City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Come to the bottom of it.

Thank you. So, So, Thank you.

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to Tampa City Council. I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll.

Moranta. Here. Meniscalco. Here. Hertek. Young. Here. Vieira. Carlson. Here. Clendenin. Here. We have a physical quorum.

Thank you very much. Christopher, would you like to help clear the agenda?

This is item number one. It's file number VAC 2615. There is a request from the applicant to move this item to be heard after item number two this evening. Can I get a motion to move?

Thank you. We have a motion from Councilman Miranda to move item number one before item number three, and item number two will be the first public hearing. I have a second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.

Our final item, again, Christopher Demache, Development Coordination. Our final item to go over is item, agenda item number 11. This is file number REZ2641. We're requesting that this item be removed from the agenda. May I get a motion?

I have a motion from Councilman Maniscalco, a second from Councilman Branded. Remove item one from the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. I'm sorry, what did I say? I said, well, okay, two ones. I had it half right. Okay, moving item 11. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you very much. Okay, very good. Anything? That's it. Well, he sat down, so I'm assuming that would be all. Okay, very good. Susan Johnson Velez is with us. She is not feeling well, so she is appearing virtually. She is in the building upstairs and saving us from her nasty viruses. So thank you, Susan, for that. I appreciate that.

But denying us her great personality and brilliance.

Well, isn't that special? Okay, very good. Okay, so we got that, we got that, we got that one. And, hey, we have some special guests in the audience tonight. If you're in a blue shirt with the Mayor's U Corps, stand up. Very good. And where's the fearless leader, Molly? Molly, you want to come up to the dais and just say hi and bring them up? Yeah, come on up. Molly, would you like to give a little, like, tell people who these fine young people are?

I would love to. Thank you so much. Good evening. My name is Molly Beeble, and I'm the coordinator of the Mayor's Youth Corps. I have about half of them with me tonight. Some of them missed the meeting earlier in the summer, and some of them just wanted to come back for more. So I'm very happy to have them. I keep coming back for more, too.

I don't know why.

They are part of a service leadership and civic engagement program run by the city of Tampa. And as a little plug, applications for our next year's class will be online on our MYC webpage at tampa.gov just after Labor Day. So I'd love to see some more faces out there. I will have them come up and introduce themselves with their name, school, and grade. Thanks for always welcoming us so well. Appreciate it. Absolutely.

So come on forward, start with your name, and do what Molly told you to do.

Hi, my name is Brody Martinez-Robinson, and I'm a senior at Jesuit High School. Welcome.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Brian Stentz, and I'm a junior at Jesuit High School. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Mario, and I'm a junior at Jesuit High School.

Good evening, council. My name is Cy. I go to King High School, and I'm a senior right now.

Good evening. Good evening, council. My name is Jack O'Connor, and I'm a senior at Plant High School.

Go Panthers.

Good evening, council. My name is Shania Matthew. I'm a junior at Jefferson High School.

We had to hear from the Dragons.

Good evening, council. My name is Siri, and I'm a sophomore at Milton High School. Good evening, Council. My name is Sir Todd Singsani, and I'm a senior at Middleton High School. Welcome. Good evening, Council. I'm Thomas Dittus. I'm a senior at Tampa Catholic. Thank you, Thomas.

Good evening, Council. My name is Sydney Williams, and I'm a senior at Tampa Catholic High School.

Jesuits still have to beat by one.

Good evening. My name is Katie Grissom. I go to Tampa, or wait, I go to Plant High School.

Good evening, council. My name is Sia Shaw, and I go to Academy at the Lakes. I'm a senior. Good evening, city council. My name is Eva Weckbach. I'm a senior at the Academy of the Holy Names.

Good evening, council. My name is Ariana Guayanes, and I'm a senior at Tampa Catholic.

Oh, there you go. It's a tie.

Good evening, council. My name is Misha Tully, and I'm a senior at Berkeley Prep.

Very nice.

Good evening, council. My name is Andrea Doe, and I'm a senior at Tampa Catholic High School. Good evening. My name is Juliette Cristaldi, and I'm a junior at Plant High School.

Good evening, Council. My name is Madden Moore, and I'm a senior at Plant High School.

I don't know. I think Plant got your beat. I think there's more plants tonight. Maybe not.

Well, welcome to Tampa City Council.

I hope you enjoy it, and we look forward to having you back here in the future in whatever roles you pursue as you move through life. So thank you. Okay. We have something else? Oh. Do I know what's going on? I don't know what's going on.

Well, we have one more intern that is visiting us from Harvard University. Lily, would you introduce yourself to the council?

Hi, my name is Lily, and I'm a senior at Harvard College. I'm interning here for the rest of the summer. Thank you. Very nice.

Well, welcome. Yeah, who are you interning with?

I'm with Ms. Nya Young.

She was supposed to be an intern for me, but Nya stole her.

That is so not true.

That is not true. See how she is?

He was trying to one-up me.

When we introduced her to Charlie, we told her she has to say, she can't say she's going to Harvard. She has to say she's going to the Jefferson of universities.

Okay, enough of that nonsense. Can I get a motion to open the public hearings? I have a motion, Councilman Anastasiak. Second, Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it. Okay, if you are here tonight and you are going to provide testimony in any of the public hearings, I need you to stand now, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk.

very good we are hearing item number two mr chairman may i be heard um martin shelby uh city council attorney good evening um item number two is a quasi judicial proceeding And when we get to item number one, just a reminder, I will just remind you that it is non-quasi.

We're jumping.

I know you're jumping. We're jumping.

Yes. I got it. I was thoroughly briefed ahead of time.

I won't admit that I was, too.

Very good. Okay, Chris, you're up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. Agenda item number two is REZ-2608. This is a request to rezone 17700 West Courtney-Campbell Causeway from planned development allowing mixed-use residential multiple family and hotel uses to planned development to allow for hotel residential multiple family and all commercial general uses. I'll turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Good evening. Danny Collins with your planning commission staff was sworn in. Our first case tonight is in the West Shore Planning District. The subject site is within evacuation zone A. It is also within the coastal high hazard area. Here is our adopted future land use map. The subject site is designated as urban mixed use 60, which is a high density land use category, encourages mixed use and a broad range of uses. The surrounding area is predominantly UMU 60. There is some CMU 35 to the east of the subject site. Just for references, the former Godfrey Hotel site and Council approved a rezoning just to the south of the site on the old Rusty Pelican site. I believe it was in 2025. The Planning Commission staff found the request to be comparable and compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area includes a mix of uses including multifamily condos and light commercial developments. More intensive development is generally located south of the Courtney Campbell Causeway, where we have less intensive development to the north of the causeway. The proposed 220-foot building height would be compatible with the surrounding development pattern in the area. As mentioned, in 2025, the Rusty Pelican site, which is located here. Sorry, I lost my spot. Rusty Pelican site located to the south of the site was approved for the same 220 foot building height as proposed through this application. The applicant has also entered into a bonus provision agreement with the city. Staff found that the request addresses the mixed use centers and quarter design policies in the comprehensive plan. The proposed design places the building close to the right of way and connects the building entrances to internal sidewalks and crosswalks. Connections also provide access to Courtney Campbell Trail along the right-of-way. The site also provides bicycle parking, and a landscape plan proposes shade trees along the right-of-way and throughout the site. These design features are supported by the comprehensive plan. Finally, the request advances several housing policies as well as infill policies in the plan. The plan encourages residential development on vacant and underutilized parcels to support Tampa's housing needs. Staff has noted a minor correction to the site area that needs to be made between first and second reading. That correction is included on the city's revision sheet. Based on these considerations and with that revision, the Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa comprehensive plan, and that concludes my presentation.

Chair Greg Musil, Any questions of the Planning Commission? Hearing none, next.

Again, for the record, Christopher Demanche, Development Coordination. We will start over with an aerial view of the subject site. Subject property is outlined in red. It's located on the south side of West Courtney Campbell Causeway. It's also located west of North Rocky Point Drive. Looking at the surrounding area, it is surrounded to the north by planned development zoning approved for Um, office uses south of the subject site. We have RM 24 zoning. Uh, this site is developed with a residential multiple family, uh, east of the subject site. We have, uh, the Shriners it's zone PD. It's the Shriners, um, national headquarters site. And then, uh, west of the subject site, we have, uh, Tampa Bay. We have West Courtney Campbell causeway. and then further west we have a planned development site approved for restaurant uses as planning commission staff noted this site was previously home to the godfrey hotel it is currently vacant next we have site plan The subject site total 6.61 acres. The applicant is proposing a total of 936,750 square feet of hotel and residential multiple family uses. Specifically, they're providing 503 residential multifamily dwelling units and 275 hotel units. The subject property would be accessed by a two-way driveway on the south side of Courtney Campbell Causeway. This two-way driveway would provide vehicular access throughout the site. There's also pedestrian connection points throughout the site by way of sidewalks as well as crosswalks to many of the structures proposed. Uh, the site proposes a tower one on the north side of the property. Uh, this is proposed at, uh, 18 stories, uh, or 220 feet in height. It's proposed for hotel as well as residential multiple family uses. East of Tower 1, we have a standalone parking garage. That's proposed at four stories or 46 feet in height. The tower itself has some outside amenities including pool and green space areas. As you work further south in the subject property, we have Tower 2 as well as Tower 3. Both of these are proposed at 16 stories or 174 feet in height. They would be specifically for residential multiple family units. There's also a parking structure located between Towers 2 and 3. That's proposed at 6 stories or 78 feet in height. In addition to what I've shown on the site plan, the applicant is also requesting a bonus provision agreement to develop a property at a floor area ratio of 3.25 provided LEED silver certification is secured and utility relocation of undergrounding utilities with all amenities is conducted. The associated bonus provision agreement is presented concurrently with the application. Next, we do have some elevations to show. First set of elevations is specifically for Tower 1. The applicant is listed as Bayside, North Elevation, East, and South. They provide examples of what Tower 1 would look like. Next, we have the standalone parking garage. This is also on the north side of the property. This gives you an idea of what that also looks like. And then next, we also have towers two and three. And looking at these elevations here, you can see the incorporation of the parking garage between towers two and three. This application also includes two waivers. The first is the section 27 to 83. This is to reduce the required number of parking from 1152 spaces to 1,028 spaces. This represents an 11% reduction in parking. And the second waiver is the Section 27283. This is to reduce the required number of loading berths from five to two. Next we have some photos. These photos when taken were showing the Godfrey Hotel being torn down. Some examples. And one last shot of the site. This is from the south looking north. And then looking across Gordon Campbell Causeway, we have the parking garage there and office buildings. This is an example of the multi-family to the south. east we have the shriners national headquarters in west we have looking at the bay and then we have that restaurant planned development zone site further west uh development Development review and compliance staff has reviewed this petition and finds requesting consistent with the applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. Uh, the inconsistent finding is, uh, results from the, uh, proposed waivers from the transportation technical standards. Uh, should it be the pleasure of city council to approve this application? Further modifications to the site must be completed by the applicant between first and second readings of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet within the staff report. And these revisions will not resolve the issues. related to transportation's inconsistent findings. And I'm available for any questions.

Any questions? Hearing none, applicant.

Thank you. Excuse me. I do have a presentation.

You state your name.

Sure. Jake Kramer with Barbas Kramer, 2002 West Cleveland Street. I have been sworn. Thank you. Council, this project I think is a great one because it shows us where the city is headed and where Rocky Point is headed. To me personally, Rocky Point has always been a little bit of a head scratcher because you look at it and think from an urban design perspective, it could be a really, really cool place, but it's not quite there yet. And so our hope is that projects like this and a couple of others that are coming is that we're going to see Rocky Point over the next decade be redeveloped and be a much more thriving and walkable place. So our team is here. If you have questions, obviously engineering team, design team, Staff did a great job, so I'll give you the short version here. Again, we're on Rocky Point on the south side of Courtney Campbell. This is the former Godfrey Hotel, which we all know has been, frankly, it's been an eyesore. It's also been, you know, this is kind of an unusual project for me, because when we had our community meeting, we actually had people come and say, thank you. We want to see something that really activates this area, and so we got a lot of really positive feedback. The Godfrey has been closed since September 2024. We're in UMU 60, which is a pretty dense and intense category. And our request is for 3.25 FAR. We do have a bonus agreement for roughly 500 multifamily units and 275 hotel keys. So just the site plan is a little bit hard to follow. So to give you an idea of where our three towers are, the north tower, that's where our hotel, the residential, the restaurants, the amenities, the rooftop amenities, that's where that will be. And then the multifamily apartments are going to be on the south side. So we have been working with Hilton to be a Curio Collection hotel. Again, you can see this is a rendering of what the Tower One on the north side is going to look like. And these are our multifamily towers. Again, our design team is here if you'd like to hear more about kind of how we came up with this concept. But we really wanted to introduce something new to Tampa Bay and a higher-end product for Rocky Point. We are asking for a couple of waivers. Again, this is our only inconsistency. These are pretty normal waivers that you all see in the normal course. Our parking reduction we're requesting is 11%. We're still over what ITE would recommend. Our landscape and buffering, we worked really hard on this to exceed code. And one of the really exciting opportunities here, this is conceptual because we have to work with, this is an unusual area because the bay bottom in this area is privately owned. So we have to work with that private landowner that we have a lease with, as well as DEP, EPC, and SWFMUD. We're going to work with all those agencies, and the hope is that we can work out a beach renourishment plan to get rid of some seawalls. Now, I can't promise you the seawall will be completely gone, but this is what we're striving for. Now the bonus provision agreement, I'm actually, I'm pretty excited about this one too, because you all don't see this a lot. We're committing to LEED certification, LEED Silver certification on at least one building. We wanna do that for all the buildings, but we're gonna do it for at least one. And that's, the bonus calculation is over $5 million. So that's the investment that's gonna go back in the property to make sure it's more secure, more resilient, and more energy efficient. And we thought that was really appropriate for an area like Rocky Point. We've also maintained the trail connections, so we're gonna enhance those. Again, there are limited opportunities on Rocky Point to do that today, but our hope is, again, that we're nudging things in the right direction and doing certainly what we can to maintain those connections for mobility. Again, we had a really good community open house, we got good feedback, we got good turnout, and we were able to incorporate some of those concepts into the ultimate design plan. So, with that, again, our team is here. If you have questions, please let us know. I did want to mention that we submitted into the quasi box. We got four letters of support over the last couple of days for this project. We also got a general letter of support from the West Shore Alliance because they would really like to see redevelopment of Rocky Point because the money that can then, from the redevelopment, can go back into the infrastructure for this area. And so our hope is to more closely align Rocky Point with the goals of the West Shore Alliance. So with that, I'm here for any questions.

Jake, my only question is about the LEED certification restricting it to only one building to getting the bonus provision. Can you explain why just the one and not committing to all three?

Sure. Our goal is to get to all three. Going to three, as you'll see in the bonus agreement, would be The cost of that is over $10 million. The way the bonus calculation works out, we know we'll be investing at least half of that, so over $5 million just for the one building. What I can tell you is I had hoped to stand here before you today with a new comp plan because the new comp plan has the green building bonus. And so that was the balance that we had to strike with the way the current bonus works versus the new comp plan. And our hope is to be back before you in about six months once we get the new comp plan in place and be able to provide that commitment for all the buildings.

Okay, because I'm up on lead, so.

Again, that's our hope, and if we can get there with the new comp plan, then this would be, and our hope is it will be, one of the largest, probably the It will be one of the largest LEED projects in Tampa Bay. Exactly. So I would love to see that. And of course, so let's let's work together to get the new comp plan adopted.

I think I think you've got you've got a lot of support on council to hopefully get that through the. Yeah, it's the LEED certification is definitely. And I think anybody that's listening in the developer community, I think looking at LEED and underground utilities, those are at least for myself, those are two really big issues for me when we look at these bonus agreements. So but thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Going once, going twice. Gone. I have a motion to oppose from Councilman Miranda. Second from? Councilwoman Young. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Carlson, would you like to read this one? Yes.

Move FILE NUMBER REZ26-08, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR REVERSARY AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCE, REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICENTI OF 7700 WEST COURTNEY CAMPBELL CAUSEWAY IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT, HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, AND ALL CG USES PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATA.

GOOD FOR REVISION, CHIEF. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON, A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MATT SCOUTFIELD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY. AYE

Okay, motion carried with Vieira absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

One down, nine to go. Okay, we're going back to the future. Item number one. And a reminder, this is a non-quasi-judicial procedure. Keep the clerk to share the almost screen, please. Start with your name and it'll come up. They keep you on camera with your face until you say your name and then they bring up the presentation.

Ross Sammons, Development Corporation, presenting file number VAC 26-15. The applicant's Fox International LLC. Representative's name is Gardner Brewer Hudson. Property address is 2602 East 4th Avenue and 2701 East 2nd Avenue. This is a proposed vacating request. to vacate two sections of right-of-way, one being an alleyway located north of 4th Avenue, south of 5th Avenue, east of 26th Street, and west of 27th Street, and a portion of 1st Avenue right-of-way located north of Vadimo Drive, south of 2nd Avenue, east of 27th Street, and west of Leroy Salmon Expressway Connector. This application was filed May 14th, 2026. The right-of-way is currently unimproved. This right-of-way was created by Subdivision Platte. The existing right-of-way for both sections together is approximately 59,644 square feet. Reason for the request is that the alley and First Avenue vacation is necessary to allow unified and efficient redevelopment of surrounding blocks. Historical aerial records reveal the alley also was likely never used for a public thoroughfare. Here's an aerial of both sections of right of way requested to be vacated in yellow. The alley here and portion of First Avenue here. This is the plat in which the alley was dedicated. and another plaque in which First Avenue was dedicated here. Here's an image of the approximate location of the alleyway looking east from 26th Street. And again, the other side looking west from 27th Street, approximate location of the alleyway. It looks very usable. And here is looking east on Adamo Drive at the approximate location of First Avenue. And more northeast again on Adamo Drive because you can't get to the other side to take the image. Staff have no objections to this vacating request. Easement reservations are required by Wastewater, TECO, and TECO Peoples Gas. Special conditions, natural resources must comply with Chapter 27 as regards to tree preservation and site design. For any improvements placed adjacent to trees in a vacated area. I would like to point out you do have a staff report that did say there was an objection by Wastewater. That's since been changed and now they're reserving that easement.

That concludes my presentation. Staff have any questions? Hearing none. Yes, sir.

Good evening, council. My name is Tyler Hudson. My address is 400 North Ashley Drive. Me plugging this in will take longer than this presentation. I want to thank Ross for all their help with this right-of-way area because it is a little bit of an interesting part of the city. Good?

Yep.

So Ross kind of, again, went through this. The first thing we're doing is vacating an alley that's on the north side of this property. It's like it's block eight of the old Harris terminals. This actually does end up in a dead end. The alley doesn't continue to go rightwards. You can see here there's been an enormous amount of right-of-way vacating over the years here. There's really no discernible grid whatsoever. which I think you'll be pleasantly surprised for the next slide, but also really what's gonna be more in the PDA that's before your consideration tonight that this vacating has been filed for. The second area is in the bottom. We sometimes affectionately call this the no man's land. If you sort of think of like a multiple layer cake, most of the land down there is owned or controlled by FDOT with considerable expense and considerable time. Daryl Shaw and Casa Ybor have acquired rights from CSX that they no longer need. As many of you know, that's not always a particularly easy process, but we're very grateful to CSX for their cooperation there. We think there are is potentially a little piece of a completely unusable really paper right of way down there for the city. So that's why we are asking to vacate that just to eliminate any doubt about who owns and who can use it. Again, this is legislative, anything goes. So I'm gonna go ahead and give a sneak peek of what's gonna be discussed in the next item, the grid we're seeking to reimpose in this area that's been lost in the decades prior due to the, not for any bad reason, just due to the nature of the use that's there prior, kind of scrap yard use, big open spaces, not convenient to have roads going through it. The areas we are vacating, there's common ownership on all sides. There's really no major issues that have been presented The departments that review this, obviously, we're going to be retaining easements for anyone that needs them. We'll release those in connection with permits. On G8, I know, obviously, people are fond of alleys. There's a lot of good alleys in Ybor west of here. You all saw the project we affectionately called Place 1 a couple months ago. One of the reasons why vacating the alley on G8, what we call the G8 block on the northwest is so important is to make sure we have enough room underground for the storm water vaults to make sure that everything's underground, out of sight, and not in a large surface pond, which truly would not be appropriate. I don't want to spike the football, but we're very happy that there's no objections from anyone. People's Gas, which once we confirmed with them that, as usual, if we do need to change a gas line, we will cut it, we'll cap it, they had no objection. So kind of a clean sheet there. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Does Council have any questions? Hearing none. Hey, CSX, here's my number. Call me, maybe. We have issues. Very good. Thank you, Council. Okay. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none. I wish to close. Councilman Miranda, second Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Young, would you leave this please?

File number VAC 26-15. Ordinance being presented for first reading consideration. Ordinance of the City of Tampa, Florida vacating, closing, discontinuing, and abandoning that alleyway located north of 4th Avenue, south of 5th Avenue, east of 26th Street, and west of 27th Street as dedicated by the Platte of Harris Terminals and that portion of 1st Avenue right away located north of Adamo Drive, south of 2nd Avenue, east of 27th Street, and west of Leroy Selman Expressway Connector, as dedicated partially by the Platts of Harris Terminals and Archer Subdivision, all in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, and as more fully described in Section 2 hereof, subject to certain covenants, conditions, and restrictions, as more particularly set forth herein, providing for enforcement and penalties for violations, providing for definitions, interpretations, and repealing conflicts, providing for servability, providing an effective date.

I have a motion from Councilwoman Young. Second from Councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Motion carries with Vieira absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Okay.

And now we're here for the big game. Item number three.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Council, LaShawn Dock, Development Coordination. Item number three is REZ 2642. This request, I felt it would be better just to show you, you've had a peek at it with the last item, just to show you the parcels instead of naming out all the parcels included. We appreciate that. This is the boundary of the project area. So the areas that are identified in red are contained within this PDA boundary. So you have 26th Street to the west, Adamo to the south. You have the connector. to the east, and then the CSX is located to the north. That is the boundary for this area. So the request is to rezone the property from IH Industrial Heavy to PDA Plan Development Alternative, and this would allow for all residential types, all CI uses, in addition to recycling materials and goods. And I'll turn it to Planning Commission to give their report.

Danny Collins, with your Planning Commission staff, I was sworn in. Our next case in the central Tampa planning district, specifically the historic East Ybor and Gary neighborhood. The subject site is within the coastal high hazard area and within the evacuation zone A. The site was recently amended earlier this year under TACPA 2510. The entire site's recognized under the urban mixed use 60 designation, which is a higher density mixed use land use category in the city of Tampa. Just generally the surrounding area is industrial. We have heavy industrial to the east of the subject site as well as some to the north and to the west of the site. The proposed PD includes just under 3 million square feet of residential commercial intensive and recycling uses with a maximum FAR of 2.75. This level of intensity can be considered within the UMU 60 designation. The applicant has agreed to add a note to the site plan between first and second readings describing how the site will achieve the 2.75 FAR through the vertical mixed use provision in the plan. The surrounding area has undergone a significant transition from historically industrial development to higher density mixed use development. While the existing development pattern east of North 26th Street remains predominantly industrial, Several comprehensive plan map amendments have redesignated the surrounding area to UMU 60, as well as other mixed-use plan categories. In the design book, the applicant has addressed mixed-use corridor design policies related to building placement, streetscape design, pedestrian connectivity, building orientation, and architectural character. Collectively, these commitments establish a pedestrian-oriented development pattern that supports walkability, and advances the intent of the mixed use centers and corridors. The PDA also advances the city's housing goals by providing additional housing opportunities to help meet the city's housing needs. Staff did note in our report, CM policy 1.1.7, that prohibits new special needs facilities, including hospitals in the coastal hazard area. When we reviewed this request, we reviewed it for the totality of uses that can be considered considered under CI, and that was one of the uses. So I did want to note that. Overall, staff found the request supportive of many policies in the comprehensive plan, including those related to mixed-use housing and design, and overall found it consistent with the City of Tampa comprehensive plan, and that concludes my presentation.

Councilman Moran, do you have questions? No, I'm not. Councilwoman Herjitak.

Yes. Can you, it looks like the Coastal High Hazard Area line goes all the way up to 10th Avenue. Is that correct?

It is. I believe the entire site is within the Coastal High Hazard Area.

Yes, because it goes all the way up to 10th. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, very good. Thank you, sir. LaShawn.

Thank you. Again, council of Sean doc development coordination. And again, I'll put up the zoning map for you. So this request, um, again, would allow all residential types in addition to all CI commercial intensive uses, as well as the, um, recycling materials and goods, um, use on this property anywhere within this boundary. So this is a PDA, a plan development, um, that is before you, this is the area contained within this PDA boundary. and I'll show you the site plan momentarily, but you can see the zoning of IH, and the uses surrounding the property are consistent with the zoning that exists, that industrial zoning. To the west, on the west side of 26th Street, you have the Ybor City District, the special district, and then north of the subject property, you have more industrial with that industrial general zoning to the north. And so what I'd like to do is just review with you momentarily about the PDA and the standards and the criteria with the PDA. This is the site plan submitted by the applicant, and this is what you saw earlier. So you can see that the development is proposed into 11 blocks, and these blocks have been identified as shown. With the PDA, it's a little bit different than the PD, which normally comes before this council, in that you are provided an overall boundary in the PDA, and then there's a set of entitlements that go along with that boundary. The applicant with the PDA approval is allowed for phase development. At each phase of development, the applicant or the developer must submit for incremental site plan review. That is an administrative review. At the time of that review, that plan, which is more like a PD site plan, it has that detailed information, the building placement, the parking placement, the curb cuts, all of that is within that incremental plan. That plan is compared to the overall PDA and those entitlements that were approved. So it is at each phase of development, the developer must submit not only the overall entitlements but the drawdown to show what they are proposing and what remains. And this is the development entitlement chart. We've had a couple of PDAs recently, so Council may be familiar with it, but I just wanted to show you, this is a part of the site plan and the design book. And this shows the actual blocks identified consistent with the site plan. And then it gives you the proposed development entitlements. So for residential, there's a maximum of 522 dwelling units, retail 49,000 square feet. The commercial is 1,332,128 square feet. A hotel is 200 rooms. And then hospital, there's over 800 square feet allowed. And at each phase, a table such as this would be provided showing what is proposed at each stage of incremental and what remains. as far as the entitlements. And that is included in the design book also. The design guideline books also has further detail regarding building placement, built-to zones, setbacks, all of those are incorporated in the design book. And then I have a few pictures of the site and surrounding. So some of the parcels are either vacant or they have industrial or commercial use on it. So this is block H8. This is at the northeast corner at 4th and 27th. This is a picture showing you block G8, which is over here. I tried to get a couple of blocks in one view so we don't have too many pictures.

Thank you.

This is west of the subject property. This is on 26th Street between 3rd and 4th Avenue. This is the west side of block G9. This is the west boundary. This is on 27th Street. This is south of 3rd Avenue. You can see at the end where this dead ends. And then here's another view. This is block H10. So this is near the south, that boundary. And this is if you're looking east towards the crosstown in the distance. And that also is a dead end there. This is Southwest. This is the Southwest boundary of the subject property. This is at 27th street and second Avenue. So with that, there is one waiver requested and that is to reduce the tree retention, um, on the property. And DRC staff has reviewed the petition, finds the request consistent. There are site plan modifications to be made between first and second reading. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm available if you have any questions. Yes.

You said that the waiver is for tree retention. What is the request?

The request is from the required 50% to 0%. And I believe the applicant may expand on it. It may be requested just in case it is needed. This is a phase development. So as future phases come online, it may be required. You must receive the waiver now at this stage. If not, you cannot go back and get the waiver administratively.

Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Good evening, Council. Avi Friedman Shaw with Casa Ybor, 1313 East 8th Avenue, Suite 200. As I mentioned, I represent Casa Ybor. I'm here for the rezoning of the East Ybor Medical District. So this is approximately 25 acres just east of the Ybor City Historic District. We're requesting to rezone from IH, Industrial Heavy, to PDA, Plan Development Alternative. For this site, we envision this to be primarily a medical district. So this rendering that you see in front of you, this is from Adamo Drive looking north, up 28th Street, which does not exist today. The building on the right side of the image is envisioned to be a conceptual hospital use. We expect this to be a hospital built and maintained by Tampa General. Tampa General is planning a hospital on the east side of this district. They already operated 32,000 square foot innovation hub in Ybor City, and this will act as an extension of the Tampa Medical Research District all the way from South Tampa, to the east side of Ybor City. As LaShawn mentioned, this is some quick images of the site today. These were taken last Tuesday, so this is very recent. Just a few things I'll note for you today. One, the site is primarily characterized by two large industrial users, so it's not a smattering of small industrial tenants. It's two very large users who primarily engage in heavy metals recycling. As the City of Tampa staff mentioned, Recycling is one of the uses maintained on the site. That's because there is a gap in time between then when we rezone the site and when those users vacate. There is not intention to maintain recycling on this site for the foreseeable future. The other thing I'll note is that this site currently lacks any level of significant pedestrian infrastructure. So if you'll see in the photos, there is no street lights, there are no sidewalks, You know, significant storm drainage. It's fairly industrial, and we would love to change that moving forward. The site, as LaShawn mentioned, runs from the Crosstown Connector on the east, Adamo Drive to the south, 5th Avenue and the CSX tracks to the north, and then 27th and 26th Streets on the west. There is no existing dwelling units on the site, and it exists entirely outside of the Ybor City local historic district. On the land use, you'll see that it's just under 3 million square feet. The vast majority of the uses are intended to be hospital and medical and medical office uses. Unlike some of the other larger zonings we've brought over the past few years, which are primarily residential, this one is the opposite. This is primarily medical and medical office. The other uses on the site here, residential, hotel, retail, these are intended to be ancillary to and in service of that primary medical use. For example, a hotel can be built in order to serve relatives of folks who are visiting the hospital there. So we're coming to the Council for PDA for just a couple reasons. One, it creates a cohesive design framework. Instead of having 10 or 11 individual projects, you have a cohesive block design that ties these projects together. Two, it creates a requirement for a meaningful public right of way and open space. So those are commitments that are made as part of that PDA. And so we're able to commit to those today. And three, it allows us to create shared parking structures that can be shared between blocks instead of each block parking themselves. This is an image, it's a conceptual rendering of 28th Street, which will be created looking north with that hospital on the right hand side. This here, this street grid, this is one of the core reasons we're asking for a PDA today. As Leshawn and Tyler mentioned, there is not much in the way of street grid on the site today. A lot of these streets do not exist today. So North 28th Street, which is intended to be the front door of the hospital, but also a large primary spine of the district, that will be all new and built by the applicant and not by the city of Tampa, as well as all the upgraded public utility infrastructure that's on the applicant that is not on the city of Tampa. There's a hierarchy of streets here with pedestrian forward main streets, and then a number of service streets, which would be better reserved for trash loading, curb cuts, things of that nature. There is required covered bike storage on any building over 20,000 square feet, so that is the majority of buildings in this district. I'm just going to pause here very briefly. So if you'll see this cutout on the left-hand side, this image, this is a side view of that 28th Street. There's two things I'll draw your attention to. One is the wide sidewalks, so typical city sidewalks are about five feet in diameter. These ones will be between six and eight feet, so a little bit larger. And then on each side, there's also a requirement for either a landscaping or a furniture panel, which provides that opportunity for larger shade trees and benches in the public right-of-way. There's a requirement for two and a half acres of open space. That's about 100,000 square feet of parks and open space, which is a mix of block scale and smaller pocket parks scattered throughout the district. One thing I'll note is that if you'll see this is right adjacent to the crosstown connector, that's not part of this PDA rezoning, but Thea has been really open and receptive to coordination and finding better uses for the underside of that highway there rather than, for example, just keeping it as underside of the highway. It would be nice to be able to connect those to green spaces in some way. Finally, I'll just mention that for us and for the city of Tampa, we think this is a great opportunity to bring a lot of employment and healthcare jobs to the city. Tampa General can speak to that in more depth, but we're excited to bring that healthcare and housing within, one, within reach of folks who live in the Ybor City and the surrounding downtown areas. But because this site is located at the confluence of Tampa's major highways, the Crosstown Connector, the Selman, the I-4, the 275, It allows folks from much farther field to travel here very easily to receive that health care, otherwise live or work in that district. So that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any specific questions for council. Councilwoman Hurtek.

Thank you. So I think the Planning Commission brought up a really good point. One of the big problems with Tampa General Hospital right now is that in a major storm, it can become impassable. It's hard to get there, if not impossible, due to the bridges and the water. Why would you put a hospital solely within a coastal high hazard area?

That's a great question. What I would say, Councilwoman Hurtek, is that The location of this hospital is served by a major evacuation route on Adamo Drive. But more importantly, it does provide that access for all times when it's not a huge hurricane going on to provide easy access for folks much farther afield as opposed to locating it in the middle of the area not near a highway system. So I'd say those are the biggest reasons because it is near that evacuation route and those transit areas.

But I think the bigger question for me is like what I mean that that's been a huge issue for TGH and as they're building they're not starting a lot of their actual you know or rooms all that stuff on the island except I believe it's 30 feet up. So what are the what are the protections that TGH is going to put in. And I mean it's not just TGH if you're putting an entire medical center here it's like overall I mean are we leaving the first floor with with nothing there are you like like what are the actual securities people are going to have especially doctors offices I mean we see it on Swan Avenue right now those folks have been flooded out twice and those are doctors offices I've heard from several of those doctors multiple times So I just really want to know that if I vote for this, that there's a plan so that there isn't anything medical that could possibly, in the next 50 years, you know, climate change is a serious issue. I want people to be able to reach this hospital when they need it, and that will be during a, you know, another hurricane, which we will have here.

Sure, I'll let Adam speak there.

Sure, good evening. My name's Adam Smith. I'm the Executive Vice President at Tampa General. We take that really seriously at Tampa General. We've invested several million dollars, hundreds of millions actually, within the infrastructure of the hospital. So you mentioned a couple of them, but I'll just bring up a few and stop me if it's too much detail. But we learned from the hurricanes in the community. Down in Fort Myers, they actually lost water And so that was one of the things they did not plan on that caused them to leave. So we invested over $15 million. We have two deep wells. So everything we do, we have redundancy for. So we have two deep wells right now at Tampa General. If we lost water, as an example, we could run the hospital, the entire hospital with our own water supply. We did the same with power. So we just raised the entire energy plant up over 30 feet so we can power some hospitals. Just you'll hear them say we do the emergency outlets. We can power the entire hospital with our own energy plant. I also personally went about a year and a half ago to Norway to meet with the CEO of Aquafence. We've had them, you've probably seen the video that went viral, that TGH has, but we work really closely with them on the entire development and how to protect the hospital and the island, because we feel like the healthcare needs to be where the patients are, and we're going to do what we need to protect that. And we actually had Aquafence move their corporate headquarters here to Tampa. based on that visit. So they're here local working with us as we do certain projects and we were recognized by FEMA and others and had the governor's office reach out to us and like how are we protecting so that they could replicate some of the things that we're doing. So we're very, I know that was long-winded and I apologize, but very invested in the infrastructure around the hospital to be a resilient healthcare organization.

And that's fine for the current TGH. I'm talking about where the new hospital's going. It's great that you're using those fences, but aqua fences are also, I mean, it's preventing the water to get in, but then you're just putting that water onto someone else's house, most likely. And so aqua fence has a place, but it would just be better not to need it. So what is the plan to make this TGH facility and the medical center surrounding it to not have these issues for the next 50 years?

We've not fully designed the hospital, but when we just, we're working on our tower right now, the tower that's being built for advanced transplantation and neurology services, and the entire first floor was purposeful in its design. There's no patient care on the first floor. And so that would be the same, so the patient care is not delivered until it's that higher level above where there would be any flooding impact or any of that. Again, part of that resilience. So we can't go back to the existing hospital and do that, but as we've designed the future additions to the campus, that's part of the design that we would incorporate into the new structure. and that's all mechanicals all major issues everything will be 30 feet and above even correct even with the tower today there's nothing on that first floor there's no mechanics there's no mechanical rooms there's nothing that would cause us to have to vacate that facility

OK, and then I have a question. Thank you. I really appreciate that because that's I think the community is very concerned about that overall because we want people to be able to access care even with flooded streets. So I had another question about what about the medical facilities that will surround it? So there are doctors offices. If this is the kind of medical center we want to create, are we are we building from 30 feet up? How how do we see this, you know, really fitting in for I mean, I know some of these some of the things that you use are incredibly heavy, you know, MRI equipment, like all of that is incredibly heavy. So putting that 30 feet up is is quite something. So I would love to hear more about not just the hospital, but the surrounding medical district. What what is the plan to make sure it is also protected from coastal high-hazard flooding.

Councilwoman Hurtek, happy to jump in. I want to bring in our civil engineer who's been looking at these kind of concerns. Great.

Councilmember, how's it going? Artie Centron, 201 North Franklin. Um, as, as they had mentioned before, this entire site is in the coastal hazard. The elevation is at elevation 12. So once we get into, you know, obviously this is the PDA. We have not gotten into that, but we've severely and heavily thought about it at that point in time, almost everything in this block is within elevation and it has to be one foot above that base flood. So no matter what, everything that's new is already going to be built at least one foot above that base flood elevation 13. So to your point, whether it's the hospital, which will have to be two feet above, and the medical office will just have to be a minimum of one foot above, depending on what it's going to be, all that's going to have to be thought about. not to mention this area sits within the stormwater advisory list for the city. So on top of that, there's already modeling efforts being done currently to look at that. There will have to be a box culver that exists today that will have to be relocated. In addition to that as well, that will have to be looked at to see if there's additional capacity to open that up to allow that whole entire area to freely drain, to your point, to allow accessibility during storms.

Okay.

It hasn't been done yet, but that will be the next step.

Yeah, I just really wanted to make sure, I mean, that that was of particular, just a place of particular interest of mine. Thank you.

On recruitment shot 1313 East Avenue happy to answer additional questions. Sorry.

I had one more thing That was that was one that was important to me But also you mentioned that this is going to be more of a work facility or this is a work district And I really love that you mentioned the protected bike parking. Obviously. It's something that's near and dear to my heart, but if we're talking about work environments, then comes the secondary layer, which is shower facilities for people that do tend to bike, and protected bike parking for employees. So is that being thought of at all?

Sure, that's definitely something that I would say is being thought of. I know a lot of folks currently in the Ybor City area or in nearby Hyde Park who bike to work, and their biggest complaint is, I don't have somewhere to shower once I get there. So with respect to larger facilities such as TGHs, that's something that I'm sure that them and their employees are looking at and would like to include. For us, when we think of other buildings in that district, covered bike parking is the first step. We would certainly like to include shower facilities for those individuals. I would say that's probably not a part of the rezoning, but it's something that we are absolutely keeping top in mind as we move forward.

Thank you. I know it's not part of the rezoning, but it's my chance to mention it. So thank you.

Any further questions? Okay. Hearing none. Is there anybody in the public wish to speak to this item?

Yes, sir. Um, Adam Smith from Tampa general. I'll keep my comments brief because I've, I've mentioned quite a few. Um, I would just say, you know, we've been working, uh, with the team on this project and trying to understand, we really feel we're, um, in support of this and full support of the rezoning. As our academic medical center is approximately two miles away, we're building a tower today. But as a safety net hospital, it's basically a mathematical equation for us. We have more patients coming to us for that complex care than we can actually take care of in the facility. So although we're proud of the tower, in the next three to five years, we know we're gonna need some other type of facility. And so this project is really important to us, not only for the healthcare piece and the mixed use, but also we feel as an economic driver to the community. So I just wanted to thank you for your time and just wanted to show the support from Tampa General and Florida Health Science Center. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Who do you wish to speak?

Start with your name, please.

Hi, Jennifer Crabtree. I am the president of the Tampa Medical and Research District and also Senior Vice President, Tampa General. Thank you for having me. So from the Tampa Medical and Research District perspective, we are here to help support the rezoning of this initiative. The team already is focused on positioning Tampa as a national leader in healthcare, research, innovation, and life sciences. and using those strengths as, frankly, a strategic economic engine for this region. That means attracting companies, investment and talent, creating jobs, and growing Tampa's economy, which I know is important to all of us here in this room. The East Ybor rezoning is an important part of that vision. Tampa General, who's one of the main founding anchors of the TMRD, is planning to develop a hospital on the property in the future, as we've talked about, further connecting Ybor, downtown, and the broader districts. But successful innovation districts are more than about just one single institution like TGH. They need a vibrant, connected place where people want to live, work, build companies, and invest. So this initiative is about building a hospital, but as the group has mentioned already, it's also about building that mixed-use facility usage around it. Daryl Shaw's vision for EBOR helps create that environment and strengthens our ability to compete nationally for talent and investment. So on behalf of the TMRD, we respectfully support this rezoning and appreciate the consideration. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else? I'll say that one Tampa General Hospital not only provides world-class healthcare for the entire Tampa Bay region, it's also an economic driver, providing jobs, medical research, medical care, and as you can look around this, none of us are getting any younger, and having these resources are really critical to an area. That being said, I think the redevelopment of this area is something that's gonna be, again, one of these, things that those of us that are part of this process will be proud of in the future that we hand off to the next generation of Tampanians that they'll be able to look and see that this area's been so recreated and pedestrian friendly and I appreciate that the streetscapes that you're trying to incorporate in this PDA and this master plan with the wider sidewalks and being pedestrian friendly I think is really critically important and I'd love to see the the shade trees in an area now that is pretty much just blighted and, you know, really almost absent of any type of really any kind of like landscape or any kind of pedestrian access. So it's very exciting. And just an added note, obviously, we all know we're trying to expand the streetcar. WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATION, WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING TO EXTEND THE EAST PART OF THE EBOARD TO THE 26th STREET. SO THAT'S NOT A GUARANTEE, BUT WE'RE EXPLORING THAT OPPORTUNITY, WHETHER TO FEDERALIZE OR KEEP IT LOCAL, BUT BEING ABLE TO TIE INTO THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY EXCITING. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA.

CHAIRMAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND. EBOARD CITY HAS BEEN NEGLECTED BY NATURE, BY EVERYONE ELSE FOR YEARS. And when I was a little boy there, you had two clinics, Gonzalez and Trey's clinic, and you had a streetcar that went 54 miles in the city of Tampa. And now we're talking about the same thing 80 years later. And you used to have a hospital in Ybor City? Yes, called the Miranda. I went to your hospital, had a transplant. They took my hair off, put brains in it.

we'll go with that thank you i just want to get the public a little okay on that note i would entertain a motion to close a motion to close from councilman red a second for councilman moscow all those in favor say aye aye opposed eyes have at council one heart attack would you like to read this one

An ordinance rezoning a total of 16 parcels, consisting of plus or minus 24.83 acres, located generally in an area bounded to the north by CSX Railroad, to the east by the Selman Connector, to the south by State Road 60, East Adamo Drive, and to the west by North 26th Street. Property in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in Section 1, from zoning district classifications ih industrial heavy to pda planned development alternative all residential types all ci uses and recycling materials and goods providing an effective date i have a motion from councilwoman hertec a second councilman rand all those in favor say aye with revision with the revision all those in favor say aye aye opposed

Okay, motion carried with Viera absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Thank you. I'll give it just one moment for everybody to pivot out. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Shaw. Both Mr. Shaw's. Good job on the presentation, by the way. Councilwoman, here we go.

No, I was just going to say, Councilman Hartig, I appreciate your questions. I had a lot of the same questions, so I appreciate you asking those. They were very good questions.

Thank you. Thank you. I just, I mean, the health stuff is so important, and I know they're going to do the right thing, but I think the public just wants to know.

No, it was good. Very, very eloquently done. Thank you. Okay.

We'll just give everybody a second to settle.

Okay, item number four. Good evening, Council. Brea Dixon, Development Coordination. Next item is agenda item number four, REZ 2648, request to rezone 11607 and 11613 North Florida Avenue from CI Commercial Intensive to PD, Plant Development, Vehicle Sales and Leasing, and Minor and Major Vehicle Repair. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff.

Danny Collins with your planning commission staff. I was sworn in. Our next case is within the University Planning District, specifically the East Forest Hills neighborhood. The subject site is within evacuation zone E. Here is the adopted future land use map. So the subject site is currently designated Community Commercial 35. That is the predominant land use category along this portion of North Florida Avenue. Just to the north of the site, we have unincorporated Hillsborough County. just a block north of East Fowler Avenue. The Planning Commission staff reviewed the request and found it compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The request would allow an additional building for an existing auto dealership in an area that is commercial in character. Staff did note some challenges in meeting all the mixed-use centers and corridor design policies, primarily due to the auto-oriented nature of this use. and the existing developments on this site. The applicant has committed to providing a bus stop at the southwest corner of the property along North Florida Avenue. North Florida Avenue is a designated transit emphasis corridor, is currently served by Heart Route 1. If Council approves the request, staff recommends that the applicant address the revisions identified on the revision sheet, particularly those related to pedestrian connectivity. These improvements would help bring the site into better alignment with the mixed-use centers and corridor policies. Overall, the proposed use and FAR are appropriate within the CC35 designation, and the request is comparable and compatible with the commercial character of the surrounding area along Florida Avenue. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa comprehensive plan, and that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions?

Okay.

Maria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with an aerial view. You can see the subject parcel outlined here in red. And the applicant proposes, I'm sorry, the subject property is located at the southwest intersection of East Fowler Avenue and North Florida Avenue. Sorry, East Fletcher Avenue and North Florida Avenue. This other site is currently developed with two structures and surface parking. One structure is for vehicle sales and leasing and the other is for a service area. Surrounding uses are all CI and they are also vehicle sales and leasing and minor motor major vehicle repair services. The north, the south, the east, and the west. I also have a site plan provided by the applicant. And once again, you can see the subject parcel is outlined here in red. The applicant proposes the construction of a structured vehicle storage with 803 parking spaces at a height of approximately 98 feet or six stories. And this is the blue area here. The structure storage is high. It will exceed the CI zoning district's minimum height allowed by approximately 53 feet, four inches. At 318,561 square feet, the storage proposes 12 jewel box displays. You can see them pointed out here. And it would increase the on-site vehicle parking from 242 parking spaces to a total of 1,045 parking spaces, or by approximately 431%. And here are elevations and renderings. You can see these jewel boxes here. Here's another rendering showing the proposed location. And this is north elevation, south elevation, west elevation, east elevation. I also have photos of the subject areas. So this is the actual location of where that parking structure will go. This is east where you can see in the adjacent structure to the northeast. Here is also east where that location of the parking area would be, sorry, the structured parking would be. Here are developments to the north that are also similar uses of vehicle sales and leasing and major and minor vehicle repair. This is looking down North Florida Avenue. This is looking down South Florida Avenue. This is development to the West and this is development to the South. There are two requested waivers. First is section 27 to 84.2.5 to permit the removal of one non-hazardous 37 inch live Oak grand tree. The second waiver is from section 27 to 89.3 to increase the allowable number of wall signs on building number three, which is the structured parking on the west from one sign to two signs with the combined area not to exceed the allowable wall sign area for the western building facade. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and finds the request inconsistent with the applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. Please refer to natural resources and development coordination comments. for overall inconsistency finding. If city council so wishes to approve the application and waivers requested, modifications to the site plan as shown on the submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading of the ordinance as stating on the revision sheet. I am available for any questions.

Thank you. I actually do have a question. Can you show on the site plan where the tree is that they want to take out? Yes.

This is the tree removal plan. And there is a tree that will be located here. But this is what's proposed to be remaining. But that tree was here. And I can see if I can find another image. This one has it. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions?

Any other questions? Hearing none. Okay. Applicant?

Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the council, Rich Beckish, architect with Spring Engineering. We're the architects and engineers for this project. In regards to planning and the site plan revisions, we've agreed to do all those. The one item that I do want to cover deals with the 37-inch oak and the waiver requested for that and the inconsistency in the site plan. we have exhausted a number of different design options and worked with the staff to try to work around this tree what we ultimately found was that we couldn't yield the same results and anything we put there within the root zone of that tree would be detrimental to that tree so we have agreed to provide the additional four inch oaks that staff requested We've also agreed to provide the Silva cells to increase the canopy of those Oaks to restore the 37 inch Oak canopy. Other than that, if you have any questions, I'm happy to address them.

Does council have any questions of the applicant council?

So those four inch Oaks will be on the property.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. Can you show me where the new Oaks will be going?

They're the light green.

okay we're actually providing 20 new oaks but four of them are going to be with the silva cell so if you're familiar with the silva cells you know okay yeah okay thank you okay hearing none is everybody in the public wish to speak to this item i have a motion to close councilman escarco second from councilman miranda all those in favor say aye aye opposed eyes have it a revision sheet okay

All right. I'll have an ordinance being presented for first reading consideration of ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 11607 and 11613 North Florida Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida. And we'll predict and describe section one from zoning district classification CI commercial intensive to PD plan development vehicle sales and leasing and minor and major vehicle repair providing an effective date with that revision sheet.

Thank you. I have a motion for Councilman Maniscalco, second for Councilman Randall. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Okay, motion carried with the error absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Thank you very much. And we'll give a minute for the Mayor's Youth Corps and everybody else to exit. Hey, it's my understanding that there's quite a few people down on the second floor. If you're down on the second floor, we have a lot of seats up here. You're welcome to come and go through screening and join us in Tampa City Council Chambers. If you are on the second floors, come on up. We have room for you. Okay, thank you. Okay, let's go on to number five.

Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item number five is REZ 2655. Go get them, Sam. Request to rezone from 107 North Armenia Avenue to CG Commercial General, from CG Commercial General to PD Plant Development, Office Business Professional, and all CG uses. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission staff. Thank you.

Mr. Collins. Danny Collins with your Planning Commission staff. I was sworn in. Our next case is within the Central Tampa Planning District, specifically the North Hyde Park neighborhood. The site is within evacuation zone C. Here is the adopted future land use maps and subject sites to currently designated CMU 35. It is just one block, about half block north of West Kennedy Boulevard, which is UMU 60. Armenia Avenue fronts the property to the west. We have CMU 35 to the north. And then just to the northwest, we have Residential 20. Staff reviewed the request and found it consistent with a number of policies in the comprehensive plan. The proposed floor area ratio of 0.47 is well below the maximum FAR of a 2.0 allowed under the CMU 35 designation. The site is located along North Armenia Avenue, which is a designated transit emphasis corridor, which is identifying the plan as a corridor suitable for redevelopment. the site is also located within a mixed-use corridor staff recognizes that the request involves maintaining the an existing building which limits the ability to fully meet certain design policies including those related to building and parking placement under lu policy 6.1.2 and 6.1.9 at the same time the proposed pd supports several mixed-use policies and other comp plan policies by orienting the primary building entrance toward the street and utilizing the existing alley to the south for vehicular access. Staff did note that this request is just north of Kennedy Boulevard and is along Armenia Avenue. Again, both transit emphasis corridors. Staff strongly encourages the applicant to connect the sidewalk or provide some type of pedestrian connection to the building entrances from North Armenia Avenue. We included some revisions on the city's revision sheet. If those revisions are made, staff recommends that the request be found consistent with the City of Tampa Conference of Plan. And that concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? Any questions? Hearing none.

Hello, Council. Brad Dixon, Development Coordination staff. We'll start with an area view. You can see the subject parcel again outlined here in red. The subject site is located at the south, sorry, south of the southwest intersection of North Armenia and West North A Street. It encompasses one parcel that is currently developed with a business professional office and associated parking. Here is a site plan as provided by the applicant. Here is North Armenia Avenue as well as West North A Street. The applicant proposes a construction of a second story addition, the addition being here. And the expanded offices will both front North Armenia Avenue, totaling 4,480 square feet of commercial development. The proposed design requires off-site tree removal, which is here and here. which is not permitted within the applicant's purview as the resulting request can only entitle the property as contained within the application and establish conditions associated with said property as described in the legal description, any and all offsite improvements must be removed from the site plan. More specifically, the trees indicated for removal on the property to the east are not within the purview of the applicant. To this end, the proposed location of the building must be adjusted to satisfy code and eliminate adverse impacts to offsite trees on the adjacent property. Staff has discussed alternate reconfigurations with the applicant that comply with tree and landscape technical code standards, as well as zoning standards and regulations. Failure to adjust the building location and removal of the improvements as shown on the subject plan will result in staff's inability to certify plans. Here is an elevation as provided by the applicant. These are elevations of the existing structure that is there. and these are the elevations of that addition that is proposed to the north. I also have photos. Here is the subject property. North of the subject property. East of the subject property. This is the parking looking northeast. This is the northern parking looking southeast. This is south. And this is west. The applicant is requesting one waiver from Section 27 to eighty three point three point three point C to reduce the required three foot buffer on the north to north vehicle turnarounds from three feet to one foot. Development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and finding requests inconsistent with applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. Please refer to natural resources and development coordination comments for overall inconsistent finding. If city council so wishes to approve the application and waiver requested the modifications to the site plan as shown on the submitted revision sheet must be completed between first and second reading of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet. I will now turn it over to Joe Cermak in natural resources. Can we ask a question?

I was going to ask about trees.

Good evening. Joseph Cermak, forester examiner. We have the site plan here. And it indicates the two trees that were proposed for removal. When we're looking at the survey also, we determine the trees Here and here were located offsite and located the building plans from the adjacent parking area that showed that those trees were in fact planted on the adjacent property 20 years ago to meet their code requirements. Staff had requested that reasonable reconfiguration be looked at for this project to shift the structure and avoid impacts to the trees. And here I have a, sorry, example that shows the original proposed VUA right of way buffering area was 12 and a half feet. Code requirement is for an eight foot buffer area. The four and a half feet could have been shifted without any need for a waiver or variance. At shifting forefoot, at least as shown on the survey, they would be clear of the tree protection zones. Also looked at it to determine we do not see any loss in parking spaces or any change to the flow and function of getting into and out of the site. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions?

Councilwoman Hurtado.

The staff report mentioned that the trees on the other property are also mitigation trees. Is that correct?

They were code required trees.

Okay, code required.

Thank you. Can you come back up? I have a question for you. Again, I kind of want to understand what they're doing here. They're trying to retain the existing building and then build an additional two-story adjacent to it?

Correct.

Okay. And is there any other, so the applicant can listen to me and probably answer this when I get, but are there any city council, are there any city code, this is such an important transit corridor between Kennedy and Armenia. and have this big surface parking lot in the front, lack of pedestrian access, it really doesn't seem to be jiving with the direction we're trying to drive this corridor. Is there anything, overlying rules, regulations, or codes that would, if this was a clean slate and this lot was empty, would they be able to develop this property this way?

I think that would go back to what was said in the planning commission's review of the area and the overall mixed use provisions that were provided. So the site itself is among other business professional offices that are similar of use to the east as well as to the south. So despite, I guess, the busyness of the corridor, it is compliant or compatible with the other surrounding uses that are there in the area. Does that answer the question?

Yes. Councilwoman Hurtado.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think your question is, if this was an empty site, wouldn't the parking have to be in the back?

Yes, you are correct. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. With pedestrian access. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, LaShawn Dock Development Coordination. So some of the design elements that would be required may be provided in the overlay district. So if you're coming in with completely new development, you'd have to meet the overlay district standards. That's when you see those things like where the parking should be located, whether it's in the front or the rear of the property.

And is this in the West Tampa Overlay District?

This is, you have the overlay. It's in the Kennedy, the Kennedy overlay district, which does not specify.

Okay.

So it's not, so it's not, but I think with the design, the developer was trying to, um, because the building exists and I think coming in with the new building, um, was trying to keep the building, the new building. Thank you to keep this new building in line with the existing building. And his building has come in with the parking located on the west side of the property. And so what Joe has explained is that right now on this side, there's 12.8 feet. This building is here four feet away from the property line.

Right.

So if they took four feet, there is room to shift and not lose a parking space or require any additional waivers and still provide their required VUA of eight feet. But I think this design was, and the applicant can explain maybe due to the existing building being placed there. Otherwise, they would have to demo that building and then do all new construction.

Yeah, we'll punt it to the applicant to try to figure out how we get a PD here. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anything else for the staff? Okay, applicant. Thank you. Mr. Michelini. Good evening, Council Steve. I didn't know it was you.

What can I tell you? Steve Michelini, yes, I have been sworn, and I am representing the owners on this project. And, you know, we've talked to staff back and forth. We got to this point because in an early pre-application discussions, The staff had asked us to go and get an approval from the adjacent property owner to remove the two trees, which are not grand. They are protected. They're not in great shape. And the owner also wished for them to be removed. Let me show you this. Is that up high enough so you can see it? Okay, these are the two trees that are, they are VUA trees that were required for the parking lot over here. And we've talked about this back and forth, but once you have a building here, the VUA protective requirement goes away. It's no longer applicable because there's nothing to protect it from. There's a building there. And I'll show you the two trees that are in question. The one on the left over here is in worse condition than the one on the right. And we're trying to match the existing building. And I'll show you the other photographs here.

Because it's so architecturally significant?

I'm sorry?

because it's so architecturally significant?

Well, you know, it may have been older planting, but they're not that significant. If you look at this picture here, the second row of parking has all palm trees. This side has oak trees. What we were proposing to do was to remove those two oak trees and plant them in more appropriate places further to the north where they could survive. And you see on the, this is on the east side, you've got these palm trees and a few of the oak trees over there. We're sort of, you know, we're stuck. I mean, we simply are stuck. We have an alternative, the staff wants us to move move the building. We were trying to keep the buildings aligned for efficiency and construction. This is an existing building and this was the proposed new building. They were asking us to reduce the the green space up here on the front. We are going to enhance that with additional oak trees and beautify that area. I guess we just have to throw ourselves on the mercy of the council. What would you like us to do? If you want us to move, we'll have to move the building forward four feet, and that will have to be accomplished between first and second reading. I've had fairly extensive discussions with the homeowner association They didn't understand why the two trees were being removed. I think I've tried to explain that adequately to you. We have met all the other criteria. It's on the transit corridor. If you wish us to plant more trees in the front on the Armenia side and create the shade trees, which is what the HOA had asked us to do, we can do that. The one waiver that we were requesting involves the turnaround here, not the parking spaces. So the turnaround, we were asking for a waiver from reduction from three feet to one foot. Again, the pleasure of council, we'll do whatever you ask us to do. If you want us to move the building, we'll move the building. We prefer not having to do that. We've entered into the application. They signed a notarized agreement from the adjacent property owner saying, you know, they're okay, they want us to remove the trees and replant them in more appropriate locations. And you've heard, you know, previously from the arborists that the right tree in the right place is the thing to do. These trees, even if we move the building, are not gonna be the right trees in the right place. So, I mean, I'll be happy to answer any questions. That's basically the synopsis of where we stand with it. I'm looking for some direction from council on what you'd like to see us do. The other notes that the staff has provided show consistency. As I said, we're in a transit corridor. We're one block off of Kennedy Boulevard. I don't know what else to tell you.

Are you a mind reader?

Well, you know, I'm looking for some feedback. What would you like me to do?

Ms. Dock, would you like to add something to the record?

Yes, thank you, Council of Sean Dock Development Coordination. I would like to mention that it has been mentioned by the applicant that affidavits are in the record. There's something to keep in mind that this rezoning is for the subject property.

Bless you.

The applicant cannot enter an affidavit for trees that are not on their property. Right. I understand. So they were directed. You cannot have this affidavit. It would not apply. These are offsite trees in a case where there are shared trees, where the trees are on the property line. That would be different initially at the initial submittal. Um, it was hard to tell where these trees were exactly located. because sometimes the site plan, the survey, just may not be accurate, and I mean, until you verify it in the field. So it was not until the second submittal, it was determined that these trees are in fact offsite. So you cannot submit an affidavit for trees that are not your trees, and they're not even shared. So I just wanna place that on the record.

Okay, thank you.

And we understand fully it would require a second process. with the other property owner. We know that. and we weren't trying to subvert the process. We just need some guidance on how you'd like us to proceed.

I'm only one of seven, so I don't know what everybody else thinks about it. And I scored a hint into this earlier in the presentation. This particular corridor, Armenia and Kennedy, is such an important area for the city of Tampa. And so you're not coming for Euclidean zoning. You're coming for a PD, which automatically, the litmus test is going to be different than an Euclidean zoning, because it's not an entitlement, right? So coming for the graces of council for a PD, you really need to be bringing something that really is worthy of us giving it that consideration. You're right there on Armenia, there's lack of pedestrian access to the buildings you're looking at building. it's the four you know that four facing uh parking um i mean the tree is one issue and i mean these trees are kind of on a property line which is where you put trees you don't want to if you if you had a tree in the middle of this lot you'd be coming to me and say i can't i have to have i have to i have to build something different because there's a tree i have to take the tree out because it's in the middle of the lot this thing's on the on the property line i just think there's a multitude of problems with that with this request you're trying to put a square peg in a round hole that's my opinion on it anybody else Councilwoman Hurtado.

I think I'd like to hear from the public, but, yeah, because I don't have any particular questions. I think, for me, it can kind of go either way.

Okay.

I'll reserve my time.

Yeah, go ahead.

Exactly. Okay.

Silence.

I don't think – I'm not aware of anybody objecting, but there could be.

Okay. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to speak to this item? Hearing none, you have reserved your time. Councilwoman Hurtado.

Okay. No, I'll say something then. I'm – I – I respect that you're trying to save the building that's there. I get it. Like, in a better place, we would have the building in the front, and we would have all of this. I'm kind of agnostic on the trees. I like the trees, but they don't look like they're in great shape, so... if what they're saying is that with the additional right-of-way they'll be able to plant like actual oak trees I I mean I can see the balance in that so but aren't we doubling down on a dud well but I mean we can't make them read well by granting them an entitlement a further entitlement yeah I mean I keeping one building adding another I it could be nicer I don't disagree did you see the pictures

You look at one way, you look at the other way, you think you're going the wrong way. And it's difficult. You want to save the house, you want to save the building, but you're talking about the corridors across from TD Bank, I believe. And so it's just a... What came first, the chicken or the egg?

That kind of stuff. Maybe you can address this after we're done talking, Mr. Michelini. Trying to justify, again, this really critical corridor, not a historical building, nothing there, nothing to see there. Why would I double down on that? and grant the PD, which is a further entitlement, for something that's probably not worthy for that particular location.

Well, you would have to demo the existing building and rebuild the entire site, which would be an extreme hardship. Now, if you decided that you wanted to try to do a diagonal building, you would destroy the parking, which is a critical area that this neighborhood association has come to you several times and said, please don't. You know, don't destroy the parking. We meet the parking code. We meet all the other codes. So really the question is, you know, as the staff has pointed out, we meet the Kennedy overlay. The answer is, do you want us to move the building the four feet to save two two trees, or do you want us, or not?

I mean, I... But again, it's about a PD, not just about the four feet, it's about...

But we meet the other criteria. So, I mean, I can go through that if you wish, and we were found consistent with...

So you meet the setbacks of a CG? Except for the turnaround. So you don't meet all the criteria?

No, but we're not asking for waivers from anything that normally the other building is at that setback line. So it's not an increase in any intensity or setback encroachment. I mean, I can go through the criteria if you wish me to that shows that we were found consistent on all the other criteria.

If this was a Euclidean zoning for CG staff, can you all answer that question?

Ray Vixen, Development Coordination. The requirements for CG are 10 feet in the front, 10 feet on the east, 10 feet on the west, 10 feet on the south. This property as it stands does not meet those requirements, even with the existing structure.

Thank you.

10, 10, and zero.

Oh, go ahead. Sorry. 10, 10, and zero on the rear.

10, 10, and zero where?

On the rear.

On the rear.

We meet the rear.

And the sides.

We meet the crutches. So for CG, it's got a zero setback requirement? On the rear. For all CGs, huh? Correct. That's interesting. Councilwoman Young.

No, just as I was looking at the pictures, I'm listening to the conversation. So, Councilman McClendon, I see... you know, kind of where you're coming from as far as, you know, what we're trying to do, you know, with the corridors and, you know, having this, like, you know, as you're going down the corridor, the first thing you see is this parking lot and then, you know, the building in the back. So I understand that part. But also, but trying to, you know, as Mr. McElhinney was saying, reconfiguring it or having to tear it down. I don't know. I'm kind of like in between. I see, you know, I'm like if this could be moved up here, you know, it could be better, you know, appeal to, you know, pedestrian access, all those things. And I'm, you know, I don't know. I guess I'm just kind of working it out as I'm talking.

If it wasn't on Armenia, we'd have a whole other conversation.

We are providing the pedestrian access that you asked for. It's here. And it goes all the way out to Armenia.

Is that a plan? Crossing your driveway.

Well, it has to cross somewhere. I mean, we're accessing off the alley and not off of Armenia, which is another one of the provisions that you all have asked for, to utilize the alley for access. At some point, we get conflicts between what you've asked for and what we can provide on the site.

Well, to be clear, generally when you hear that from the council, it's about residential construction. Okay. I mean, again, I'm just one of seven, so I'll leave it at that. Obviously, the transit quarters are a passionate... thing for me, and having the transit ready corridors in our concept, and pedestrian friendly, and so if you're coming for Euclidean, it would just be a rubber stamp. Okay, very good.

Well, if we didn't have the existing building, we could do that.

Anybody else have anything? No. Okay. We have a motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco. Second. Second. Councilwoman Hurtek. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilman Brandon, do you want to read this?

I'll read it, but I don't know what we're talking about.

Yeah. I don't know. I mean, are you going to vote for it? Well, that's what I was going to say. Are you planning on voting for it? I'll move on. I'll move on if you're not planning on voting for it. I'll just pick somebody else.

I mean, from what I'm hearing, it's possible, but it's not 100% correct. But it's probable that it could. And I'm also realizing that there's some other changes from some other zonings that I can't bring up because it doesn't interfere with the zoning matters.

But who for sure loves this project and would like to read this?

I'll move it if he doesn't want to.

Okay, go ahead, Council Member.

Just because I mean, Yes. Is it what we, is it what we want? No, but is it reusing a building that's already existing and therefore it can save someone money who wants to start a small business or something like that? I just, I can't say no to that. So just because, um, Ordinance being presented file number RZ 26 dash 55 ordinance being presented for first reading consideration and ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of one Oh seven North Armenia Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification. CG commercial general to PD plan development office business professional all CG uses writing an effective date Does that mean now moving the building four feet up?

I have a motion councilwoman her tech. I have a separate second from councilman Maniscalco roll call, please

Her tech.

Hold on a second. There is a waiver.

Is there a vision sheet attached to that?

With the revision sheet. Okay. I have a motion from councilwoman her tech with the revision sheet as second from councilman Maniscalco roll call, please.

Sorry. Oh, my Mac was the one. Sorry.

Young. Yes. Carlson. Yes. Miranda. Maniscalco. Yeah. Clinton.

No.

Okay, motion carried with Miranda and Clendenin voting no and Vieira absent at vote. I'm sorry, Vieira absent. Second reading and adoption will be held on September 17th, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

You can't say this council isn't kind to you.

Thank you, council.

It wasn't kind to him, it's to the owner.

I mean, I don't love it either, but I think that's one of those things that now we know the Armenian corridor doesn't, or the Fowler Avenue corridor doesn't incentivize parking in the back. We need to fix that.

We need to get some fixing to do.

Yeah.

Okay, item number six.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher DeMont, development coordination.

Hold on one second, please. Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby, City Council Attorney. There are more people in the room now, Mr. Chairman. I don't know who has not been sworn, if you would please.

Okay. And if you are planning on speaking to any of the additional items this evening, if you're planning to provide testimony or public comment, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk.

Thank you very much. Back to you, Mr. Christian. Great.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher to monitor development coordination. Agenda item number six is REZ 2657. This is a request to rezone 6111 North Rome Avenue from RS 50 to plan development to allow for residential single family attached in detached uses. I'll turn it over now to planning commission.

Danny Collins with your planning commission stuff. I was sworn in. Our next case is within the University Planning District, specifically the River Bend neighborhood. The subject site is within evacuation zone A and portions of the site are within the coastal high hazard area. Here is the coastal high hazard area. Everything east of this line is within the coastal. The subject site is currently designated residential 10, which allows the consideration up to 10 dwelling units per acre. That designation is found along the river. That is that tan orange is color here to the north and to the west of the site. We have residential 20 that allows 20 dwelling units per acre. It allows the consideration of single family detached, attached and multifamily uses. To the south of the subject site, we have residential 50, which allows 50 dwelling units per acre. It allows consideration of attached and multifamily or multifamily other housing types. The subject site, just out of frame to the south, is just to the north of Hillsborough Avenue. And again, this is the river here. This is Seminole Heights, just on the east side of the river. In early 2025, the site was the subject of a return of rezoning requests, rezoning 2499, which proposed 45 dwelling units. Uh, city council had denied that request. The current proposal reduces the total, uh, number of units from 40 units, or I'm sorry, the total to 40 units, which are 37 attached and three detached single family homes through this rezoning petition. The comprehensive plan supports single family attached development at the periphery of established single family neighborhoods. Staff found this site was appropriately located for single family attached because it is adjacent to multifamily development. It fronts a collector roadway and is surrounded by higher intensity future land use designations, particularly to the north, to the west, and to the south. The proposed density along I'm sorry, the proposed density of this request is 8.58 units per acre, which is comparable to the development in the surrounding area. Staff noted the density along North Rome Avenue and the density to the parcel to the south of the subject site, which is R50 in our report. While some portions of North Rome Avenue have lower existing densities, the site is underutilized relative to development potential envisioned by the comprehensive plan. For example, the parcel to the south is designated R50, but developed at 7.46 dwelling units per acre. The property is also zoned RM35, which allows for medium density multifamily development per the land development code. As a result, the property could be redeveloped at a significantly higher density under its existing zoning than what is there today. The request for single family attached housing would also provide a transition between the higher density residential designations that surround the subject site, which is supported by the plan. The request would provide transition, provide a transition and support policies, encouraging attached housing at slightly higher densities and single family areas. The project also addresses the plan's design policies and those related to neighborhood connectivity with unit entrances that front Rome and Hannah oriented towards those roadways and internal connections provided from the internal units to those roadways addressing land use policy 9.2.6. The request was also found consistent with the applicable environmental policies in the plan. The EPC has approved the proposed wetland impact and mitigation plan. The proposed PD has been designed consistently with the approved wetland authorization. It meets the intent of environmental policies 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.7, and 2.4.8, which require coordination with EPC regarding wetland impacts, mitigation, and site plan design. If approved, future development of the site will also be required to comply with applicable City of Tampa building requirements and technical standards, as noted on the plan. Overall, staff found the request supports the Comprehensive Plan by providing an appropriate transition development intensity, accommodating future growth, and adding housing on an underutilized site, which is all supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Based on these considerations, the Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the City of Tampa Comprehensive Plan. And that concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Well, the record again, Christopher to monitor development coordination as planning commission staff, uh, mentioned in their presentation, um, council, uh, reviewed an application last year, RZ 24 99, uh, for this site, uh, proposed with 45, uh, units. And of course it was subsequently denied by council. And we are here, uh, as staff, uh, to present the latest application, uh, from the applicant. We'll start with an aerial of the subject site outlined in red. The subject property is located to the east of North Rome Avenue. It's also located south of West Hannah Avenue, and the Hillsborough River borders the subject property along the eastern part. Surrounding the site is largely RS50 zoning. We have a mobile home park to the north as well as single-family detached uses. To the east, of course, we have the river. South of the subject site we have RS50 with single-family detached uses as well as RM35 where there's an existing residential multiple-family development. east or I should say west of the subject site, we have additional RS-50. We also have a small PD rezoned site here approved for an office use. Next we'll show the site plan here. The subject property is approximately 4.66 acres in size. The applicant is proposing 10 buildings containing single-family attached dwelling units and three single-family detached dwelling units. This brings the total number of dwelling units proposed to 40. The site does provide a singular vehicular entrance. It's a two-way entrance off of North Rome Avenue. The design of the neighborhood includes a circular entrance internal driveway. Additionally, here we have, and it's important to note that each of the proposed units provides a walkway which would connect to sidewalks, whether it's sidewalks along the right-of-way areas of Hanna and Rome or internally to the site. It's also important to note with regards to the plan, the applicant proposes a dog park as well as a park with amenities along the eastern portion of the property. Looking at the overall design with regard to the 10 buildings for single-family attached uses, buildings 1 and 2 along North Rome Avenue are two-story in height. Buildings 3 and 4 along West Hanna Avenue are proposed at two stories in height. On the very south portion of the property we have buildings nine and ten they're proposed at three stories in height and then we have buildings five six seven and eight those are all proposed at three stories in height we also have three single family detached units on the eastern side of the property those proposed at three stories in height as well Each of these units is proposed with a two-car garage. Those vehicles would be located side by side from each other. The plan that was before you last year included that sort of building, I should say garage design that we typically see, but there was also a stacked design for some of the units. So that's a difference between what you had previously seen and what is here now. Next we'll jump into Examples of the elevations. This is an example of what you would see for buildings 1, 2, 3, and 4 along Hannah and Rome. Next we have examples. These are single-family attached as well. This is the three-story example proposed. Next, we have examples of the single-family detached dwellings. There's approximately three of those dwellings proposed along the east side of the property. Next, we have photos. Starting off, we have some photos of the subject property. We have a view from Rome Avenue. This is along the north boundary of the subject property on West Hannah Avenue. Next we have examples of what's just north of the subject property. Additional sample. This is the view looking down West Hannah. The subject property is on the right hand side in the photo. South of the subject property. Southeast of the subject property that's at the end of West Burke street. And then of course we have west of the subject property across North Rome Avenue. Uh, there are no waivers requested with this application in development review and compliance staff has reviewed this petition. We find the request consistent with the applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. And should it be the pleasure of city council to approve this application? Further modifications to the site plan must be completed between first and second reading as stated on the revision sheet and I'm available for any questions.

Good evening. Before we start, at least that's all for Stern's River Miller. I did send a letter of Mr. Chair just because of the what we contemplate as the significant opposition. We are asking for a little extra time for rebuttal. We hope to keep it within 10 minutes, but depending on how long they go, we appreciate a little leniency there. yes and uh with the advice of council uh without objection we grant the extra five minutes for a rebuttal thank you may i submit a copy of the right the letter into the record also the clerk did ask us we had quite a few documents that we uploaded to sire she asked for a jump drive as well okay yes if you can hand that to mr shelby please

Motion to receive and file the documents on the drive. I have a motion, Councilman Miranda, seconded by Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Thank you.

If you could pull up the presentation.

Did you say your name? I can't remember.

Elise Batsel, Stearns Weaver Miller.

It was like five minutes ago. I can't remember.

I understand. Good evening. Elise Batsel, Stearns Weaver Miller on behalf of the applicant. Chris has already introduced where the property is, so I will skip over that. As he stated, the project is 37 single-family attached and three single-family detached at a density of 8.58 units per acre. It meets all code criteria. And we're going to talk about this a little bit more. In redesigning this plan, as we have over the last year, you will see that the green space far exceeds the code. There is the existing multifamily to the south. This is just the proposed site plan. I'm going to go into detail here, but I did want to note for you that the access is off of Rome. There is two lanes kind of coming in, a visitor and a resident, and there'll be one lane going out. All of the units along Rome and along Hannah front out to make them more connected to the street. You can see here just the layout of the buildings. It's a little bit easier on color. As you can see, we've created the two story periphery along the roads with three story further inside. The three single family dwelling units along the river are going to be stilted homes. And this just shows the location of the stormwater facilities. As you can see, there are three stormwater ponds. There will also be chambers underground. Of course, this site is not fully engineered at all, but this is conceptually where these will be located. We'll talk a little bit more about this, but when we came before you before, we were asking for grand tree waivers to remove grand trees. We have redesigned this plan, and we will be retaining and preserving each and every green tree on the site. I want to take just a moment and talk about the green space. As I mentioned, we're far exceeding the green space, but what's really interesting and significant here is that we've redesigned the plan to cluster the green space. Your staff report talks about the fact that if you cluster green space, it's more likely to stay and be viable for a long period of time. The other thing just to note is that there is a wetland, we'll go into this a little bit more, along the Hillsborough River that is being 100% preserved. We're not impacting that wetland at all. The other thing that's very important just about the site before we move on is that we have really focused on pedestrian connectivity. The sidewalks here you can see along Rome and Hannah, in addition, Every yellow area is how each and every unit connects to the sidewalk. There's lots and lots of pedestrian connectivity. Right now, I just want to turn it over to our expert planner, Ryan Manassi, who most of you know well. He's going to talk about consistency with the comp plan.

It's a better picture, right? Thank you, Elise. Good evening, Council. Ryan Manassi, for the record, 401 East Jackson Street with Stearns Weaver Miller. I'm their Director of Entitlements. And I'll get my picture off the screen. There we go. Please be aware that my planning report was submitted in advance of the hearing tonight, and that was to give you additional time if you were able to read it and view it. My testimony tonight is intended to summarize the key planning conclusions and explain why, from a professional planning standpoint, the application should be approved. In 2005, just a little bit of history, the city intentionally changed the property's FLU designation from Res 20 to Res 10. More importantly, the adopting staff report specifically recognized townhome redevelopment remained appropriate for this property and stated that a proper implementation tool would be a planned development rezoning. And that's exactly what's before you tonight. The proposal requests 40 residential units and only 8.58 dwelling units per acre. well below the 10 dwelling units per acre permitted under the Res 10 category as it exists and below the density already planned immediately south of the property. It is consistent with the Res 10 FLU designation, advances the comprehensive plans infill housing objectives, supports housing choice, and implements land use policy 9.3.5 by locating attached housing at the edge of the established neighborhood while providing meaningful transitions and mitigation. Now, my planning report and the planning commission staff report contain additional goals, objectives, and policies that we're consistent with as well, and we'd agree with those from their report as well. Now, regarding compatibility, it's not measured by whether surrounding property looks identical. The comprehensive plan evaluates compatibility through use, density, height, scale, setbacks, landscaping, access, circulation, overall development pattern. The project was designed around those exact principles, including some of the comments from the previous rezoning. Attached housing is placed adjacent to the existing and planned higher density residential development, and three detached homes preserve the established riverfront pattern. Two-story buildings line Rome Avenue and Hanna Avenue, while the three-story buildings are located further within the site. The project requests no waivers. It preserves all non-hazardous grand trees. It exceeds the city's green space requirement. It provides all required parking, incorporates three storm water ponds as well as those underground proposed retention systems, and binds every one of those design components through this plan development site plan. That provides neighboring property owners with greater certainty and greater compatibility than conventional Euclidean rezoning. Now finally, you'll hear concerns this evening regarding fill, stormwater, floodplain, and engineering, most likely. Those are important subjects, but they are addressed through separate regulatory agencies and technical permitting processes, including SWFMUD, EPC review, and the city's floodplain and building review, the permitting process, right? Those permitting requirements remain fully applicable. Nothing from those are being waived tonight. So in closing, this application asked council to approve the very type of development the city envisioned for the property in 2005. Since the prior hearing, the applicant has reduced the density, eliminated every waiver, preserved all non-hazardous grand trees, substantially increased the green space, enhanced compatibility, and created a project that is less intense, more predictable, and more responsive to both the comprehensive plan and the surrounding neighborhood. For those reasons summarized this evening, and for the more detailed findings that I have in my planning report submitted to the record, it is my professional opinion that this application is consistent with the Tampa comprehensive plan, satisfies the purpose of the plan development district and land development code, including sections 27136, 139, 282.9, 226, 227, and is compatible with the surrounding development and should be approved. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. And I'll turn it back over to Elise.

We have engaged with the community over the last two and a half years many, many times, but most recently for this application, We held a virtual meeting, not just with the Riverbend Civic Association, but to everybody that was in the mailed notice area for this application. That was held on July 22nd. And we had an in-person meeting with a few members of the Riverbend Civic Association on August 12th. In addition to that, we had multiple emails to us, and we answered each and every question that we could answer at this stage in the process. And even those that dealt with permitting and engineering, we had our consultants give the best guess estimates that they could, even though those issues aren't before you tonight. So when this came before you before we went down and we distilled, what were the issues? Um, there were several issues that were expressed by this council, by the community and by city staff. We've liked to go through each and every one and show you specifically what we've done and how we've addressed those on the plan. This one's easy, Mr. Chair, I heard you when you yelled at me and said, how could you come to me with garage sizes that are not oversized? All single family attached units have a two car garage and the width of those two car garages is 20 feet in width and 22 feet in depth. Stormwater discharge location. So stormwater is not part of what you review here, but we did want to show you that we heard the concerns of the neighbors and we address the concerns and the plans to the extent that we can. These concerns related to where the discharge point was located. You're looking at the river on your right. The old discharge point was very close to the city lift station, and so we were asked by the community and the city to move that location. We did that. We moved it to the location in red. Now, in addition, The stormwater that is on site has to comply with the new state stormwater regulations. There's no fill east of the wall. We'll talk about that a little bit more. And city stormwater department has found the rezoning plan consistent with the code. Just very quickly. All of this is subject to future SWFMUD and city permitting approval. And our engineer is here to answer any questions, but there's been a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication about stormwater and fill. So we did want to emphasize that what happens during the stormwater permitting process is we have to hold all of the stormwater on site, we have to treat that stormwater, and then if there is stormwater to discharge, we have to discharge it in accordance with the state regulations. Commissioner Hurtak, you specifically had questions about density along this site. This site has changed a little bit. Directly to the south, I know that Danny said it was seven point something units to the acre. There is actually, there are permits in for a plan that is going through permitting right now at 10.56 dwelling units per acre. Those are not apartments, those are town homes, very similar to what we're doing here. The existing mobile home park, if you look at the dwelling units per acre to the north, That's at 18.18 dwelling units per acre. That's actually 100% more density than we're asking for on our site. And to the south, what's in permit today that density is actually 25% higher than what we're asking for today on a dwelling units per acre basis. The project to the south, Danny mentioned this, is actually permitted at 35 units per acre, which would be 400% the density. So we just wanna put that in perspective because a lot of times we look at a surrounding area and we say, yes, there's a lot of single family homes, but this is a unique development pocket within this community. And finally, tree waivers. It is very, very difficult with the 50% tree retention waiver, tree retention requirement to meet that if this is a wooded site. We redesigned this plan multiple dozens of times now to make sure that we were retaining the 50% trees and preserving the grand trees. This was assessed by multiple arborists since last year. We've relocated retaining walls And this plan comes before you today with no tree waiver retention requirement, no waiver. Again, as you know before, we were asking for the removal of grand trees. We heard what the community said. All non-hazardous grand trees are being preserved on site. I believe there are four. And finally, with respect to natural resources, the green space exceeds the vehicular the single family attached, the single family detached, we actually exceed that green space requirement on site by 184%. Over 40% of this site is green space. We also have met all code tree planting requirements. With respect to transportation, our transportation engineer is here, happy to answer any questions. But to recap, there is a transportation analysis in your submitted materials. It's dated February of 26. It shows that there are 9 a.m. peak hour trips and 16 p.m. peak hour trips coming from this project. The project traffic consumes less than 2.5% of the roadway. So if you look at the blue and the green, this project is that teeny tiny little sliver of red that you see in the middle. There are no level of service or capacity deficiencies for Rome. And the analysis also says that the intersections operate at an acceptable level of service. The developer will have to pay a proportionate share for a right turn at Rome Avenue and at Sly. But if you do have specific questions for the transportation engineer, he's here to answer any questions. And just quickly, when we talk about traffic, I never like to use regular language, right? Engineers tend to overcomplicate things. What this means at the highest PM peak hour is that one car will leave that site every eight minutes and one car will arrive every six minutes. And that's at the highest peak hour. The expert studies and staff review all find this project consistent with a comprehensive plan. compatible with the surrounding uses. We did do some early permitting review, and we did that because the community had concerns about permitting issues. We're not all the way there. This isn't a fully engineered plan, so there are things that are going to have to work through the process. But we did enough to try to answer questions for the community, and we hope that you appreciate that effort. We respectfully request approval. We're all here to answer questions that you have, the whole development team. Thank you for your time.

Councilman Carlson.

Ms. Batson. Yes. I read your memo earlier. We were talking about the prior event and the lack of competent substantial evidence. And I know you all have been trying in earnest, obviously, to solve many of the concerns of the community. And you're going to have plenty of time, extra time, to do a rebuttal. But if you don't mind, and don't answer this if you don't want to, but if you don't mind, could you just tell us, we're going to hear from the public in a minute, what's your perspective on what the gap is still with the public?

I can tell you. There is a big gap from my perception. This is a layperson's perception, but I've talked to the development team about it. There is a conception that by adding fill to this project that somehow we are going to increase pollution runoff into the river or that if there's a flood, all of that fill is going to go into the river. And there are also issues with wetlands.

I can talk more about the wetlands, but... Do you have an expert here later on that could respond to that if the public brings it up about the pollution and the filter? Absolutely.

Our engineer, we were waiting to hear all the comments, but definitely our engineer is here to answer all of those questions and clarify the issues. And go ahead, I'm sorry.

No, but you had meetings with the public. You answered a bunch of the concerns, but did you feel like some people came along and said, you know, we heard we got what we wanted, or are most people still the same?

We didn't really get constructive, here's what we'd like you to do with your plan. You know, normally you meet and they say, we don't like the three stories, or we'd like you to change this. We didn't get any feedback for two and a half years that was related to our actual plan. The neighbors, you'll hear them, they do not want this development here. I think three of the letters that you have in your file want this preserved as a public park. And I understand, I don't want my community to change either. And so we really tried to answer the questions the best we could, but so many of these questions aren't for this body, right? stormwater issues and permitting those issues, how much fill and where we have fill. We actually commissioned a study, which is in your record, and I can talk more about it after the community. It's a study that says, where is it safe to place fill? And our retaining wall, we have voluntarily agreed to keep the fill away from the river a certain amount, even more than they suggested. And we did all that to try to give comfort to the community, even though a lot of those were stormwater issues and engineering and permitting issues that don't relate to the rezoning.

Would you like to bring your expert up who would talk about the runoff and the fill? Would you like to bring that person up now or in rebuttal?

If you don't mind if we do it in rebuttal, at least that way we can do it all at once and if there's additional questions. But if you prefer it now, happy to do that.

No, I think it's good to hear from the public, and sorry to make the public wait.

There may be a few more issues, and maybe it would be more respectful of your time.

Yeah, I almost I almost think I want to hear from a citizen with the public in here before they talk to.

Maybe that's OK. You want to you want to do it now? You can always talk about a rebuttal, too.

That's fine. That's fine.

So then that gives the public an opportunity to hear what they talk about. So the question was, Councilman Carlson.

You know, I was asking Elise about the remaining concerns of the community and she was saying, sorry to paraphrase, but the potential runoff and contaminants in the water, things like that. So maybe you could address that.

Introduce yourself first.

Good evening. Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering here in Tampa. My address is 5005 West Laurel Street and I have been sworn. So do you have any specific question for me? Well, if you could just elaborate on what Ms. Spencer was saying.

Sure, sure. So Braulio, and maybe this is the appropriate time, the community is very concerned about bringing fill into the site. Can you tell us, we cannot develop this site with, the buy right development is about 15 to 20 units, single family. We would have to plot it, but we could get 15 or 20 homes on the site. Is it true that you would have to bring fill in to develop this site by right, whether this rezoning goes forward or not?

MR. Yes. The answer is yes. MS.

So I think there's a misconception that this fill, this rezoning is somehow going to approve or deny fill on the property. It's not. This property is going to be developed, whether it's with or without the by right development or this rezoning. The other issue that I think is concerning to the community, and again, I'm speaking for them, I'm sure they're gonna speak for themselves, the concern that there's runoff or how the runoff, I heard someone in the community meeting saying that our shingles were going to cause all this pollution and that runoff was going to go into the river. Can you explain how you hold, treat, and how that water, if there is water, is discharged just generally? I think of it like a big bowl. It's not a bowl, but where you capture it and it is treated.

So without getting into too much technical detail and too much into the weeds, The goal, and that will be when we go into permitting, will be to grade and collect all the stormwater runoff from the roofs, from the sidewalks, from the roads internally through gutters, downspouts, pipes, directed to sent. There are proposed three ponds around the site. And there will also be some chambers, which Ms. Elise already pointed out in the presentation. All that water will be directed into those systems. No water will not go outside the property. No water is going to go outside the property. All that water will be collected, captured, collected, sent into the system, then treated. attenuated, and any excess stormwater runoff will be discharged to the river.

Can you say what treat it is? Because I think people don't understand what it means to treat stormwater.

How would you treat it? And then in your presentation, you talked about what you would do with the excess, so if it is so big that it fills the reservoir, where you have someplace that it goes, so where is that?

I'm not sure how much technical you want me to get in here, but just to... Just to right-set this, this is Council's opportunity for questions.

So if you answer just directly exactly what he asked, this is the opportunity to answer council's questions. And then if it has to be further explored, they'll have an opportunity for that in rebuttal.

What does it mean to treat and what does it mean to discharge and where does that go?

So first of all, the design will have to comply with the new state stormwater regulation, right? And that is all based on... pollution performance, BMP, best management practices, right? But the goal will be to abate as much as required phosphorus and nitrogen before it gets discharged into the river. So any pollution that will be generated by the project is going to be retained in the retention ponds and in the chambers, that water is going to percolate and there will be buffles and weirs that will be provided that will retain the water and any pollutants into the property. We will keep those pollutants into the property. Then, and I believe you asked me also about the volume attenuation, so those weirs will hold that water within the property And any discharge to the river will be the acceptable amount of water, and it will not exceed what the property is currently discharging is in current condition, which is green minus previous building that has been recently demolished.

But the water that would be discharged, it would have been cleaned of the phosphates and nitrates.

It will be discharged with the amount of pollution that is allowed by the state, which is reducing, I believe, is 90%. I might have it different, 90% phosphorus and 55 or 80% nitrogen.

If you just built the, however many it was, 16 single family homes, would you have to have this kind of retention system? Would it be the same thing or different?

It will be exactly the same thing. Same amount of field, very similar. And again, we're trying to maintain 50% of the trees. So the retaining wall will have to stay where it is to be able to maintain the green spots. We're going to have to raise the site to be above the coastal floodplain, and we're going to have to be able to locate those chambers underground, which we will need to raise the site to be able to accommodate those systems under the drywall areas.

Okay, thank you. You're welcome. I have a question. In the first iteration of this, did you have the open greens park on the river?

No.

That's what I thought.

So when we moved everything around to get rid of all the waivers, I mean, when I see dozens of iterations of this plan, dozens and dozens of iterations, it was very hard to maintain all the trees. So we ended up taking units away and clustering the green space. So those additions of the dog park, which was units, and separating those two, it allowed us to have the parks.

And that, that seemed to be one of my problems that I had at the first is that you were cutting off access or, you know, to the, to the river there for the red. So with the, with that park there, does the, uh, the land that runs adjacent to the river, is that open to the public or is that sensible or private property?

So actually the three homes that are on the river, right? There's three single family on the homes on the river, but there's a park in between two of those three. And that'll be for everybody for the community, like a community park, but those homes. are actually single-family homes. Mr. Kramer lives just to the south. It's his private property. It will be the private property.

But they'll still have access to the river in that park? Oh, for sure.

Yes, all the residents will.

Okay. Very good. Yes, sir. I thought that was because in the back of my head, I kept thinking you're just cutting off access to everybody. It's a shame not to have that public space.

We learned a lot from the comments.

Okay. Any other questions? Hearing no other questions, it is time for public comment. Did anybody come into the room that has not been sworn in? Everybody's been sworn in. Okay, if you're here to speak to this item, if you would stand to your right, my left, against the wall. behind Carol Ann Bennett there in the green shirt. We will call you up one at a time. Since some of you probably have never come to public comment, how we do this is the microphone is embedded in the podium. You don't see it, but it's there, so you have to face counsel, because that's how your voice is picked up. You'll start off with your name. After you say your name, you'll have three minutes. There's a timer on there. You have three minutes. At 30 seconds, you'll get a yellow warning, and you'll see that you have a 30-second countdown. You still have 30 seconds. When it turns red, your time is up. Okay, first speaker, come to the podium, start with your name, and you'll have three minutes. If you have documents to share, please. A speaker waiver? Okay.

Mr. Chairman, Martin Shelby City Council Attorney, I have Mr. Frank Greco, excuse me, has provided a speaker waiver form with seven names. Could you please acknowledge your name when you hear it? Raise your hand or please say something verbally. Ann Pipkins. Thank you. Donald Lester. Thank you. Richard Lowenthal. Thank you. Pamela French. Thank you. Antoinette Vila. Thank you. Raymond Olar. Thank you. And Mary McCann. Thank you. Seven minutes. Now, when everybody signs a speaker waiver form, they waive their right to speak. So you don't have the opportunity to speak, but you donate an additional minute to the speaker who already has three. So seven plus three equals 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, sir.

Mr. Greco, start with your name, and you'll have ten minutes. My name is Frank Greco, and I am a former employee of the City of Tampa. I was a plans examiner there. And the River Bend Civic Association has also consulted with Ron Giovinelli, a local hydrologist. And so I would like, if you would please, to consider this a substantial and a competent evidence. First of all, I'll start out with the with the flood insurance study, which determines what the zones are for flood zones. And the first is this flood zone of AE. The particular property that we're in question is an AE11, which means that it's 11 feet above the base flood elevation. And in order to build livable space, it has to be 12 feet. You have to add an additional feet. This is a photograph or an aerial view of the property in question. And as you can see, this is the flood zone AE in the blue or green. And that's about 60% of that property. If you wanted to bring in Phil to bring all of that property up to 12 feet above the base flood elevation, this is what you would need.

It might be helpful, sir, if you would do it 90 degrees so that it's... Oh, would you like it this way? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

If you would like to bring that property up to 12 feet, what you would need to do is you would need to bring in one foot of fill here, two feet here, three, four, five, six, seven and so on to bring the property up to 12 feet elevation. This is a map of the 1939 Whelan Creek area. As you can see, this is the creek that runs through the property, and it comes from an area that's close to Havana Avenue. That was from 1939. This is a, um, a regional surface drainage pattern, which shows. From Havana Avenue. This is Havana Avenue at this area. All of the regional drainage runs through this, this Creek or this drainage area down to the river that runs through the subject property. This is an exploded view of that particular drainage pattern. And as you can see, there's a lot of drainage that comes off of the adjacent properties, especially from the north. This is an email from, it's actually a document from the city of Tampa. It's Ben Alshuki, who works for the stormwater department. And what he has identified here is the drainage pattern that goes down to the river. This is a stormwater drainage pattern. up a little bit? Okay. This is a stormwater drainage and as you can see it goes through there and he has stated here no permanent improvements can be placed in the public stormwater easements. I'll go on to an email from Dave Jennings who was the manager of the construction services office a few years ago. He has recently retired. But this is an email from a resident who is in an AE12 flood zone. and asking if they could put in fill. Basically what he says, any fill placed on the lot will require to be placed without affecting surrounding properties. If the surrounding properties shed water to your lot, then you must continue to allow the water to flow to you. This is a site plan of the proposed development. I hope you can see that. This is a site plan of the proposed development and as you can see there is there are properties to the north, which is in this direction. And an explode of that is, And as you can see, these are the drainage pipes from the projects which go out to the river. There is a drainage pipe that actually has no connection to the conveyance system on the property. And also the regional water flow from the properties to the north have no accommodation to flow across the property as what is required to continue to happen. There is a wall there, or it is an increase in fill dirt, which will prevent that from flowing through. Also, there is a stormwater easement that runs along this side of the river. It's documented and in use as we speak today. And there will need to be an easement encroachment waiver that's applied for that. Also, we need to have a hold harmless. FEMA rating is a system which allows a discount to policyholders of the flood insurance program. And the community rating is based on a classification. And the city of Tampa has a five classification, which gives a 25% discount to the policyholders. That 25% discount is based on the compliance to the regulations of FEMA. One of the regulations that I want to address today is category 430. It is the higher regulatory standards which include the development limitations. And what those are is certified by the City of Tampa, and these are all the certifications that the City of Tampa has certified that they are complying with. Basically, the last one is category 430, that we comply with higher regulatory standards. And this form was signed by the Mayor of the City, Jane Castor, and following through, the factors that cause the damage to the area is filling and other developments in the floodplain can reduce storage and conveyance capacity. increasing flood hazards and also filling and construction practices can damage or destroy valuable natural floodplain functions. Higher regulatory approaches that are credited under the CRS rating is prohibited fill, required compensatory storage and also requiring a lower floor elevations to be higher than the base flood elevation protecting buildings. in living spaces. One of the elements of the development limitations is a prohibition or prohibition of fill and that is a maximum credit of 280 points. The use of fill to elevate buildings has advantages that make it desirable for developers and homeowners. However, there are problems with using fill. It reduces floodplain storage capacity, can deflect waves into the neighboring properties, and it has an adverse impact on native vegetation, wetlands, drainage, and water quality. The benefits of using fill accrue to the developer and to the property owner. Conversely, the problems accrue to neighbors, taxpayers, community, the NFIP, which is the insurance program, or the environment. Because filling is not desirable floodplain management activity, this element credits communities that do prohibit fill. One method of offset impacts is to use required compensatory storage, but the compensation storage does not compensate for the adverse impact on other natural floodplain functions. On Chapter 5 of the Building Code in the City of Tampa, the flood-prone areas of the city are subject to periodic indentation which could result in loss of life, property damage, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services. These flood losses are caused in part by the cumulative effect of obstructions and fill in floodplains causing increases in flood heights and velocities. This is an email from J.C. Hudgens, which is the building official for the City of Tampa. And in this email to another group along the river that's trying to protect the floodplain, the City of Tampa is committed to upholding the requirements of the floodplain ordinance, including Section 5-121.222, which addresses the placement of fill and the need for compensation evacuation. The 5-121.222, basically it's development that's permitted outside of the floodways and compensatory excavation shall be taken between the seasonal high water and the base flood elevation and shall not result in adverse impact to the floodplain. And section. Section F. This is the stormwater ‑‑ the Southwest Florida Management District and basically what they have to say about filling the floodplain. It says no net encroachment into the floodplain up to the encompassed by the 100 year event, which will adversely affect conveyance storage water capacity or adjacent lands will be allowed. The land, the fill that they're requiring for this property would be approximately 20,000.

Thank you. Mr. Greco, for the record, could you please cite what you were reading from maybe three citations ago when you were talking about fill, what document that was? Because I think I missed that.

I was reading from the Southwest Florida.

Not this one. Earlier when you were talking about the fill.

And policy on fill? Policy on fill was the FEMA community rating system. That was with the certificate that was signed by the City of Tampa. And next question, would you like these documents submitted for the record? I would. We're going to use them, but they will be submitted after our next presentation.

Okay.

Very good. Thank you. Thank you.

I want to ask him about this. Go ahead.

I know you talked about your credentials in the beginning, but could you just, for the record, in case this ends up in litigation, could you just describe a little bit more about your education, your experience, so that you talked about it a little bit at the beginning. Could you just describe a little bit more of it, please?

Yes, I was an employee of the city of Tampa for 12 years. I worked as a plans examiner, which examined sites. I was also a floodplain manager at the time, certified through FEMA. And my time in service to the city of Tampa was as an examiner for sites, construction, and also as an inspector. I was licensed as an inspector. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker. I don't have to tell you how this is done.

Ms. Bennett has four names. Please acknowledge. Tom Houten. Tom Houten. Is there a Tom? Okay. Thank you. Erin Coulson. Thank you. Kevin Hearn. Thank you. Michael Jeske. Four additional names for a total of seven minutes.

For the last few of you in line, I know this has taken some time. If you want to relax and sit down, you can always come back up. You don't have to be standing. I feel bad if you guys are standing for such a long period of time. So feel free to sit down and you can come back up. I'm not going to close you out with public comments or your comments. So if you feel like you want to sit down and relax for a bit, feel free to. Okay, Caroline Bennett, please start with your name. You'll have, how many minutes did we say? Seven minutes.

Carolyn Bennett. I want to clarify something. We're not worried that the dirt, the fill dirt of the runoff will wash into the river, and we're not concerned that the water that falls on the property will be polluted and washed into the river. We know that that will be contained and treated no matter what is built there. We are concerned because fill dirt causes flooding on adjacent properties. Frank showed you an email from the city confirming that fill dirt can affect surrounding properties, and that, quote, If the surrounding properties shed water to your lot, then you must continue to allow the water to flow to you. Frank showed you how water sheds to this lot and drains to the river. The proposed retaining walls and fill dirt will contain the water that falls directly on it, much like an aquarium. We are not concerned about the pollution from the project. They must contain and treat it no matter what they build. But those walls and dirt will block and redirect the water that currently sheds through the property from adjacent properties and drains to the river. The only proof you need of the dangerous effect of excessive fill dirt is FEMA. FEMA is the authority on flooding, and FEMA gives discounts if a house is built on piers instead of fill dirt, because they know that fill dirt is like a dam. Water backs up against it and is rerouted onto someone else's property. I heard him say that even if they built homes on here, they would have to use fill dirt. Well, that isn't true. They're building three homes on the river, which are going to have to have the highest raise of elevation. They're building them on stilts. They're not allowed to put filled dirt under those three homes, and so they're building those three homes with no filled dirt. The only reason they are using filled dirt on this property is because they want to build townhomes, and townhomes cannot be built on piers like a house can. And the only reason they want to build townhomes is to increase profit. As you heard, the city is trying to upgrade their FEMA rating from a 5 to a 4. If they succeed, everyone in Tampa will benefit with a new discount on flood insurance. One way the city is seeking to do this is by eliminating the use of field It was signed by the mayor. The only reason this project needs fill is because they want to build town homes and the only reason they want to build town homes is to increase profit. The property has a flue of R10. R10 is for single family detached. Sometimes, and only sometimes, town homes are allowed in R10, but only if all the stars aligned and it is a perfect place for them. This is the opposite of the perfect place for town homes. If they build houses, which is what our tent is for, they don't need 200 swimming pools worth of filtered. If they build houses, everything above this line can be built on grade. Everything below this line can be built on piers, just like they're going to do along the river. And if they use piers with minimal fill dirt, they won't need special walls and drainage for the trees, another advantage. This property was zoned RS50 for single family homes when they bought it. The only guarantee they had was houses. Here's their site plan with their retention ponds and green spaces. I moved their road and sidewalk slightly and I reduced the paved road surface by half, another advantage. They admitted they could build 15 to 20 homes on this site. I, not an expert, not a professional, I found 19, 19 homes they could build on this site. And I had space left over. They paid $3.3 million, which at 19 homes is $174,000 per lot. Even if they could only build 15 homes, that's $220,000 per lot. Where can you get a lot that cheaply in the city of Tampa? No place I know. The three large home sites on the river are worth $3.3 million all by themselves. The rest of the land was essentially free. Yes, they have extra expenses for a road and ponds, but that's real estate for dummies 101. You negotiate for what you know you can build. That's due diligence. They didn't know they could build townhomes during negotiation because it wasn't zoned for townhomes, and R10 rarely allows townhomes. That's why they got a bargain basement price on four and a half acres of riverfront property. Many deals like this are on a contingency. A higher price is paid only if a rezoning is approved. They didn't do that. They negotiated the single family fire sale price, and now they are gambling that they can hit the jackpot with a rezoning. But none of that matters. None of it. You are not allowed to consider a developer's profit. I'm only telling you that to put it in perspective. A developer's profit is not competent and substantial evidence. A developer's due diligence or lack of due diligence is not competent and substantial evidence. What you are required to consider is harm to the surrounding area, harm to the flood insurance premiums every Tampa residents will pay, and if we can up our rating, everybody in the city will get a 5% increase discount on their flood insurance and eliminating fill dirt is one of the keys to getting that upgrade in our rating. And you must also consider harm to the environment. The comp plan demands it. Please read the letter from the Sierra Club and deny this rezoning because it will harm many and it will benefit only a few. Thank you. I'm going to submit Frank's documents for the record.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Do you have a copy? How many copies do you have? Do you have eight copies? Thank you. Mr. Kramer has one, two, three, four, five names. Mary Neumeier? Here. Thank you. Gail Harris? Here. Thank you. Paul Boa. Thank you. Larry Shaw. Thank you. Mike Addison. Five names plus three equals eight minutes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Start with your name, please.

You have eight minutes.

Thank you. My name is Henry Kramer. I go by Henry or Hank. I live at 5933 North Rome Avenue, which is a property that borders 6111 North Rome to the southeast corner. Our property also borders 5927 North Rome to the south and to the west. The 5927 property is also owned by 6111 North Rome, LLC. I've pointed out here the locations, if you can see, 6111, 5927, the chocolate brown and diagonal lines, and I'm 5933 placed right there. You may be able to see it better here, this aerial photo, 6111-5927, and down in here, 5933. I'm the president of the River Bend Neighborhood Civic Association, and I make my living as a property and casualty insurance agent specializing in commercial properties. The largest part of my book of business is condominium and homeowners associations, all in the Bay Area. Uh, my efforts include, or are based largely on providing a safe environment, uh, in all instances as a PR as the president and as an, uh, account manager for, uh, uh, insurance programs. I've worked with many developers, including Lenar Westfield, standard Pacific Atlantic Gulf. And that work has included providing cover from land acquisition through construction of the association. So the association turnover. I've not yet experienced a development where risk and loss potential are so magnified and seemingly omnipresent. The impression of this zone request to me is that it tries to do too much with too little space. And there's little substantial difference between this and the original. The reduction in the density comes from having to build bigger garages, primarily. We're exhausted by this project. to be quite honest. And I think your staff is exhausted too. This application has taken longer to get to you than any other application in the city of Tampa that I've ever been involved with. We thought we had a thoughtfully designed project that will be a treasure, a future gem. This is a quote attributed to Ms. Batsell, the lawyer representing the developers as she pleaded with city council in the closing arguments of January 16th, 2025. This is from the Tampa Bay times. Also from the Tampa Bay Times, Kevin Reale, another lawyer from the same firm representing the developers, highlighted the lengthy process of litigating the project. We hired more experts than we ever had used at a zoning, he said. The property, which had previously been the German American Club at Tampa, appeared overgrown and neglected when developers Mize and Sefer brought in 2023. The article goes on to say that the developer has close ties to the largest corporate investors in the state, and specializes in build-to-rent homes. The lawyers also emphasized that the development met every city code. So let's just say that the project was thoughtfully considered and many experts were used by the developer and every code appeared to have been met and we could have said also that their team worked diligently to work on a plan to improve it, as Mr. Mai says in his March 2026 press release. And it might appear to the city departments once again that all is compliant and consistent. However, Frank Greco's team and his committee, along with Carol Ann's work that we've done with others, brings forth new information that cannot be disregarded. We've previously presented photos of localized flooding conditions and I'll now provide them again rather quickly so that you can just see what's happening in the neighborhood. This is a site diagonally across the street from 6111. This is 6402 Rome. This was built in 2023 and unfilled, and it is suffering from that. You can see any of these photos I'm going to show you are all from an X-Zone and all from an August 26, 2024 storm, not Helene and not Milton. So that's the front, and there's water in this house now. They're not happy with what's going on there. Site here is the block behind, still in the 6400 block. Packwood is the street behind. This is localized flooding that happens in any storm. The west side of Packwood. Here's Fern Street that runs east and west, just between the projects. This is North Street looking west, which is the block below. And if you want to know what a dam looks like, Carol Ann just talked about how a wall can be a dam, anything can be a dam. This is a dam right here. This is the PAL site that was authorized to be built in the early 2020s, and it served as a dam that Directed all that flood water all the storm water from off-site onto North Avenue where previously five houses stood these were all knocked down and condemned by the city of Tampa as a result of that flooding here is a photo of the retention pond, the Tampa Armature Works pond is what we call it in our neighborhood. This was built, this is Rome Avenue running outside here. This is 5917, two blocks south of the 6111 site. You can see what's happening here. This is during the construction. They hit the water table right up at the roadside. And that has remained that way. Here's a shot of the very same day down at the east end that shows no water in the facility at all. Currently, this is what the pond looks like now. The bullrushes and the cattails show you... I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. Thank you. So sorry. Yeah. Did I need to back up on anything?

You're fine.

Okay, thank you. So these are the cattails that grow in there even now. And as you can see, the back part of the lake is dry. I wanted to pass this along to you also. This is a photograph taken from my yard on 5933. There I go again. On 5933. into 611 property. That's shot from over my fence, and you know what that is? That's an outflow coming out of the forest main that comes from the lift station across the way. That pipe that was referenced previously runs all the way across and down the river further, but there's a manhole cover here, and this thing spews and blows its top time and time again and And what you're seeing here is the flow coming out. I hate to tell you, but this is the toilet paper and such that comes out. And it comes out at such a rapid force that that's a hole that's been and goes straight to the river. That's not 50, 75, 80 feet to the river. We're going to show you a video of this so that you understand what's going on. The noted inconsistencies with the plan are placed ahead of you, but we got to talk about traffic a little bit. This is the first day of school this year. This is Rome Avenue from Mohawk. There's a school bus. This is from Mohawk looking north. And that's at 8 o'clock in the morning. That's only going to get worse. This traffic is out of control. And the intersection analysis, we disagree with in that it hasn't addressed. Thank you, sir.

Your time has expired. Thank you very much. Thank you. So sorry. That's all right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Remember, start with your name and you'll have three minutes.

I have some videos that I needed to play.

Did you submit them in advance?

I submitted them yesterday.

Okay. Say your name so they know they're pulling up the right one.

Linda Pyraps.

Uh-oh. Here we go.

These four right there. So click on whichever ones you want to start with.

Okay.

Okay, say your name one more time and then we'll start your clock.

Okay, Linda Parps.

Okay, very good, thank you.

I'm starting with the, is my video up?

It'll come up when you click it. Click it twice.

I am.

There you go.

This is the stormwater pipe overflowing into the river. And I should have Hank speaking on here. I should have volume somewhere.

Can you pause for time, please? CTTV, can you come out and help again and make sure we have the volume and everything right? And Linda, would you on the you know how to expand the window on that? See the see the X on the top of the box. Left of the left of the address. Now click the box box to the left of the X. No, no other way.

This is Monday the 11th of September. 2 30 in the afternoon. This drain the sewer has been overflowing. all day just south of Hannah Street at the river.

You can see that the sewer that's the manhole cover blew off.

This is monday the 11th of september 2 30 in the afternoon that's drained the sewer has been overflowing all day Just south of Hannah Street at the river. It's flowing directly into the river.

And this is the... This is more storm water flowing. I believe from adjacent property. Can I move to this one?

Today is April 7th, 2026, just after 9 o'clock in the morning. I'm standing in the easement that services 5927, 5931, and 5933 as a drive. There's a 10-unit building on either side of 5927 driveway here that bisects the property. There's a 10-unit building with associated hard structure. I'm following the rain, the light rain that's coming today down the north side of the property that flows down towards the 5931 building that you're now seeing in a puddle, large puddle that accumulates in front of that house. There's runoff that goes to the south from the south buildings and goes to the wetland and out to the river. The problem is the north side where the water comes fully to the 5931 property and then turns to the north and onto 5933, my property. This water now flows all the way to the north up against the fence that abuts the 6111 north property and the flow of this light rain is going through the property all the way to the fence where it's been necessary to cut a hole in the fence to allow the water to drain back onto 6111 North Rome and out to the river. Obviously this puddle, this runway, this spillway is a danger to the property here and has flowed into the garage and onto the premises at 5933 several times in hard storms. This is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

And that's light rain.

Today is April 7th, 2026, just after 9 o'clock in the morning.

I think that's all I have time for.

Your time has expired. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Steve Hall. I've been... been in the neighborhood for 31 years, and I've been a mailman in that neighborhood for over 20 years. I'm not an expert on all this stuff, but I will talk about the traffic real quick. If you've ever been on 275, you know that in the morning, going down 275, going south, it is bumper-to-bumper traffic. It's horrible. In the afternoon, going north is horrible. Well, Rome is the same way. When they did the study, they specified that they were concerned about how the traffic would flow into Hillsborough Avenue. Well, Hillsborough Avenue is a six-lane highway, basically. So there's really no problem with adding this new traffic with these new this new property. However, what we have there, and I've seen this since I've been here, again, 31 years, it's gotten so that at sly that's our concern going north on sly in the afternoon it's bumper to bumper traffic and people are weaving in and out and going into the neighborhoods trying to take shortcuts and that is our concern our concern is not with hillsborough i think that like hank was saying that study was not really good because it doesn't address our needs our needs are having to do with going north and you can't fix that with some mitigation because how do you mitigate it? Rome is going to stay the same size. Sly. If you've ever driven down Sly, it's bad because people are weaving in and out. Now I deliver the mail there. Most of these people that are in this committee, I met them because I delivered the mail to them. Well, I'm telling you that it is a concern. We don't need to be adding more people. We should stay a little static because of that. If you add a few houses, I don't know, that wouldn't matter. But when you're talking about the number of families, you were talking about two-car garages, the people that live there in those houses, they're going to regret living there because they're not going to be able to go in and out of Rome like you would think you should be able to. You can't because it's bumper-to-bumper traffic. All right. So I asked that you consider this and maybe do a new traffic study because whatever that traffic study is. Worthless. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please.

Good evening.

My name is Carl Bailey. I live at 3609 East Tampa circle.

I have been sworn in and I want to say thank you for everybody. Even counsel for opposition 50 years in the Marine Corps, uh, between my wife and me. It's good to see democracy in action, and I appreciate people doing that. I'm a dumb marine. Boil is simple. This property hasn't been developed because it sits on a ditch. It sits on a creek. And all of the water drains to that creek and into the Elizabeth River and always has. What the applicant is proposing is to go in and fill up that ditch. They'll have to fill it up to 12 feet plus one. And that's going to flood their neighbors because the water won't go down the ditch. There's no accommodation for it. It's going to flood them. That's why, again, as coming from the Sierra club, that's going to create perils for the environment around it. It's also going to create costs for you because you will now be dealing with stormwater drain issues that if you vote for this, you create it. You're going to have more neighbors in here. We're going to have water, more water in their front yards who can't afford to keep their homes because this project pushed the water around. We all know, and Mr. Macy was completely correct for every foot of filter they put in. They've got to dig out a cup to build a pond that is true and accurate. Uh, but you do have as part of your requirements under goal one, the coastal management section, which this is. preserve, protect, appropriately manage the natural resources for the planning area, maintain and enhance environmental quality. To this end, restrict development. Though damage or destroy coastal resources, shall strive to protect human life and limit public expenditures in these areas. Approving this, you're gonna have the community come to you and ask for you to spend more money to deal with the water that is naturally already draining out. Additionally, before I step off, just everyone behind me who is opposed to this development, could you stand up for a second?

No, we don't do that.

You don't do that? Okay, I stand corrected. I think we know where the community stands on this. Again, and it's been since 2005, you have 20 years of consistent messaging from the community across the board. They're opposed to this. If this was by right, no one would be opposing it. If this was what the owner had by right, no one would be in this room except the applicant. Thank you.

Just for clarification for those of you in review, this is a quasi-judicial hearing. It requires competent, substantial evidence. Folks standing in the audience is not competent, substantial evidence, and that's why that was not presented.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Can I make one more administrative thing? Just since we have a lot of people that may not have been here before, when you see us getting in long meetings like this, you'll see us getting up and walking in and out. We have TVs and audio all through the back room there. And so we're paying attention even not actually in the bathroom, but in the hallways and everything. We're paying attention. So if you see us get up, I hope you're paying attention to other things in the bathroom.

We do need a toilet. This is this is we're in a hearing. Okay. We're in a hearing. Calm down. Mr. Shelby, did you have something to add?

I'll make some comments for the record after the public comment. Okay. Thank you.

Yes, sir. Good evening. Phil Compton, 1430 East Park Circle. representing Friends of the Hillsborough River and our 2,000 members here, many of whom live on the river or care about the river. And it's nice to see y'all up here on the dais for me. It's great to see that art back there, Our Home Matters. 20 years ago, when the city started improving to work to restore the river, you would not have seen that. The attitude was very different about the river. The attitude of some city staff was, well, the river's dead, nothing you can do about it, forget about it. Now, thanks to the things you've done, like the fertilizer ordinance and the minimum flow that the water department has been able to maintain through this drought, thank you very much, the river's a place that people want to be on. They want to come to. But also, some things have changed for the worse. The risk of flooding is greater than it used to be, thanks to this risk of storms rising. You all know why, climate change and the fact that we can get 15, 20 inches of rain in one night, that will really wash us all away. We've been working with the city for these 20 years to encourage and support the progress that you've made, but this project would be a step backwards. for this city. This is not the kind of thing that we need to do at this time. Things that we need to do in these kinds of projects is not riprap, you need a living shoreline. That's not included in this project. Increasing the risk of flooding, which naturally, nothing you can do about it, is increasing with climate change. We all need to do our part to maintain the restoration of the river as a place that people want to come to. But we have to be more careful. There's been reference made to the 2005 comp plan and the stipulations and being in compliance with the 2005 comp plan. But like I said, the last 20 years, things have changed. Our perception of the river, our value of the river, and the rules that we have to follow, we have to be much more careful. We could not, we cannot do things now. knowing what's happening, what will happen that we did back then. And that's why we have to make sure that nothing can jeopardize this progress for all of us who live in a city with a river running through it. And that's why we support the position of Sierra Club and the neighborhood that you deny this permit as it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Phil. Next speaker.

Mr. Shea has four names. Michael Koutsoukas. Thank you. Wendy Koutsoukas. Thank you. Tana Koutsoukas. Thank you. And Pro Koutsoukas, if I mispronounced it. I'm sorry. I count four names plus three. That is seven minutes.

Thank you for helping me. It's getting late. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shea. Start with your name. You have three minutes. Thank you. I'm sorry, seven minutes. Seven minutes. It is getting late. You're right. Seven minutes.

My name is Michael Shea, and I live at 6301 Bayshore Boulevard, and I'm a lawyer. But I also studied city planning. And my first job was working for an outfit called the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. And I think that was about 60 years ago. So been around doing this a long time. I wanted to point out a couple of things about this. We talked about the FEMA and the 12 feet. Well, 12 feet is what they have to put the first floor. I live on Bayshore. There's been about six or seven new houses built around me in the last year. Nobody put in fill. We made it at 12 feet. I got flooded. But my first floor is at 12 feet. My garage and all that got flooded. But my house was built after the code was enacted. So the problem here is that the developer hasn't addressed the stormwater runoff to the west and from adjacent properties. And I had the pleasure of representing an old man named Gutierrez in Hillsborough County where he had a house that got flooded because Hillsborough County allowed a subdivision to be built around him, a horseshoe around him. And it flooded because the stormwater flooded his house. He had cows and chickens and all kinds of things. We won that lawsuit. It was appealed. It was approved. And guess what? It was about $400,000. Now, I'm here to tell you that this developer could build some nice houses there. The same group is building to the south of this, the single-family houses. There's a decent property in doing that. So we think that you should help the mayor not allow fills so we all can get better insurance rates. I won't tell you how mine is. And the developer... needs to consider redoing this project. And they've been here twice. They're good people. But they have not addressed the stormwater runoff from adjacent property and from property to the west. This was an old creek. So I would say that even if you want to do this and pass it, I don't think you should, you have the power to put in footnotes to the PUD. I learned that in planning school. You can say, no fill. Go ahead and build. No fill. That'll force them to do things. Or you can say, you've got to have a very limited amount. They're putting in 20,000 square yards of fill. That calculates to 1,250 16-square-yard dump trucks. 1,250. 200, that's a lot of dirt. It would take us 20 days and 62 trucks a day to get that much fill into this project. So I would say that you probably need to deny this because it doesn't meet the present law in the state of Florida for accommodating runoff. There's a lot of case law on that. There's a lot of money being awarded because properties were flooded and it was allowed by the county, city governments. So be prepared for somebody to come along and sue you. Now, I did want to make one thing. I wanted to close with a point of order. I'm 84 years old, but my point of order is that somebody on the city council is older than me. Charlie Yes now my point of order is this I at 84 and Charlie at I think 86 Okay, 85 oh 87 Charlie and I are still vertical we have not gotten horizontal yet and both of us are still doing a pro bono work for the community. I'm here because I'm the executive director of St. Michael's Legal Center, a pro bono agency that gives free service, legal service to the poor and working poor. And Charlie's here because he's a good guy. Thank you.

Up against the wall, sir, did you want to speak? Okay, anybody else in the audience wish to address this public comment? Hearing none, applicant? Rebuttal time.

I'll wait until the completion of the testimony and the evidence and rebuttal.

And, Clerk, do you have the time because we gave her extra time? Yeah.

Okay. If I can, before you begin, I have a question, Ms. Batsel. Yes. You had stated in your letter you had made reference to cross-examination, but you did not renew that. Is it your decision to proceed without cross-examination?

I would like a couple of questions only, very quick questions.

As part of your rebuttal?

That's fine.

I'm just asking. Is it your intention?

It's fine to lump it in with a rebuttal.

You want it to come out of your ten minutes?

I'd love if it didn't, but I will be quick.

It doesn't have to. You're entitled to the cross-examination. Thank you.

I'll be very quick, and then I will. Yes. I think the only question I have for anyone who spoke was for Mr. Greco.

Mr. Greco, would you please come forward?

If I can, Mr. Chairman, rebuttal is certainly permitted. in a proceeding such as this. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The law allows for this, and it should not be prejudicial to the attorney, the applicant, or either party. This is just part of the process. And in order to make this as unconfrontational and as impartial as possible, Ms. Batzel will refer the question to the Board and then Mr. Greco will have an opportunity to step to the podium to respond.

Again, we're doing cross-examination followed by your 10 minutes of rebuttal. Ms. Batzel, would you please address the question to myself, and I will try to relay that back to you.

Certainly. I only have one question, at least Batzel for the record. I only have one question for Mr. Greco. Is he a professional engineer?

Mr. Greco, start with your name, please. My name is Frank Greco, and I'm not a professional engineer.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay. Is that the only cross-examination?

MS. I do have a couple of questions for Danny Collins to clarify something that he mentioned.

Okay. Mr. Collins. MS.

Thank you. I'll be quick.

Take your time.

MS. This is a long one. Do you want to read this or – okay.

You know what? MS. You're not going to repeat it. Just read it to me, and I think Danny Collins can hear it. MS. Yes.

Danny, would it be appropriate to look at the 3.82 dwelling unit average that you have in your staff report in isolation without considering the unique nature of the pocket along Rome Avenue and the future land use designation and development intensity contemplated along North Rome Avenue?

Mr. Collins, did you understand that question?

Yes. Danny Collins with Planning Commission staff, no, it would not be appropriate.

And... Is it also true that R20 and R50 future land use designations along North Rome Avenue contemplate not only greater density but also a range of housing types, including single-family attached, which we are requesting, but also multifamily on this corridor?

MR. Danny Collins, Planning Commission staff, yes, and that is also outlined in our report.

And Danny, one last thing. In the comprehensive plan, and I'll show this later, there is a provision that says that you are supposed to review comprehensive plans in totality and not take any one individual policy in isolation. Is that accurate?

Yes, that's an accurate statement.

And is that what you do as a planner and what you did as a member of the planning commission and coming to you?

One moment, please. Cause I can't hear because we have, I have a sidebar conversation going on. I'm sorry. I'll tell you what it is. Oh, hold on. Hold on. Stop for a second. Okay. We'll pause for a moment.

I asked Marty a question. I said in my 32 years of public service, I have never seen a cross examination between a and B that settled in court, not here. and my i've never seen that i'm not a four or against you or four against them but i have never seen this i understand mr shelby mr shelby if um would you please um respond yes um the courts do allow it i don't have the citation in front of me

But failure to permit that when it's been requested has been a cause of action and litigation.

May I give background that might be helpful? Yes, please. Mr. Miranda, I didn't mention this. I've never seen this. No, no, I didn't mention this because it's not really relevant to this procedure. But we went through another process with these neighbors. And our EPC wetland impact approval was challenged in court. We did prevail. We had many, many of these neighbors sue us. And so I would normally never want to do this. However, I am trying to do the best to represent my client and make sure that I am getting the best information on the record for them.

And Mr. Miranda, as chair, we had received a memo from Ms. Bassel requesting, having this request, and I had consulted with Ms. Shelby prior to this, and this is.

I wasn't privy to that, but I mean, when I saw that, I said, whoa, what am I? I never got to be a judge. We didn't sue anybody. I don't like to do it.

Okay, so let's bring this back in. Also, while we're on the subject, I just want to bring to the council's attention that a very short time ago Councilman Vieira, Louis Vieira, did arrive at City Hall, but quite frankly he did not hear any really evidence of this hearing. So he is not present and he cannot or should not, in my opinion, participate in this. So his absence on the dais should not be construed as anything but him conforming to what his obligation is to listen to the facts and decide this on the basis of competent substantial evidence. MR. Understood. Ms. Betz, I'm sorry for the interruption.

Can you please restate your question?

MS. Yes. This is my last cross-examination question. so mr collins in evaluating consistency and compatibility um of do you consider the broader future land use pattern and development intensity contemplated by the comprehensive plan not necessarily what happens to be there today yes uh that is correct and that's outlined in our report thank you very much that's all i have thank you okay so you're ready for your rebuttal yes okay how do you do start with your name elise batso for the record um i do want to bring bralio back up to answer some of the questions that uh we heard um bralio first of all uh carolyn bennett stated on the record that our project would cause flooding on adjacent properties will our project cause flooding on adjacent properties in your professional opinion when it rains no it will not and no hey

No noise, no clicking, no clapping, no nothing from the audience. We've had an opportunity to speak to this issue. Now it's the applicant's entitlement to be able to do the rebuttal without interruption.

Braulio, one of the, I'm sorry, I don't remember who it was, mentioned that we could go in and build our by-right development on stilts. If we were to go in and submit a permit for that by-right development on stilts, could we meet the stormwater requirements as they exist today?

No, we don't.

Braulio, will our project discharge less on the property than what is discharging today?

Will discharge equal or less?

And can you state, I heard someone mention that we were Hardening the shoreline is that accurate?

No, we're not by APC per B.

We're not allowed to touch the remaining wetland along the shoreline And does or will our project when we go through permitting Have to meet state law swift might requirements someone was mentioning that in order to proceed with development hundred percent correct Thank you. That's all I have Just quickly, there has been a lot of discussion about issues that aren't really relevant to the rezoning tonight. We were, we are happy to answer any questions that you have and continue that. But I just want to reframe what it is that you're considering tonight. You are considering a city council for this rezoning, whether this project is consistent with a comprehensive plan, whether it's compliant with the land development code. And that has to be based on substantial competent evidence in the record tonight. What's for later. What other agencies or the city staff are going to look at at a later date, and there'll be opportunity for people to engage in that as well, are stormwater and flood management issues through permitting. Wetland impacts, that happens through the EPC, although our one wetland has already been approved to be impacted. The use, the amount of fill, that happens through permitting. If Dave Jennings or his predecessor says we're not allowed to fill in this property, we're not allowed to fill on this property. That happens at a later date. We didn't talk about wildlife impacts except for a little bit. That also is not for this council. Michael Yates, can I have you for just a moment? Michael Yates is with Palm Traffic. There was factual testimony on the record that stated that there was a backup at the corner. I think it was going down Rome Avenue. Can you explain that? And could you explain the level of service and capacity, please?

Sure. The questions or the comments that we received were related to Rome and Sly Avenue intersection. We did traffic counts at that intersection both during the a.m. peak hour, 7 to 9 a.m., and the p.m. peak hour from 4 to 6 p.m. And then we analyzed that with peak season traffic, added the project traffic on there. The intersection operates at a level of service C. The level of service standard is D. So it is operating better than the level of service standard requirement of the city of Tampa. So every movement in there operates with a V over C volume to capacity less than one. And the only reason we had a mitigation at that intersection is because there is a level of service E related to delay at a signalized intersection.

Okay, great. Thank you. Oh, one more thing. I forgot my train of thought, so sorry. I'm moving on. I do quickly wanna talk about wetland preservation just for, we are preserving the wetland that you see in green. If you could put that back up, thank you so much. Preserving that wetland, that includes a 25 foot wetland setbacks on the property. I want to talk about what competent substantial evidence we actually heard tonight regarding stormwater and fill just from a factual basis. I want you to know that we, when I see redesigned so many times to accommodate all of these concerns, this has been a very expensive process to come to you with no waivers and with a site that is going to work and function and save all the trees. Um, we still did the single family homes. We worked with Dave Jennings at the time and commissioned a voluntary study. which is in your record that says, where is it appropriate and safe to place fill and where is it not? And we are following those. We have agreed to, to follow those again, stormwater and fill are not before you today. They are permitting issues, but we want to make sure that we, you hear that we're listening to the neighbors. And so in that regard, Um, we want to propose three conditions that relate to stormwater. The purpose of this is really to take the permitting regulations that we have to follow and create zoning conditions so that the community knows that they can now enforce this. If we don't do this through a permit, they can come back and they can come to the city and say, they're not following their zoning because now this becomes a protection in the zoning. The first one is that the project shall utilize pervious pavement for all internal streets. and visitor parking areas. The second is that the project shall not cause water quality impacts to Hillsborough River, water quality impacts to adjacent lands, flooding to offsite properties and impacts to existing surface water runoff and conveyance. This is what Smith mud requires, but we're putting it into a condition to give comfort to the neighborhood that we're going to do what we say here today. And finally, in accordance with that certain flood resistant development site assessment, that's what's in your record that Dave Jennings asked us to do. We will not place fill below the elevation that's prohibited or not recommended in that particular study. You want to submit these to the record? Yes, please.

So for the record, Kevin Reilly with Stern Zuber Miller. Also, that fill line, just so you all understand what that means, that five elevation is east. It's riverside of the single family homes. And one of the other things that we did with this redesign was move the fill to the west side of the single family homes. So those homes could comply with that study and still be created with fill and to help with these concerns, the retaining wall and the fill was moved east, sorry, was moved west away from the river on the other side of those homes.

I just want to ask a question about Phil.

I'm not a genius at this, and I don't say I'm an engineer or nothing like that, but when I come hearing what you're saying and hearing what is going on in next week's hearing that you're not involved and we are about those vaults are going underground, why don't you vault the place then?

We are.

Yeah, so the problem with, you can't vault without the fill here because of where the water table is. So, and Brawley, you can come up and confirm this, but the fill is required to control the stormwater on site, and the fill also directs the water to those vaults. So right now, the low point for the whole neighborhood, everything flows towards the river, and that's still going to do that, right?

You just said if everything was, if you were to fill, everything would go into the vault if it was there.

And then it goes to the river. Why not do that? Along with the filling.

That's what we're doing.

I'm sorry, I don't.

He's asking why we're not vaulting the retention.

That is what's happening. The fill will include the vaults.

Do you have the site plan? Sure.

Great idea. Hey, Ryan, do you have that site plan? Or did you give it to me?

I have it here somewhere.

Here, if you could put the presentation back up. Would you like to see where the vaults are located, sir?

It's on here. I can show this. Since there's a question, why don't we get that on the screen?

Thank you.

So...

This site plan here, these lines here are the pipes that convey stormwater. And then these sort of T-looking E things, that represents where the vault will be located. That's the boundary of a vault. And so that was one of the interesting things from Mr. Greco's presentation, is he said, oh, there's a pipe that goes nowhere. No, that pipe goes between vaults. There's a vault between my fingers here, and there's a vault between my fingers here.

Did you see the vault?

No.

Okay, that's the last warning. If there's an interruption in the audience, I'm going to ask you to leave, okay? You should be out of order.

Actually, this printout from the presentation shows the same thing, but the red, so not the ponds, but these other pieces, the red shows approximately where the vault is, and that wasn't the intent of this exhibit, but you can see how the pipes connect the vaults. All of those are connected.

I see the red lines, but I don't see where it says vaults.

It doesn't. It's those things that are circled in red that are long and skinny and aren't colored blue. I know it's really hard to see because the color doesn't come out. But those are the locations of the stormwater vault.

Right.

And just to be just to be clear, this is the general plan of how the conceptual plan of how the stormwater system will work. We still have to put together full sets of construction drawings at the permitting stage. that are gonna detail all of this. And all of the engineers at the city and all of the engineers at SwiftMUD are going to go through these at the fine tooth comb to make sure that we're meeting each and every regulation. In fact, Mr. Greco, when he came up and he was citing a bunch of regulations, some of those are not applicable to us, but some of them are. And we're gonna have to comply with all of those regulations. when we go in to permit this site. And so again, this is not an engineer drawing. This is a rezoning plan, but we're trying to provide information the best we can.

Okay. Councilman Carlson has a question, then we'll get back to your rebuttal.

No, I maybe probably would answer this, but the the I know it's not completely designed yet, but these faults, what's the what do you what would you design the capacity to be and how does that compare to what you think the water will be in a heavy rainstorm on this? Thank you.

I always forget that. Braulio Grajales, High Point Engineering, for the record. So we have consulted formally with the Water Management District, or SWFMOD, twice in formal pre-application meetings. So the system that we currently show and volts and bonds will be designed to attenuate for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, we're going to start with your name and then we're going to resume your rebuttal time.

Elise Batsel, Stern Sweaver Miller. I just want to make a couple other comments based on things that the community said. Hank mentioned build-to-rent communities. This is not a build-to-rent community. This will be a platted townhome and single-family detached units along the river, single-family fee ownership development. Also, Mr. Kramer showed you where there is a easement that comes across the property and what's happening on his property. That is an easement that goes across our property and we are not touching that easement. We will not affect anything that's happening right now. Obviously, that's an existing condition, not something that relates to the development at all. But just to put on the record, we aren't touching that easement area, we're not building in that easement area, and that will continue to flow exactly like it does today. We have to do that because there's an easement. And the very last thing I want to say about stormwater is your city stormwater, Charlie Rodriguez, he reviewed these plans to make sure that at the rezoning level, these plans are in compliance with the city regulations, and he did find that those are consistent. And finally, I would just like to say, now that I've heard all this testimony and seen these pictures and thought about it from their perspective, understand right there is a lot of flooding in their neighborhood right now and I would be upset and I would be concerned and I would want all the details at this stage and I'm sorry that we can't provide fully engineered plans yet but we did do a lot of pre engineering work in order to work with the neighborhood and try to give them information that gave them comfort and hopefully that these conditions that we have offered will give an extra step. And there's many, many more processes to go through before this is ever built. But I do want to say that. And I think that Dan and Jay, who are the developers there here, would say the same thing. We really did work in good faith to try to make this the best development possible to address the concerns and then address as many concerns that weren't even relevant to the rezoning as we could. Thank you very much for your time.

And that concludes your presentation and your rebuttal?

Yes, it does. We're available for questions.

Okay, great. Does Council have any questions? Okay, would you like me to close? No, I'm sorry.

I just want to know if you've received that letter from the... I would have to object. I'm sorry. That part of the presentation...

We have a motion to close from Councilwoman Herchak and second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Ayes have it. Mr. Shelby. Martin Shelby, City Council Attorney. Council, you have in front of you, as I customarily do, provide you with the plan development, the PD code criteria. The one page, one side of it is related to 27-139 sub 4. That's the waivers. That is not applicable, as you heard from the testimony, or from the staff report. There are no waivers involved in that. So that is really not relevant to this hearing. On the other side is 27-136. the purpose and you have items one through nine and my suggestion to you is that you review those and make certain findings based on the competent substantial evidence that you've heard in the record. Again, you have heard people who have identified themselves as experts and whether you'd recognize them. Please be advised that the opinion of experts is competent substantial testimony, but the opinion of lay people who are not experts is not competent substantial testimony. However, the facts that they raise If you make certain findings of fact based on their testimony, then that can be used as confidential evidence in your decision. That being said, if Council wishes to review those, you also have been provided in the course of this by staff reports, by the Planning Commission, the comprehensive plan, And, uh, also the city's code. Um, and I would suggest that you do, um, certainly when you make your motion, um, you base it on the competent substantial evidence and you make that clear for the record. And as well, if there are other council members, other than the maker of the motion who have facts that they want to include in the record that you don't miss an opportunity to. support the motion by adding factual basis. And if there is a discussion otherwise, then you can do so as well. Thank you. Let me clarify something.

I want to just clarify something for the public because I'm sure there were some people that wanted to interject. I want to make sure you all... So the public hearing is closed. We're not taking any further testimony, so no other evidence will be submitted for this hearing. The reason why... I've made these motions and had this discussion with y'all about you not being able to do it. This is a quasi judicial hearing. It is governed by law and procedure. And there, there's a, it is an orchestrated production, a beginning, a middle and an end that is that we follow these rules and procedures. And it's very important in a quasi judicial procedure that council follows those. So whatever decisions that we make, they are, they are upheld further down the line. So if we were to waiver from those procedures, it would jeopardize our position and our findings. Okay. Okay. Uh, councilwoman Hertzhard.

Thank you. Um, I'll just make a motion and I'll tell you why. I move to deny REZ 26-57 for the property located at 6111 North Rome Avenue due to the failure of the applicant to meet its burden of proof to provide competent and substantial evidence that the development as conditioned and shown on the site plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan and city code. Mainly, that it's not even comprehensive plan and city code, it's the plan development code criteria. This does not, section 27-136, subsection 6, it does not promote and encourage development where appropriate in location, character, and compatibility with the surrounding impacted neighborhood, built environment, and existing geography. It also does not maximize, subsection five, does not maximize the preservation of natural resources such as streams, lakes, flood plains, groundwater, wooded areas, uplands, and areas of unusual beauty or of importance to the natural ecosystem, open space, green space, and historical and archeological sites. It also does not, subsection one, promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure with careful consideration of potential adverse impacts to onsite natural elements surrounding impacted neighborhoods and cultural resources. Second.

I have a motion from Councilwoman Hurtek, a second from Councilman Maniscalco. Let me explain why.

I understand that there's a lot of conversation about water tonight, but that's not what this was about to me. This is a density issue. This neighborhood is not ready for this much density. All you have to do is look around it. Yes, the parcel south of that has already been rezoned for RS 35. They are building to that. The rest of the community is not ready for it. And the density that is there and for anyone to say that it is remotely close is wrong.

You know, I'm not sure that because This is one of those ones when you think you're going one direction and then you hear the evidence. I wanted to be there too, but I found that the competent substantial evidence during the hearing about the density, and they talked about the mobile home parks to the south, they talked about the apartment complex, that this built environment is already there, that the surrounding density is already there, that it's already in that direction.

But it is not. It is in these super small spaces. And what this will do, will intensify density throughout the rest of that part of the river and the neighborhood surrounding it. This part of the city, I mean, you all really support South Tampa, no more density there, but this could stand density, but much lower density. Like we're going from one thing to 40 houses. That's not appropriate. growth of density for that property. And that is the issue. The issue isn't no development. The issue is it can't handle that much development compared to what's around it. And if you want to just look at two pieces, that's not. You have to look at what's surrounding it. The surrounding prevailing growth in that area is single family.

Councilman Moran, did you wish to speak? No, I'm just, I understand what she's saying and I understand what the neighbors are saying, I understand what the petitioner's saying, and there's something in zoning that we don't even look at, and that's the quality of life of the people. And I'm not talking about this zoning, I'm talking about all zoning in this city. We're getting to the point now, we don't have the land anymore, we got 3.5%, 4% left left, and it's getting harder and harder to get these things across, and the public is getting more and more frustrated with the system, not necessarily us, but with the system that we have. That's how it is. It's not based on anything else other but a fact versus another fact, not about the human lifestyle of the neighborhood.

Well, and the quasi-judicial hearing that we're talking about. I didn't say it isn't.

I'm just saying what I see on the street.

Mr. Shelby.

Uh, just a reminder council, once again, to take a look at one through nine. And if you have findings of fact that you want to make that support your position relative to whether it meets this criteria, that is something you can base your decision on. Uh, just as you heard during the hearing, uh, people standing up and voting with their feet to say whether they support or don't support is not competent, substantial evidence. And so my recommendation- I didn't say that. No, no, no, but no, I'm not referring to you, Mr. Miranda, specifically. What I'm saying to you is you heard a lot of testimony. Within that testimony, there may be differences, but you as the finders of fact can make a determination as to whether the facts as you find them to be that are competent, which means they're relevant and material, and they're substantial, which is not beyond a reasonable doubt, it's not clear and convincing, it's not preponderance of the evidence, it's just substantial. That's what the courts say. If that finding meets the criteria or does not meet the criteria, that could be the basis upon which you make your decision.

And I think that's kind of the crux of where I'm at on this as far as like going into this thinking one thing and coming after hearing the confident substantial evidence feeling somewhat where the applicant made a compelling case on the competence substantially, not whether I like it or dislike it. Would I rather it be a park? Yes. But that's not what we're here to talk about tonight. You know, it's it's and then I and honestly, they also came to force with that with the last one. And they clearly listened to us because they did make a lot of the modifications we asked for. They retain the trees. They they improved. They did the garages the way we asked. They've got access to the river that they didn't have before, which was one of my big concerns. They pushed the fill back beyond that wall. And then the concession, which I know that Miss Bessel reiterated, would they be required to any by way by swift mud and other regulations, but to be able to stipulate that to the site plan really kind of is above and beyond. And as far as like some peace of mind on the water flow issues that were our concerns, I know a lot of our concerns was the water coming across Rome last time through the property. Um, and if they're not affecting, if they've, if they've made those concessions and they're going to stipulate that, that this is going to be attached to that and there would be real recourse if, if, if something happened at councilman Carlson. Yeah.

Um, I, I think, um, there's competent substantial evidence to say no. Um. The proposal is many times better than it was last time. The developers taken a lot of effort to listen to us and the community and take out many of the things that we would have objected to. I'll say this until Marty cuts me off but you know the choices after this for the is that the the developer will either appeal and it'll end up in litigation or they may use live local. I don't know if they can use it here. The state has preempted us so that there are places in South Tampa where neighbors now wish they had gone back to the original proposal of the developer because what they're getting is a lot worse that the state is allowing huge monolithic buildings. And then and then the other thing is you they can come back and work with the community again. And if they work with the community again and they resolve some of these other issues, it's going to be tough. And so if they go back, I would encourage the community to work with them. Near my house, there was a proposal years ago for a condo building, and my neighbors didn't want the condo building. We rejected it. Now there's a car wash there. And if they could go back in time, they would get the condo instead of the car wash. And so... There the state is limiting us more and more and what we can do going forward and we can we can justify I think saying no this time, but they Going forward it's going to be it is especially if they take away some of these other objections.

It's going to be hard to say no Mr. Chairman, can I inquire of the clerk? Pardon me Did the applicants representative submit for the record that voluntary conditions to be added to the site plan. Do you have that in the record? In the testimony? It's in testimony. And it was, and it was, but it wasn't submitted into the record, but it was placed on the screen. Is that correct? Yes.

We have a motion on the floor to deny right now. I don't see how that's relevant. Can we please vote on this? And if it doesn't pass, then we can consider next steps.

No, no, no. I just wanted to be clear for the record. No, no, no. Do you have something from the applicant in the record that says voluntary If you don't, I mean, I could reopen it and we could ask that. But no, I don't want to reopen it. I just want to be clear.

I think the testimony was clear.

The testimony was clear, but the action was not reflected in the record. I just want to be clear for the record. Okay. I don't see that as put into the record. I'm sorry.

I'll let this go. I just want clarification. Thank you. From the position of the chair, if this motion was to pass, then it's moved anyway. If this motion were to not pass and we were to move forward, it could be a stipulation to the approval that that was added to the site plan. Okay. So I have a motion to deny from Councilwoman Hurtek. I have a second from Councilman Escampo. Clerk, would you please call the vote?

young emotions yes and to particularly as we're you know going through the the criteria for me it's really section five maximizing the preservation of the natural resources i can appreciate you know Both sides. But for me, just as we're talking about just denial, that would be my reason just to explain why.

Carlson? Yes.

Miranda? Yes. Maniscalco? Yes. Hertek? Yes. Clendenin?

Yes.

Okay. Motion carried with Vieira absent.

Okay, it is 9.01. We're going to take a nine-minute break. Let's be back at 9.10.

Also, counsel, before you do that, just a reminder, there is an appeal period, so please do not discuss this with the press and with the public. Thank you.

Thank you. I think so. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I wouldn't develop one.

One snack after the other.