 10 minutes? Oh, for 10 minutes. Yeah.

Are you asking for a presentation from them? Yes. Is that what it is? Basically, yeah. Under what part of the agenda?

Under presentations, I guess.

When I look on July 30th, it looked to me like it was. I don't know if so.

No, we're full. And that's the budget pros.

Can we do it written? Is that could they do a report?

Somebody's going to have to draft. Unfortunately, somebody's going to have to probably are going to get Ashley.

But can we do August 6th?

uh yeah august 6th august 6th i second with the 10 minutes okay we have a motion councilman carlson for august 6 for the charter review commission i say by the way i said unfortunately actually because i think she's someone who wants to follow the questions and there are others who disagree it would be better if the ones who disagree would come and tell us why um but anyway

So we have a motion from Councilman Carlson to have the Charter Review Commission come to City Council to answer the... To give us an update on the answers to our questions. Okay.

What August 6th?

No, August 6th is good.

At least it is here.

Unless there's something that we don't know about. Do you have another one? Is that the last one? That's it. Okay. We have a motion. I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you.

um councilman vieira yes sir um my aide sebastian is coming with a memo um with some supporting documents and a motion i'm making um about the the raise and revenue sources um is and sebastian will be coming shortly on those it's come to my attention i'm joking i'm not doing anything no no what is up with you today i wanted to scare you all you're like no please yeah No, to my attention. I have nothing. Are you not going to yell at him for that?

Don't point at me like that.

Can I say one thing about the airplane? No. No. No. No. I'll get back to you after the last person.

That's what I'm going to do. um let's see how was that channeling councilwoman young as a chair no she's a lot tougher surprisingly um

i don't have anything oh wow yeah you all drained me today that's the makeup for being mean to us earlier oh i i forgot this is not me i just really fast 10 seconds oh no no but just so i did want to say that we have all come to an agreement on july 17th as tampa city council karaoke day so so let it be written so it's on our please sam put that on my schedule uh councilman

Councilman Miranda. Okay, so you heard this already today. This is for the council version of it. I motion for the city council attorney and city attorney's office to work with any relevant department, CRA director and CRA attorney to create standard rules and procedures, i.e. attendance quorum opening and closing timeline for applications, et cetera, for all committees and boards and return with a draft on September 3rd, 2026 for city council.

We have a motion from Chairman Clendenin, second from Council Member Riviere. All in favor? Aye.

Do you have a copy for the clerk? Yes.

Thank you.

Yeah. It was a CRA thing and now it's a council thing.

She has another because the date is different for the council. Yes. Speaking of Charter Review Commission, Rob Henderson sent an email, which you all should have. They are, as probably alluded to by Councilman Carlson earlier, they are requesting input from city council on establishing a zoning hearing a master or similar to ensure that we have expert input when we're making we're making our decisions. So I'm just bringing that to your attention as input. If you choose to provide them with that input, I will leave that up to you. I'm choosing not to. I would like to also acknowledge that tomorrow is the 10 year anniversary of the pulse massacre in, um, Orlando. Um, and, uh, a sad day for, uh, the state of Florida and just the other nation as well. Yes. And, and I have, we all have, or at least I have had friends that were had family members or friends that were involved in that shooting. In fact, ironically, I was in Orlando that evening for a conference and was was supposed to go that night but did not so.

And one one gentleman is buried here in Tampa Myrtle Hill. My family knew his family and one of the survivors is also in the West Tampa area and we see her every so often but yet and I remember that years ago I woke up and it was like 5 victims, 10 victims. I mean, it was awful.

All people going out for a night to have fun and be with people that they love and care about, and then to have it end like that is just awful.

Councilman Cross. I want to say something quick about that. I think it was a horrible attack against the LGBT community, and it was horrible for all of us to observe that, and we all had friends that were connected in some way. But the other thing is I was in Brussels with my oldest son, and Brussels had just been, the airport had just been attacked a couple months earlier. And so all my family was afraid. People were saying, be careful, be careful going through Brussels. We went from Brussels to London, landed in Brussels, and found out Orlando had been hit. And so not only was it an attack against the LGBT community, but it showed how vulnerable we are anywhere in the world. People worry about different kinds of countries, but this happened in Orlando. It was terrifying. The other thing I want to say is there's... For fun, I've been watching all the conspiracy theories on Twitter about the Rays issue. And I just want to say, for the record, probably nobody's watching, but I don't know about you, but the Rays personally asked me, they said they weren't ready for today to discuss it. And the conspiracy theories, all stupid city council, they're delaying it, all this stuff. The Rays asked us to do this. Is that correct for you, too?

That is correct.

They requested this. And so I wish the conspiracy theories would stop. It's not necessary. And what we did today, I think, is in earnest trying to bring a resolution to a negotiation process. Thank you.

you know what one last thing about because i because i get a little bit emotional on the pulse thing too is because of being a member of the lgbt community and those of us that are minorities and have been discriminated against and you and you see this within the jewish community now and people that are targeted and we see it we see it here in city council we see the hate and i'm proud that this is a council that and that stands up routinely and universally against that regardless of is I think that we are a city that stands up against that hate I appreciate personally the support that I've received from my my co-workers here Councilman Vera with the motion that you made um with some of the stuff that's directed personally at me and I hope that we continue to be that Council and to be that city that doesn't tolerate um hate based on who you are, what race, what ethnicity, what religious affiliation, or who you love. And I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

That was a joke. That was a joke.

Mr. Chairman, may I say something really quick? The 10th second?

Thank you. I'm proud that our chairman of city council is a gay man. I'm proud that our mayor is a gay woman. And we also remember great heroes in our time, like the late officer, Lois Marrero. And Mr. Miranda remembers the great struggle she had when she was killed in action. So again, a lot of LGBT heroes here in Tampa. So God bless you. Thank you so much.

Okay, motion to receive and file. Councilman Maniscalco, seconded by Councilman Randolph. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned.