City Council - Regular Meeting

you

The broadcast is now starting. All attendees are in listen only mode.

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to a crowded Tampa City Council Chamber this evening. Glad to have you with you. See, it's good to share the pain. Have you guys here with us all this evening? I'd like to call this meeting to order and ask the clerk to call the roll.

Miranda. Here. Maniscalco. Here. Hertek. Here. Virtually. Young.

Here.

Vieira. Here. Carlson. Here. Clendenin.

Here.

We have a physical quorum.

Councilwoman Hurtek is participating virtually this evening. Can I get a motion to allow the person to sit? Second. I have a motion from Councilman Carlson, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it.

Aye. And Chair Clendenin, I just wanted to say that I'm participating virtually today because I'm not feeling well. So I just wanted to make sure. But I am here and I am listening.

You are and you are always.

Very good. Mr. Chairman, if Martin Shelby, City Council Attorney, if I may follow up. Because we have quasi-judicial hearings tonight, we are going to take the official vote as a roll call vote. So Councilwoman, just so you know, when you are not visible on screen, people may not know whether you are or are not participating. So to the degree that you can be on the screen, that would be great.

I don't anticipate being off the screen. Wonderful.

And just be sure, please, make sure you're heard to be recognized if there's something you wish to have the chair recognize. And we'll do the roll call vote so we can record your vote separately. Thank you.

Great. Thank you.

Okay, I'll kick off the agenda review. Can I get a motion to remove items 11 and 12 since both of them were misnoticed? I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilwoman Young. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. That is our most simple vote tonight. Everything else is going to be a roll call vote. So I understand that we have a couple of requests for continuations. Would you like to do those?

Yes.

Go ahead.

Good evening, Council. Brea Dixon, Development Coordination. Since we just removed two items, we only have two more items to clear from the agenda. Agenda item number seven, file number REZ2676. The applicant is requesting a continuance in the waiver of 180 days. If granted, the item will be continued to the November 12th, 2026 hearing. The applicant sent the email request today. Staff confirmed space on the agenda, which should be the pleasure of council.

A question. Do you know if this is the first continuance on this item?

It is the first continuance.

I need a motion to waive the 180 days and the motion to continue to November 12th. Okay, I have a motion from Councilman Vieira. I have a second from Councilman Miranda. What was it? Mr. Shelby.

Date, time, and location.

So 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602, and that is at 5.01 p.m. on November 12, 2027. I have a motion. I have a second. Roll call, please.

Miranda? Yes. Maniscalco? Yes. Hurtek? Yes. Young? Yes. Vieira? Yes. Carlson? Yes. Clendenin? Yes. Motion carried unanimously to continue item seven.

Thank you. Next. The next item is item number 10, file number REZ2663. The applicant is requesting a continuance and waiver of 180 days. If granted, the item will be continued to the November 12, 2026 hearing. The request was received by staff in time. Okay.

Item number 10, I need a motion to waive the 180 days and then a continuation to November 12th, 2026. Okay, I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, a second from Councilman Maniscalco.

A question, is this also the first continuance on this item? First continuance. Thank you.

So we have a motion to continue this to November 12th with the waiver to November 12th, 2026 at 5.01 p.m., 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33606. Clerk, call the roll, please. 33602. I'm sorry, 33602. I just gave my own zip code.

Carlson? Yes. Miranda?

Yes.

Meniscalco? Yes. Hertek? Yes. Young? Yes. Vieira? Clendenin? Yes. Motion carried unanimously to continue item 10.

And that concludes your agenda? Yes. Okay. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. I have a motion from Councilman Miranda, second from Councilman Maniscalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Yes.

Aye.

Thank you so much. Okay. Mr. Shelby, would you like to read your...

Yes, Mr. Chairman. This evening it was asked that I bring to council and the peoples the public's attention just a few rules regarding quasi-judicial hearings. And rule 6G states as follows, all persons who provide testimony, information or opinion regarding a petition in a quasi-judicial matter pending before city council must disclose any direct or indirect business or personal interest between themselves and the petitioner or applicant which is requesting action. The information shall not be used to deny the petition or the matter but goes to the weight of the evidence, information or opinion provided. Also, one other thing, actually two other things. Rule 6 states as follows. No request for a continuance by the applicant to a petitioner shall be granted at a quasi-judicial public hearing after the applicant petitioner has completed its initial presentation unless upon determination by city council that it is necessary for purposes of procedural due process. And the last thing that I've been asked to remind the public of is please do not display any signs or graphics or anything that would be distracting during the meeting. If you do wish to show anything to the council, it would be during your time at the lectern. And if you have any product or evidence or testimony that you wish to give at that time, that would be the appropriate time to display it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And since we have a lot of new people this evening in the audience, I know when you come up at your turn again after each one of the public hearings, you'll have an opportunity for public input. If you've never been here before, you're addressing city council, usually you're facing this way, just like she's facing there. The microphone is embedded into the podium. When you start, whatever you have to say, start with your name. Always start with your name, and there's going to be a light on the podium. It'll turn green. At that point, you have three minutes to complete your statement. At 2 1⁄2 minutes, it will turn yellow. That's telling you you have 30 seconds to wrap it up. Once it turns red, you're done. You need to stop and go back and take your seat. Okay, very good. Would you like, Mr. Shelby?

One last thing. Thank you for reminding me, Council. If you have a speaker waiver form, which is available outside, then what that does is that allows people who are present in the room to waive their three minutes to grant the speaker an additional minute. Seven people can sign that form giving up their three minutes to allow the speaker to have a total of 10 minutes. That's per council's rules. And at that time, if you do have a speaker waiver form, please approach and give me the form. so I can call the names of the people on the list to make sure that you're here and present and you waive your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Can I get a motion to open the public hearings, please? Move to second. Motion of Councilor Miranda, second of Councilor Menescalco. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, ayes. Aye. Have the public hearings are open and kick us off.

All right. Brea Dixon Development Coordination. Agenda item number one is REZ 2620. The request is to rezone 4701, 4708, 4710 West McElroy Avenue from RS 75 residential single family to PD planned development residential single family. Oh, okay.

I'll do that after she finishes.

detached and semi-detached. I will now turn it over to Planning Commission.

Okay, let's pause here for one second and let's swear everybody in. If you are here this evening to provide public testimony to any of the cases tonight, because these are all quasi-judicial, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. So if you're here to speak tonight, please stand, raise your right hand, and be sworn in by our clerk. Even if you don't think you're going to, go ahead and do it. Let's get it out of the way just in case. Thank you very much. Oh, no, that was Chris. Thank you, Chris.

You earned your paycheck tonight.

Okay, go ahead.

Good evening, Council. Megan McCarthy is sworn in with your Planning Commission staff. This is the case 2620 located within the South Tampa Planning District and the Gandy Sun Bay South neighborhood. The subject site is within evacuation zone A as well as the coastal high hazard area. The surrounding area contains a mixture of residential and commercial uses. There are commercial uses to the north along West Gandy Boulevard, which is a transit emphasis corridor. Along Southwest Shore Boulevard are multifamily and commercial uses. Directly to the north is a multifamily apartment complex within the residential 20 designation. To the east is an established single family neighborhood. The subject site is within the residential 10 future land use designation. To the west of the site along Southwest Shore Boulevard is within the community mixed use CMU 35 future land use designation. And to the north are residential 20 designated lands developed as a multifamily apartment complex. Planning Commission staff find the proposed PD would provide an appropriate transition between the commercial development to the west and multifamily development to the north and the established single family neighborhood to the south and east. The proposed development orients the front entrances of all units towards West McElroy Avenue with pedestrian connections to the public sidewalks consistent with the comprehensive plan direction. Planning Commission staff finds the request will provide additional housing within proximity to local transit emphasis corridors and transit opportunities and supports comprehensive plan policy to direct residential growth to an area with existing infrastructure services and employment opportunities. Based on those considerations, Planning Commission staff find the request consistent with comprehensive plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Council have any questions? Hearing none, go ahead.

Bria Dixon, Development Coordination. We'll start with an area view of the subject parcels. As you can see here, there are three parcels. Each are outlined here in red. The subject parcels are fronting West McElroy Avenue and they are just east of Southwest Shore Boulevard. The subject property is surrounded by single-family detached dwellings with RS-75 zoning to the south as well as to the east. And there's a warehouse over here on the left as a planned development. To the north, there's another planned development for a Walgreens pharmacy. And immediately north, there's also our M-16 zoning designation for single-story attached units. Here are site plans as provided by the applicant. You can see here, those are the semi-detached units, units one, two, three, and four, units five, six, and seven are single-family detached units. The applicant proposes two two-story, Semi-detached dwellings totaling four dwellings, and then one single-story and two two-story detached dwellings for a total of seven dwellings. The semi-detached units will provide single-car garages and one single-car driveway, while each single-family detached residence will propose a two-car garage and two-car driveway. Access for each unit, as you can see here, is on McElroy Avenue, and the proposed maximum height is 35 feet.

Here are elevations.

These are the elevations of units one and four from the north, the south, the east, and the west. For five and six units, two-story single-family detached, this is north, south, east, and west. And lastly, here is the single story from the north, the south, the east, and the west. I also have some photos of the subject property. Again, it is three properties, so there are, sorry, three parcels, so there are quite a few photos. This is subject property one, parcel one, parcel two, parcel three development to the south additional development to the south development to the north these are the multi-family sorry the semi sorry the attached dwellings to the north and then this is single-family detached to the east as well as that commercial development to the west There are no requested waivers. The development review and compliance staff has reviewed the petition and finds the request consistent with the applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. Should it be the pleasure of council to approve this application, further modifications to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading, as stated on the revision sheet. I'm available for any questions.

Council have any questions? Hearing none, thank you. Applicant?

Good evening, Council. My name is Alex Rios with Rios Architecture, and I'm here to present this case on behalf of the petitioner. The request before you is to rezone these three parcels from RS-75 to PD to allow for a seven-unit residential development. The subject parcel is surrounded by more intense commercial and multifamily zoning to the west and north, and this design intentionally responds to that transition and intensity. The more intense development is concentrated towards the west with the development gradually transitioning to larger lots and lower-scale residential development towards the east. The two western lots contain semi-detached townhomes that are compatible in lot width, setbacks, and height regulations for RM zoning standards, while the remaining lots transition to two-story and single-family detached homes consistent with the surrounding RS zoning districts. You can see that transition here with the two semi-detached structures, single-family detached, two-story, and one single-story detached home. Here is a diagrammatic schematic rendering of that transition with the, let me zoom out just a little bit, with the townhomes, single-family homes, and a part of the single-story shown in this image. From a natural resources standpoint, the wider eastern lot also helps preserve several existing on and off-site trees that are located there. Following a conversation with a neighboring property owner to the south, we are also proposing to locate a required tree mitigation along the south property line to provide privacy. We recognize that stormwater is critically important to South Tampa. We work with staff to establish a schematic stormwater approach that began with limiting total impervious area per lot to no greater than 55%. We also performed a percolation test and established an existing water table to design a large, shallow retention area that demonstrates schematic compliance with the applicable stormwater requirements.

That is located in the back right here.

This application proposes no waivers and we are happy to see staff's consistent finding. We respectfully seek your approval. Thank you. Chair Greg Musil.

Does Council have any questions? Hearing none, thank you very much. Anybody in the public wish to speak to item number one?

Good evening, Stephanie Pointer. I've never talked to Mr. Rios, never heard from him. He's never called me. I checked my phone unless I'm totally wrong. Now, I did talk to somebody about these lots a long time ago, and it may have been the actual developer. I don't know. But bottom line is I haven't heard from anybody in the last 60 days about this. Now, here's my problem with this project. Overall, I don't have an issue with it, but When everybody starts screaming and hollering about single family attached, which is really what we call in the real world a duplex. Let's just call it what it is. It's a duplex. And this right here is exactly why people don't like duplexes, because they go in and they build over 50% impervious service. So all the duplexes, the two duplexes, are over 50% impervious surface. Why don't they have to follow the same, they're single family, why don't they have to follow the same stormwater requirements as a single family detached? I don't understand it. It makes no sense to me. This area right here, one of the big reasons why I don't have a problem with it is these people, these properties are all owned by the same folks, and they took on a hell of a lot of water during the hurricanes. So these people lost all their homes, their rentals and the one they lived in, and I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is is continuing to make the problem worse by you're building this all up. So where's the water gonna go? It's gonna go to the people to the south of them, to the east of them. And then on top of that, we're not even building it less than 50% impervious surface. How's that work? But like I said, I don't have a problem with building seven houses there because these lots are huge. I went up there and took a look at it. I knew the people who owned the place. But when I look at this, it just makes me sick. Why don't we have the same stormwater standards? If you're going to call it single family, attached, detached, semi-detached, it should still be 50% no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Because I don't care how big a vault they build, they're not going to hold three feet of water. Thank you.

Okay. Online, we have Linda Erickson. Linda, are you there? I'm here.

Can you hear me?

I can, and we need to have you sworn in. I don't see you, though. No, I don't know.

I can't seem to get the camera to work.

Unfortunately, this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and we have to be able to see you to be able to take your testimony.

How do I get the camera to work? Oh, my goodness.

Clark, do you see an issue on our end? No, they seem...

It says go to can't access my camera and I don't know why. I hit activate camera.

Click the camera icon.

Which one? Down below?

I'm not familiar with the computer that you're on.

It won't click. The mic will click but the camera won't.

You see an icon on the very bottom of your screen?

Yes. and it says camera, click to view, and it's not doing it. Activate camera. I don't know what to do. Activate cameras, okay? Can you see me now?

No.

I live directly behind them. I need to talk, so I don't know what to do.

Unfortunately, Mr. Shelby, go ahead. If I can, these are council's rules with regard to that. I'll cut to the pertinent section. Persons needing assistance should contact the Office of the City Clerk, but it says after that, participants appearing virtually assume the risk of any technology issues that may be related to the incompatibility or failure of their equipment, which prevents them from being seen and heard or to see and hear others. If, during the course of the hearing, an applicant or property owner determines that the use of communications media technology presents an issue that may impact their due process rights, it is incumbent upon them to raise an objection during the hearing. So should they fail to do so, any such claim is waived. I heard the speaker say that she lives directly behind them. Did she state her name for the record? She did. If she could state her name for the record, please.

Yes, I live directly behind them and their property floods and floods my backyard. Okay, and my privacy will be gone. I am a widow Can you say your name, please? My name is Linda Erickson E-R-I-C-K-S-O-N.

Okay, stop right there. I'll get back to you in a second. Mr. Shelby Miss Erickson My rule is that unless her camera works.

That is usually the standing rule here.

You can state your objection because of the technology issue, Ms. Erickson. But unfortunately, we would not, because of our rules on this procedure, to be equitable, we have to enforce our rules of procedure. And I would say we cannot take your testimony unless an attorney gives me another advice. How about for the city attorneys? Do you have any advice? FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE?

IF I CAN BEFORE MS. WELLS WOULD SPEAK. JUST A REMINDER, COUNSEL, AND THIS WOULD ALSO BE TO MS. ERICKSON, THAT SHOULD THIS CASE CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD AND PASS FIRST READING AT THIS HEARING TODAY, IT WILL COME BACK AT WHAT WOULD BE THE DATE OF THE IT WOULD COME BACK DURING THE DAYTIME AT at ten a m on october first for you to have another opportunity to speak to this do you understand what i'm suggesting that if you can't make it today to give your testimony then you could come back, assuming this does move forward, on October 1st at 10 a.m. at the second public hearing, which is another full public hearing, which would give you that opportunity to give your testimony. Do you follow what I'm saying?

Yes, I follow exactly what you're saying.

Okay. If you have any questions, please contact the clerk's office at the City of Tampa to assist you. And maybe they can put you in contact between now and then with members of the CTTV that would be able to help you work through your problem. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you wish to hold this for a little bit, and perhaps that could be done.

I mean, no, I don't, actually. But, Ms. Wells, does the city confirm, concur with that decision? Okay, very good. Just want to make sure we're in a defensible position. Okay, so again, we've noted your objection. You'll have an opportunity to speak. If this item moves this evening, you will have an opportunity to speak again, and I appreciate it, Ms. Erickson. You have a good night. Take care.

If I get it working, can I talk then?

No. On October 1st, when the issue comes back before us, you'll have an opportunity to speak. Okay? Very good. Have a good night. Thank you. Sorry you're having the technical difficulties. Okay, applicant, would you like a rebuttal? Or is there anybody else in the audience that wishes to speak to this item before I close it? Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, I'd like to speak to that. I think the major initial concern is stormwater. I did do perform outreach. I have some emails from November 4th through the 20th of last year. I'm glad to attach those to the record with Stephanie. As far as stormwater compliance, we are being reviewed as a total site compliance, not an individual lot. The intent is to subdivide these as if they were individual lots. But from an overall impervious area standpoint, line item one in that impervious chart does show that we are below 50%. We are allowed to be over 50%. Single family lots are also allowed to be over 50%. Even to that point, we are below 50 percent from an overall site standpoint. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN BRYANT L. Does that conclude your rebuttal? MR. Yes. CHAIRMAN BRYANT L. Okay. Does Council have any further questions? Hearing none, can I get a motion to close? Motion to close from Councilman Maniscalco, second from Councilman Miranda. Okay. Very good. I need to read it. We have to close it. I've got to read it.

MS. We have to vote on the closure. MR. Yeah.

All those in favor close the public hearing and say aye. MS. Aye. MR. Opposed, aye. MS. Now I understand what you're saying. I'm going, what are you – when you ever talk – when you talk in the middle of these things, it's like, what are you saying? I'm like, I have a plan in my head. Okay. Mr. Carlson, would you like to read this one? Mr. Vieira.

Move an ordinance presented for first reading consideration ordinance rezoning property in general vicinity of 4706, 4708, and 4710 in West McElroy Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly described in section one for zoning district classification RS 75 residential single family to PD plan development residential single family detached semi-detached providing an effective date.

I have a motion from Councilman Vieira. Second from? I'll second. Second Councilman Miranda. Roll call please.

Ms. Galco? Yes. Her tech. Yes. Young. Yes. Vera Carlson. Yes. Miranda Clinton.

Yes.

Okay. Motion carries unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on. Sorry. I lost my voice. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1st, 2026 at 10 AM at old city hall located at three one five East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, three, three, six zero two. Thank you very much. Okay.

Good evening council for the record, Christopher Dimash development coordination agenda. Item number two is REZ 2634. This is a request to rezone 4,400 4410 and 4,488 West boy scout Boulevard from planned development approved for mixed use business and professional office bank hotel and restaurant uses to plan development for bank with drive-through office business and professional office hotel with accessory commercial restaurant. and bar lounge uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Megan McCarthy sworn in with Planning Commission staff. This is REZ 2634 located in the West Shore Planning District, the West Shore Business Center, and the Carver City Lincoln Gardens neighborhood. The subject site is located within evacuation zone E. The surrounding area is characterized by high density and intensity residential and commercial development. To the north across West Boy Scout Boulevard is the West Shore International Mall. with Tampa International located further north. Multifamily residential development surrounds the site to the southeast and west. Commercial uses are primarily concentrated along Northwest Shore Boulevard, a designated transit emphasis corridor, and West Boy Scout Boulevard and West Spruce Street. The subject site is within the regional mixed use 100 designation. Further to the south is Jefferson High School within the public semi-public designation and an established single family neighborhood within the R10 designation to the southeast. Within the RMU 100 designation, the proposed PD is subject to applicable mixed-use design policies within the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, including internal pedestrian connection and front door orientation. As three buildings are existing and no additional building square footage is proposed, the applicable design policies are primarily considered in the context of the existing site layout. However, the submitted site plan does not provide sufficient information for staff to fully evaluate the site against the applicable design criteria including identification of front door entrances and any existing or proposed pedestrian infrastructure. City staff confirmed the applicant will be required to revise the site plan between first and second readings to identify the built square footage of the existing three buildings which shall not exceed a 1.5 FAR and including notes stating Square footage of the uses identified may be modified as long as the combination of all square footages on the property do not exceed 223,000 square feet. Based on the confirmed changes between first and second reading, the proposed PD is found consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The proposed CG uses are consistent with the RMU 100 designation and the maximum FAR of 1.5 is consistent with the allowable intensity. While the submitted site plan does not provide sufficient information to fully evaluate certain existing site conditions against the applicable mixed use center and corridor design policies, the review is based on the existing development and the scope of the proposed change in use. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions. Great job.

Anybody have questions? Hearing none.

Again, for the record, Christopher Demache, Development Coordination. Before moving into my presentation, I do want to add to the record, we do have an updated revision sheet. We added one bulleted item under Development Coordination. In consultation with the applicant, we have adopted or have put together some language that would remove the hours of operation that are currently listed for what is pad two on the site plan that's associated with the proposed bar lounge use. The hours of operation issue would be addressed in the future when the applicant would come back before council for an AB license. So I just wanted to add that to the record and pass out. All right, starting off here, having a look at the Aerial for the subject property. The subject property is outlined in red on the aerial before you. It's located on the south side of West Boy Scout Boulevard. The property also has street frontage along North Manhattan Avenue. Looking at existing uses in the area north of the subject site, we do have a planned development alternative zoning for the International Plaza Mall. Immediately south of the subject property, we have planned development zoning approved for residential multiple family uses. We also have an office professional use, which is a utility site. East of the subject property, we have office professional zoning, where we do have a fire station as well as vacant parcels. And immediately west of the subject site, we also have... planned development zoning approved for residential multiple family. The subject site is improved with three structures. There's a four-story office building. There is a six-story parking garage structure, which does have space on the very first floor. And currently, the Sapphire Restaurant is located on the first floor. And then in the northeast corner, there is a one-story restaurant, which is the ADV's location. We do have a site plan to show you. The subject site has a total of 3.41 acres. With this application, there are no proposed structural or site layout changes to show you. The applicant through this PD rezoning is proposing the ability to add bar lounge as well as all commercial general uses to the list of permitted uses on the property. Just looking at the overall site as it exists, there are two entrances. There's one off of Boy Scout and there's also one off of North Manhattan. There are no elevations to show. I will provide you with some site photos to show you existing condition. There are two waivers requested with this application. The first is to Section 27283. This is a waiver to reduce the required parking spaces from 534 spaces to 453 spaces. This would represent a 16% reduction. The second waiver is to Section 27283. This is to allow a reduction in aisle width from 24 feet to 23 feet. next i'll show photos first photo is the four-story office building this would be identified as pad one for the site next we have would be pad two this is the six-story parking garage and of course the sapphire restaurant does operate on the bottom floor this is an additional look at this the same building on the back side of that building and then of course in the northeast corner of the site we do have the eddie b's restaurant and then of course we have our entrance off of north manhattan looking north looking towards the mall south we have the residential multiple family East, we have two photos, one showing the vacant parcel and the other show in the fire station. And then west of the subject site, uh, we do have residential multiple family there. Development view and compliance staff has reviewed the petition. We do find the request, uh, inconsistent with the applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. Uh, inconsistent findings are from transportation and storm water. But should it be the pleasure of city council to approve this application, further modifications would need to be made between first and second reading of the ordinance as stated on the revision sheet. And of course, these revisions will not resolve transportation's inconsistent finding. I'm available for any questions.

Just to confirm, this is, they're not making any changes to the building. This is the current structure. Everything's the same. It's just the use.

It's just the use as we're adding to basically two uses to, to the, uh, to the site as exists today.

Just making sure people understand that. Okay.

Very good.

Okay. Applicant.

Thanks, Chris.

Good evening, Council. Ben Stranzel for the applicant, Sapphire. This is Matt Blydenberg with my office as well. We appreciate your time here tonight. We'll try and be quick. We know there's a bunch of people waiting here. These are the owners of the Sapphire. I wanted to bring them here just to get face. As Chris said at the end, this is how this needs to be viewed is this is there's no change to the structures. There's no change to any of the three structures. My office is in one of them. In fact, these are existing places. There's an existing parking garage that's five or six stories with this restaurant on the bottom. We're just trying to add a use for bar lounge to the Sapphire Club so we can eventually get an upgraded licensing with the state, which is our goal. Eddie V's has been operating there. We didn't do anything with the stormwater drain off. We didn't change it in any way. Um, you know, there's no physical construction for the outside that's planned. There's no other changes. The two inconsistencies were parking waiver, um, from 534 to 453. Again, there's a parking garage, a large parking garage. There is also parking within and around the three structures. So we don't anticipate there could be any kind of parking, um, issues. We think that the waiver is reasonable, um, and necessary for this type of situation. The stormwater issue, again, we made no changes to the property. We don't plan to make any changes to the property. This is how it was existing before this request. Again, this is just a very simple adding a use to it. So we're hoping that council can approve. We're here to answer any questions that you have. And again, we appreciate your time. And we do appreciate everything that planning and development did to help us with this project. Thank you. Does council have any questions? Hearing none.

Yes.

I have a quick question.

And I just wanted to make sure, because it was something that I found yesterday in my prep meeting. So you're fine with taking the hours of operation off of the site plan? and coming back to an AB license?

Yes, we have an AB license application pending. We had one last year and we got bumped off of the hearing for the AB because we had to add this use on the zoning. So we were set last year.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure you were okay with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shelby.

And, sir, the applicant agrees to abide by the revision sheet, agrees to the revisions between first and second reading?

Yes. We were aware when we spoke with Planning and Development for a while, and we were aware of the changes to the site plan that are required between first and second reading.

And if that could be part of the motion?

Yeah, we'll make sure that happens. I've got a big note on REV next to the motion. Very good. Okay. That concludes your presentation? Yes.

If you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

Okay. You'll have an opportunity for rebuttal if something else comes up. Thank you. Is there anybody in the public who wishes to speak to this item? Okay. Hearing none, assuming you won't have it. Okay. So you don't have a rebuttal for nothing. Yeah. No rebuttal. Okay. Very good. I have a motion close to councilman Mascotco, second councilman Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Mr. Carlson, would you like to read item number two with the revision?

Move item number two, file number RZ26-34, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 4410, 4400, and 4488 West Boy Scout Boulevard in the city of Tampa, Florida. More particularly described in section one from zoning district classification PD, plan development of PD, plan development, bar, lounge, bank, drive-in, hotel, office, restaurant, and all commercial general CG uses providing an effective data, including the revision sheet.

Thank you. I have a motion from councilman Carlson, second councilman Maniscalco roll call for please.

The era Carlson, Miranda. Yes. Maniscalco her tech. Yes. Young. Yes. Clinton.

Yes.

Motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1st, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, third floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602.

Thank you. One of these days I'll make it over there to check out the restaurant. I'm looking forward to it one day.

It's great food.

Yeah, that's what I hear. Very good. Take care. Bye-bye. Okay, next, item number three.

Rhea Dixon, Development Coordination. Agenda item number three is REZ 2661, request to rezone 205 South Fremont Avenue from RN residential multiple family to PD plan development single family detached and single family semi-detached. I will now turn it over to planning commission staff.

Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is REZ 2661, located within the Central Tampa Planning District and the South Howard neighborhood. The subject site is located within evacuation zone C. The surrounding development pattern consists of a mix of residential housing types and light commercial uses, with commercial uses primarily concentrated along South Rome Avenue, West Cleveland Street, West Platte Street, and Kennedy Boulevard. Multifamily development is located east and southeast of the subject site and one block to the west along South Melville Avenue. The subject site is within the Residential 20 designation. South and east along West Platte Street and South Packwood Avenue are parcels designated Community Mixed Use 35 with the Residential 35 and Residential 50 designations to the south. Further north and east of the site are parcels designated Urban Mixed Use 60 and Community Commercial 35 designations along West Kennedy Boulevard and South Rome Avenue. The request proposes three residential dwelling units consistent with the R-20 flu category through a bonus provision agreement. Planning Commission staff find the proposed PD will allow for appropriate infill development within the South Howard neighborhood and within proximity to employment generating commercial uses and local transit emphasis corridors, including Kennedy Boulevard to the north. The proposed orientation of Units 1 and 2 towards South Fremont Avenue generally meets the Tampa Comprehensive Plan policy, along with Unit 3's vehicular access from the alleyway. While the Comprehensive Plan does not include guidance on the orientation of single-family detached homes, an alternative design where orientation is consistent with other residential units in the area may better support neighborhood compatibility. Based on these considerations, Planning Commission staff finds the request consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. This concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions.

Council, any questions? Hearing none, next.

Good evening, Council. Brea Dixon, Development Coordination. I will start with an area view of the subject property. The subject property here is outlined in red. It is fronting South Fremont Avenue, and it is also south of West Cleveland Street. The subject property is adjacent to a mix of residential uses with single-family semi-detached To the north, multiple family residential as well as single family detached. Further northeast along the West Cleveland Street corridor, there are multiple office uses. And further south along West Platte Street, there are restaurants, offices, and other commercial uses. Here is a site plan provided by the applicant. You can see the semi-detached is fronting South Fremont Avenue and the detached is fronting the alley. There's a two-car garage for Unit 3, which is a single-family detached, and there's a one-car garage with parking spaces in the front for the semi-detached residences. The maximum height is 38 feet. The applicant has also entered into a bonus agreement to allow the development of the third or additional unit. I also have here some elevations. These are the elevations for units one and two. Here we have East. west south and north and for the single family detached we have west east south and north in addition to elevations provided by the applicant i also have several photos of the subject property and surrounding uses here is the subject property this is looking north down south fremont avenue this is immediately to the north Single family detached to the east. This is looking south down South Fremont Avenue. This is to the south. Single family attached to the west. And this is the alley looking north towards West Cleveland Avenue. applicant is requesting one waiver from section 27 162 to reduce the minimum required separation of 15 feet between principal structures to 10 feet for 33 reduction development reviewing compliance staff has reviewed the petition and find the request consistent with the applicable city of tampa land development regulations should it be the pleasure of council to approve this application for the modifications to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading As stated on the revision sheet, I'm available for any questions.

Council, any questions? Hearing none, applicant? Mr. Michelinie?

Good evening, Council. Steve Michelinie representing the petitioner. And, yes, I have been sworn. This project is designed to have a single-family detached structure on a portion of the site uh, which the property owner intends to live in this, in a single family home. And then two town homes in the front, uh, with two car covered garage and the, and the rear, uh, and those dimensions of the garage. And I know you're sensitive to that or 22 by 22, and then a single car garages with a space on the driveway for the other two units at a 14 by 22 feet. As the staff has pointed out, this is Res 20, and we're requesting a change from RM16 to PD. The two townhouses and the one single family are all attached, and the waiver that we're requesting is a separation here between the units. We are asking for a bonus provision, and the bonus provision will allow the single family detached structure to be constructed. We are surrounded by multifamily, commercial, and office uses, as the staff has pointed out. There's a picture of what's immediately adjacent to the property. This is a subject property, and those are townhouses over there. And that's looking north. And looking south, you find a very similar type of development. Here's a close up view of the subject property here and the townhouses here. So we're not introducing a new element into this neighborhood. It's already developed extensively as townhouses. Both the city staff and the Planning Commission have found it to be consistent as a single-family residential detached structure and the residential semi-detached are compatible with the surrounding area. We are required to have enclosed garages in which we've provided that. And on your staff report, we found that all of the city departments, including the Planning Commission, found it to be consistent. The purpose of the infill and development is encouraged to make optimal use of public facilities, and the design and development should be consistent with the general site plan of the surrounding neighborhood, and it was found to be that. Applicability of the provision has been found to be consistent. A minimum of the enclosed garages, we provided that. Promote the efficient and sustainable use of land and infrastructure. The property is designed and considers potential. There are no adverse impacts on the site, on natural resources, or on the surrounding property. The green space is required as 350 per unit, or 1,050 square feet. We're providing 1,600 square feet. Promote and encourage the development where appropriate in location and character. The subject property is immediately adjacent to a mix of residential uses with single-family, semi-detached out of the north, multifamily to the east, single-family detached to the south, and single-family to the west. So all of the uses surrounding there are compatible with what we are proposing. We're requesting to develop the three units. And again, as I said, we are requesting a bonus agreement to allow the additional single-family detached. The proposed elevations are complementary to the surrounding area. The design and purpose of the development is unique and therefore meets the needs. However, there is that one waiver for the interior separation between the townhouses and the single family. Those are not external waivers that are being requested. It will not substantially interfere with the rights of others. This is completely internal to the site and because of that, it is compatible. is substantial justice will be done by allowing for that waiver. I have with me letters from 10 property owners supporting this who were within the notice area, and I'd like to have those be received and filed. We did not receive any phone calls. or any adverse communication regarding this proposal, and we're respectfully requesting your approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Council have any questions? I do. I don't have any problem with the compatibility issue, and obviously it is more densely populated, but accommodating the vehicles. The garage is fine, but the driveway is only 18 feet, 18 plus inches, and it seems like there's an awful lot of vehicles that are in the 19-foot range. Doesn't that automatically build in an overhang, which is really... epidemic in South Tampa of cars overhanging driveways and blocking access to other folks. What is the condition of that alley that you have access to in the back? What does that look like? How wide is it? How is that going to impact the alley?

That's a two-car garage and 22 feet wide. The back side is the two-car garage?

Yes. The front side is the one that's not? Yes. The back side is 22 by 22. Okay, so the front side. So if you have an overhead showing, is it a sidewalk that's right there? In other words, if you have a 19-foot or 20-foot vehicle, are you going to be overhanging onto a sidewalk?

There's more than 18 feet there before you get to the edge of the curb.

So where's Fremont? Where's the alley?

This side. This is the alley side.

Okay, that's the alley side. So let's look at the Fremont side. You have the single car garages, then you're going to accommodate one car in the driveway, correct? Because you had to accommodate two cars per unit?

Correct.

Okay, so one is only 18 feet long. Where's the sidewalk there? Is that 18 feet to the sidewalk to the front of the building?

18 feet to the sidewalk.

You see, I mean, I wish it almost would have come with a triplex. And I mean, do we ask for a triplex there and then at least have the accommodations of the vehicles? But I mean, because again, this is one of the biggest problems we have there is vehicles overhanging on the sidewalks of pedestrians, bicyclists and whatnot are encountering vehicles.

Well, the 18 feet meets a typical standard for transportation.

Yeah, and this is Jonathan Scott, City of Tampa Transportation. 18 feet is actually adequate, and that's our standard. That's pretty good for a vehicle size. I wouldn't worry about them overhanging in this case.

Well, full size, good thing you're not sitting up here making a decision about what to worry about.

No, but in my opinion, that's plenty of space.

Yeah, but 18 feet, we have a lot of vehicles out there that are in the 19-foot range, correct?

Well, the issue that we're dealing with is do we meet the code or not?

No, you're asking for a PD.

I understand, but we meet the transportation technical standards for the dimensions of a parking space.

Well, you're asking for a PD to build three units on a single family lot in an area that we have really big problems with vehicles and parking, people parking and blocking driveways, people parking and blocking sidewalks. It's a multi-family zoning lot, it's nice. But currently you're converting from a single family, you're putting a lot on one lot. And I could actually see where this would be problematic with vehicles hanging over onto the sidewalk.

I don't know what to tell you. We meet the code and we meet the technical standard.

If you met the code, you wouldn't be here asking for a PD. You'd be here asking for a Euclidean zoning, Mr. Shelby.

Martin Shelby, City Council Attorney. Council, also, just do please keep in mind that there is a request for a bonus provision attached to this application. Correct. Which would require Council's approval at second reading.

Correct. Well, again, it's PD. I mean, there's a whole lot of things that are exceptions here.

10 minutes now.

I mean, you hit it right off the hat when you first came up talking about the driveways and the parking has been a big issue, especially in this neighborhood. I mean, it's real problematic in this neighborhood. Parking is problematic. We have a lot of problems in this area.

Yes, sir. Yeah, this is Jonathan. I looked up. You're correct. If you had an F-150, that could be anywhere from 18 to 20 feet. But that may be something we wouldn't look into our code. I know if you have these big vehicles, it's hard to accommodate all those. An SUV might be less than that, but I just took like an F-150, so that's kind of like a bigger one. They said it was typically like 18 to 20 feet, depending on how big the cabs are and all that stuff. But it's hard to accommodate these huge vehicles, you know, So it's the 18 feet.

We've got a 22-foot garage, so that's good. Yeah, they can put that in there. 22 by 22 is a good garage. So the garage in that first unit is a great-sized garage. Again, time and time again, especially our walk-by-tampa folks come in here swinging and batting for pedestrian safety and sidewalks, and we see it all the time. And I'll be honest with you, I live in a place that's got a short driveway, and we have the same issues. My place was built in 1980, and it's problematic. So I live with it every single day, the garage widths and the length of driveways.

It's also a state standard. They can't block a sidewalk.

So then they end up parking on the street window. Bingo. That's the part of the problem.

My wife's got a big boat, I call it. That thing is long.

So you end up parking on the street, creating street parking problems. That's the problem.

Yeah, and she can't block the sidewalk. Otherwise, you could call TPD and have them take it in five seconds.

Again, yeah, so that is exactly the problem we're trying to avoid. And that's why we were going through and we worked with you, Mr. McElhinney, and tried to create some of these standards for these driveways. And being able to accommodate... cars in the driveway versus building two car garages. That was part of the compromises. You've got to be able to accommodate the cars in the driveway.

Well, just thinking about the separation between the two units, I guess You could reduce that, or you could cantilever the second level out and provide a little more space on the first level. But we would have to make those kind of adjustments between first and second reading.

See, that's why I'm looking at this. I'm thinking, because you're in a multi-family area. I mean, it seems like this would be right for a triplex. I mean, hell, if you just get you bigger units, too.

I mean, I don't know what the... Well, the owner wants to live in the rear unit as a single family, so... And then this area here is where the waiver was being requested, the separation between these units. But when we start reducing green space, we run into other issues. So we could cantilever potentially the second level and reduce the first level and have more space for the driveway. But when we're dealing with the city codes as we go through this process and we sit down and we meet the technical standards, it's kind of hard to anticipate another. We're not asking for a waiver on the parking. We're asking for a waiver on the separation between the two buildings.

So would staff, would it be, and would it be inappropriate or is it appropriate that we could conditionally approve this thing between first and second reading, if they were going to give us an extra two feet of driveway space, could they, if they were going to accommodate that and make the amendment.

Without going back to DRC.

Council in reviewing this request, there are multiple. I'm going to say multiple. There are similar requests throughout the area. PDs that are located to the east and to the west, they have a very similar design. However, they do not propose a 10 feet of separation between them. They're exactly connected in the joint at the rear and the side. If the applicant were to redesign as to remove that 10 feet of separation and potentially provide additional space and green space in other areas, that would be possible.

That's what I see. Is that appropriate to have that revision between first and second reading without going to DRC?

yes yeah to the applicant the owner here where are you they were here earlier i don't know if they've left or not but um i don't have any objection to examining that and coming back working with staff okay but just keep in mind it may force us to request a green space waiver is that your honor there i just did that

Am I the only one? You've been sworn? I haven't been sworn.

Clerk, he hasn't been sworn. Yes. Do you understand the question they're asking? Yes. Okay. Do you have an objection to reducing the separation between the two buildings?

I do not. Okay, is council okay with that? How is everybody feeling about that? So y'all would entertain a motion with the revision between first and second reading?

He has to give his name.

Okay. And so the applicant, the applicant representative is fine with that as well. Say your name one more time for the clerk. Rami Nagib. Okay. Were you able to get that?

You want to spell it?

R-A-M-I-N-A-G-U-I-B. Okay, very good. Okay, sounds good. Is there anything else you want to present, or we'll move forward with a public comment on that one? You'll have a chance for a bottle after public comment.

I think we're fine. the owners agreed to consider reducing the separation, and you're looking at perhaps 20 feet on the driveway side? Is that what you're looking at?

I think that would accommodate pretty much 90% or 95% of the vehicles out there.

I just want a dimension so I know what I'm trying to get.

I believe that's what we were shooting for when we were talking about reasonable accommodations and driveways.

Okay. So you have no problem committing to a 20-foot driveway? No. You got to say it louder. Yes. Yes.

Thank you. Yes.

Great Dixon development coordination. And for clarification, we're not reducing the separation. We're removing it.

Correct. It will be either whichever the applicant comes back to us with, as long as he does the green space stuff for the first and second reading. Yes.

It could be reduced by two feet to provide the additional two feet.

Or it could be to close the gap to basically become a triplex.

With the understanding that we may have to seek a green space waiver because of that.

Well, you're going to pick up, when you move that back, you're going to pick some stuff up, space up. I don't know.

I don't know what the calculation is going to be.

I don't want to negotiate it back and forth. I don't want to negotiate it from the dais.

I just want to mention in the event that they close the gap and it's now a triplex, we'd have to go back to first reading because the ordinance presented to you describes the uses as currently requested. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you.

An extension of two feet of the driveways with a 10-foot green space between the two, there's a presumption on your part as a council that it would be two feet less perhaps on the green space, which Mr. McElhinney indicates would then require a green space waiver. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes. We'll have to look at it and see. If it requires an additional waiver, we probably have to go back to the first reading again. I think we have somebody else to chime in.

Good afternoon. Joseph Cermak, Forrester Examiner with Development Coordination. Reducing the, or moving the building back, there's an excess of 213 square feet of green space under current plans that should not require a waiver to reach that point.

Very good. So you could move it two feet and not request the waiver. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, very good. And that concludes your presentation? Yes. It took a long time to get there, but we got there. Very good.

We have the public comment now.

I know, exactly. Okay, anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Anybody in the public wish to speak to this item? Okay. No rebuttal. Okay, very good. We have a motion to close. Councilman Maniscalco, I have a second. Councilman Moran, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Councilwoman Young, you get the pleasure of reading this with that proposed revision between first and second reading.

And that's understood. I just want to make sure that everybody's... That does not need to be re-articulated, does that, for the purposes of this meeting?

Do you need me to say that? Is this what you want me to read?

Yes, including what's handwritten at the bottom.

Can you make it out?

I believe it's the driveway on Fremont. Well, actually, you know something? Rather than reading it, if the clerk will accept it, why don't we just say, and the revised revision sheet, and it will be in the notes. Okay. Thank you very much.

Okay. Okay, file number REZ-26-61, ordinance being presented for first reading consideration and ordinance rezoning property in the general vicinity of 205 South Freeman Avenue in the city of Tampa, Florida, and more particularly described in section one from zoning district classification, RM 16, residential multi multiple family to PD plan development, residential single family detached and semi-detached providing an effective date. Also including the revision sheet.

The revised revision sheet.

Say that three times.

Very good. We have a motion from councilwoman Young. I have a second councilman Miranda. Okay. Roll call please.

Hurtek? Yes. Young? Yes. Vieira? Yes. Carlson? Yes. Miranda? Yes. Maniscalco? Yes. Clendenin? Yes. Okay, motion carried unanimously. Second reading and adoption will be held on October 1st, 2026 at 10 a.m. at Old City Hall, located at 315 East Kennedy Boulevard, 3rd floor, Tampa, Florida, 33602. Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you.

Here we go. Item number four. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record, Christopher DeManch, Development Coordination Agenda Item 4 is REZ 2662. This is a request to rezone 5600 Mariner Street from OP1 Office Professional to Plan Development for Residential Multiple Family Office, Business and Professional Office, all CG uses and all CN uses. I'll turn it over now to Planning Commission staff.

Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is REZ 2662 located within the South Tampa Planning District and the Beach Park neighborhood. The subject site is within the evacuation zone A as well as the coastal high hazard area. The surrounding area is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. Commercial uses are to the north and east of the site. Single family detached is to the west and south with multifamily to the north. The subject site is within the Regional Mixed Use 100 designation. The RMU 100 designation is to the north, east, and west of the site, and the Residential 6 designation is to the west and south of the site, developed with single-family detached uses. Planning Commission staff has reviewed the request and found no adverse impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Within the RMU 100 designation, development is subject to applicable mixed-use policies of the Tampa Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PD supports these principles by placing the building close to the right-of-way and connecting building entrances to internal sidewalks with connections to the sidewalk along Mariner Street. Additionally, bicycle parking will be provided internally, and shade trees are proposed along the right-of-way and throughout the site. The proposed height not to exceed 137 feet is compatible with the heights of the existing multifamily development in the area, which are approximately eight to nine stories. The request is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies encouraging residential infill development and would provide additional housing near employment concentrations within the nearby West Shore Business District. Overall, the proposed plan development is consistent with the development pattern envisioned under the RMU 100 designation, compatible with the surrounding land uses, and aligned with the city's policies for housing and mixed-use centers and corridors. Based on these considerations, Planning Commission staff find the request consistent with the Tampa Comprehensive Plan, and I'm available for any questions.

Does the Council have any questions? Hearing none.

For the record, Christopher DeMoss, Development Coordination. For this agenda item, we do have an updated revision sheet. In speaking with the applicant, we've added one bulleted item under Development Coordination. This is to the site data table where the applicant has their proposed height of 137 feet. There would be an extra note referencing subject to HCAA and FAA approval. So I wanted to add that. to the record. Again, Christopher DeMache, Development Coordination. Starting off with REZ 2662, we'll start with an arrow of the subject site. The property is outlined in red. It is located along Mariner Street on the south side. Surrounding the subject property We do have Office Professional 1, OP1 zoning to the north, to the east. We do have a mix of office uses as well as multiple family. West of the subject site, we do have RM50 zoning with residential multiple family. Further west, we do have single family detached dwellings. And south to southwest of the subject site, we have single family detached dwellings. The site is approximately 2.34 acres. We do have a site plan from the applicant.

All right.

So the PD before you depicts a single structure totaling 11 stories, max height of 137 feet, proposed for containing 4,000 square feet. of business in professional office uses as well as 262 multiple family units. There's also a three level garage proposed internally within the building. Vehicular access to the site is proposed along the western side of the property. This would give access to the parking garage as well as solid waste pickup and a loading area. The proposed plan also depicts a main entrance along Mariner Street. as well as a proposed six-foot sidewalk, which would run east to west along that right-of-way. Additional sidewalks are depicted along the perimeter of the site. They measure five and six feet in width. We do have some elevations to show next. I'll break these up. These are the north-south elevations proposed. And next we have east and west elevations proposed. Of course, this building is proposed at 137 feet. There are five waivers proposed with this application. The first is the Section 27283. This is a request to reduce the required number of parking spaces from 484 spaces down to 445 spaces. This represents an 8% reduction. The second waiver is the Section 27283. This is a request to reduce the required number of loading spaces from four to one. The third waiver is Section 27283. This is a request to allow a 12 by 30 loading space in lieu of the 12 by 60 space. Waiver four is to section 27284. This request is to reduce the required 15 foot use to use buffer with six foot masonry wall to a 10 foot use to use buffer with no wall along the western property boundary. And the fifth and final waiver requested is to section 27284. This is a request to reduce the required eight foot vehicle use area landscape buffer to zero feet at the western edge of the eastern surface parking lot due to the angled property boundary. This is a photo of the subject property from Mariner. I do have, um, photos going around the entire building, but unless it's council's pleasure, I'll keep it short and just show that a couple here council's pleasure to keep it short. All right. Looking north, northwest, south east. and West development view and compliance staff has reviewed the petition. It does find the requesting consistent with the applicable city of Tampa land development regulations. The finding of inconsistency is from transportation. Should it be a pleasure city council to approve the application? Further modifications to the site plan must be completed by the applicant between first and second reading, as stated on the revision sheet, and these revisions will not resolve the issue of transportation's inconsistent finding, and I am available for any questions.

Does council have any questions? Hearing none, applicant? I had received a memo from the applicant's representative requesting an additional five minutes of the presentation, an additional five minutes in rebuttal due to the increase in public interest in this issue. I've consulted with Tampa City Council attorney and he believes that in interest of due process that it would be appropriate. Mr. Shelby, do you have anything to say?

Just that if the petitioner would wish to have an additional five minutes for a rebuttal, he'll know at the end of time whether due process would require him taking those five minutes. And again, he doesn't have to take the extra time if he doesn't need it.

So is there any objection? Hearing no objection, unanimous consent, you can plan on an additional five minutes for a presentation, and if required for due process, you have five minutes extra in the rebuttal. If he needs it in the rebuttal, yes.

That's great. Thank you very much. My name is Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley drive, Tampa three, three 602. And I, is it too late to go to medical school?

I, I make, I make those comments pretty much every day.

Name it. Thanks a lot council for the additional time. I'll try and be as quick as possible. Just wanna what's fresh in your mind. Just address the height issue. It it's actually 129 feet. We started off at 150. over a series of redesigns, and maybe Kristen can pick up on that. So it's 129, 11 stories. I'd like to talk a little bit about the developer. It's Northwood Raven out of Charlotte, North Carolina. The name might not sound familiar, but some of the projects may be. They're primarily in West Shore. Council approved the redevelopment of Chase Suites on Rocky Point last year for about 300 units, and then there's a a sister project on Rocky Point called the Emerson. Northwood Raven has, I think, about 1,500 units. Half of those are already built, and the others are in permitting. This is, for example, the Varela at West Shore, Novus West Shore. They're all upscale luxury apartments. So these projects demonstrate that the developer has not only a strong commitment to Tampa, but knows how to develop an urban infill project. And one thing unique about Northwood Raven is they don't sell these properties off to REITs or anything like that. They develop them, then they manage them as well. I'd like to introduce the vice president of development for Northwood Raven. His name is Mr. Ron Stewart and Ron's come down and he wanted to address council on the community engagement process that he went through over the last year and a half or so. And we know how important that is to council to get the neighbors involved. So Ron.

Thanks, Mark. Good evening. And thank you members of city council. As Mark shared, my name is Ron Stewart. I'm Vice President of Development with Northwood Raven. Although I'm based in Charlotte, North Carolina, I am also the market lead for the company overseeing Central Florida. So I spend about 30% to 40% of my time in Florida with a large portion of that here in Tampa where our office is located. In regards to our community outreach, We've made significant efforts to engage the community from the beginning of this process. During this timeframe, we actually scheduled a total of eight meetings with residents and the community representatives. Six of those meetings were actually held. Two were actually canceled by the HOAs. Subsequent to that, we also scheduled time with them and their consultants just to address all the concerns that they had. Over the course of the past, I would say, year and a half, again, we've made several attempts to engage with the residents even before we had the site under contract, we actually held our initial meeting at the Platte library just to hear back from the resident. That initial meeting was held February of 2025. So again, given our commitment to the city of Tampa and the surrounding areas, we know how important it is to get public input. And so well in advance of even putting any pen to paper, we tried to kind of communicate with everyone. Once those last two meetings were canceled, our intent was to meet with them in advance of submitting our initial application for rezoning. Again, those two meetings were canceled, at which point everyone in the community stopped communicating with us. So we continued through the process, still requested time with them. through multiple phone calls as well as emails. Subsequent to all that, a new organization came into the picture, Beach Park Preservation Society, which was a new entity that we weren't familiar with. Apparently it was formed back in May of this year. Nonetheless, we scheduled a meeting with them as well, roughly about a month ago or so. Had a preliminary meeting with them, agreed to go back and address some of their concerns. scheduled a follow-up meeting with that entity and invited all their representatives. That meeting was last week, and unfortunately only one individual showed up to that meeting. So, again, over the past year and a half, we've done, I think, everything we felt possible to engage and address their concerns. And as our team will show tonight, that we've made significant adjustments to the project in response to that. And coming out of this meeting, we're hoping to be able to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Ron.

Council, as a result of these various meetings, the client made these changes to the project. Originally, it was 300 units. It was been reduced to 262. There were 13 floors, 13 stories reduced to 11 floors. The height was 115, 150 feet. Now it's one 29. They've reduced the commercial area from 6,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet and undertook measures to mitigate impacts on to Mariner West, which I'll show you, which is located directly west of the subject property. And, uh, They agreed to construct a six-foot masonry wall, along with rebuild the seawall, even though it wasn't necessary on our property. And in any event, you get the picture that there was some effort made there. This is a massing study to scale. And the subject property is right here. So it's 11 stories and 129 feet.

Okay, I know a lot of you guys are not used to Tampa City Council, but this is the opportunity for the applicant to present his case. You will have an opportunity to express what you want to express during your time during the public comment. In the meantime, we don't talk, we don't respond back, we don't click, we don't clap, nothing. Just listen and learn and silence in the audience, please.

Go ahead, Mr. Bentley. Here again, here's the subject property. Located to the west is what they call Mariner West. It's a 56-year-old condo complex. And to the west of that is a single family. The difference between the single family and Mariner West is about 50 feet. And they're about 80 feet tall, more or less. And we're at 129. So a lot of this debate, when you really whittle it down, is over three stories and 45 feet. So the reason I say that is what I'm showing you now, this is a rendering on this new entity that Ron had referenced, Tampa, excuse me, Beach Park Preservation Society. They created these renderings and put them on their website. That's not our project. So this created, I think, a lot of the consternation and anxiety in the neighborhood. Now I want to talk a little bit about what Ron had mentioned in his interaction with, uh, preservation society, they were created for the sole purpose of trying to get this project denied. It's created by a family who lives on a zeal and, um, the corporation does not own any property in beach park, does not have any members. Okay. The height scale and density on their website was all overstated as well. So I think if the proper facts had been out there, perhaps some of these people wouldn't be here tonight. In any event, we received a letter on July 15. This is the first we heard of this new organization. And in the letter, it says, basically, if you want our support, you're going to build your building exactly like Mariner West to your west in terms of the height and the scale. And that's not compatible. That's not what it means. Compatible does not mean the same. But that's been the only written feedback we've ever received through the entire process. And Ron is a great guy, and he really worked hard to try and get the feedback. So also in their letter, in the letter from their lawyer that I think you all received last week, is they said that this Tampa Beach Park preservation now represents all the associations, that's Mariner North, South, and Beach Park Homeowners Association. So I just thought it was important that you understand what's going on in terms of who's in support, who's not. Now, one other thing I want to show you, then I'll just wrap this up, is this is the subject property right here. And then the Beach Park Preservation Society is 0.7 miles away. The house is owned by a family who are also the officers of this corporation. So there's like no way on earth is this property affected by the development over here.

Come on, guys. You're out of order. If it's again and I notice who it is, I will actually ask you to leave, okay? This is the way this works. You've got to give him his due process and ability to state his case, and then you guys will have an opportunity to speak after this is done.

So what we have here is this is a rendering concept.

Lift it up a little bit.

I got you.

Perfect. Thank you. Okay.

Of our project. It's just a preliminary rendering showing the 11-story building and the amenities. So after receiving this feedback, What we did, we got our architects to come up with three alternatives. And the first one was to reduce the building height from 13, excuse me, from 11 stories to nine and kind of compress the building. But when you do that, it forces the building to kind of spread out. So there's 62 foot separation between Mariner West. Right now we're looking at the water. So I'm north looking south. So there's 62 feet between the buildings, and when you compress the building by reducing the height, it takes it down to about 35. And that wasn't acceptable to Mariner South. So then we took a look at option two, and that was, or is, live local. This site is eligible. So under live local, subject to FAA approval, we could have a 200 foot building and the same 262 units or more. So that wasn't acceptable, obviously. So what we arrived at is what's before you tonight. We started off and we filed at 150 feet. We got it down to 129. And so there's a 45 difference, 45 foot difference between Mariner South and our project. And back to the letter from the preservation society and said, we want you to mirror Mariner South. So when you look at Mariner South as compared to the single family house, they're about, it's 43 feet taller than the house. So it's okay for Mariner South. to tower over the house in the single family neighborhood. But this difference between our project and Mariner South is not acceptable to them. It's 45 feet and three stories. Now, when you talk to your planners here, they say that's a good transition. That makes sense. That's planning 101 when you step down like that. This is out of your comp plan and your land development regulations. It's the definition of compatibility. I'm not going to read it, but the important thing, I think, in the definition, which is in the Planning Commission report, is compatibility does not mean the same as. So that's what we were getting a lot from input from the neighborhood is we want you to mirror this other building that was built in 1962 or whatever. Next thing I want to talk about is the land use designation for the subject property. RMU 100 is the most intense designation the city has at all. It's used at Midtown, it's Water Street, you name it. And if you look at RMU 100, it says typically up to 24 stories. We're proposing 11. When you go to the next land use designation under regional mixed use, it's called urban mixed use and that one says 10 stories so we're between urban mixed use and regional mixed use at 11 stories. I'd like to note too that our existing zoning if you want to build an office allows a height of 200 feet here again subject to Tampa International and the Mariner South property If it was redeveloped, could be redeveloped at 200 feet subject to FAA approval, just like us. Now there's been a lot of discussion, especially on this website. And it says this property is in beach park and it's not. And let me demonstrate that to you. We received this from the city. This is the map of neighborhoods and boundaries that they gave us. And you can see that beach park does not include. our property. This is official map from the city. West Shore Business District map. There's one in the comp plan and the West Shore Alliance has created one as well. The subject property is in the West Shore Business District. Next West Shore area wide DRI boundary. Can you move that one up please Mark? Sure. The subject property is in the DRI boundary. It's subject to payment of all the fees and things like that for transportation and marketing. And finally, this is not an anomaly that it's regional mixed-use 100 on our property. This area of Tampa was platted as an office park. If you look at the plat, it's not single-family lots. I think it was for a proposed Koger Center. Mr. Miranda, you might Remember me.

They call me old.

Huh? No, no, no, no. You've just got a great memory. God's doing that. So you can see this whole area. Here's the subject property, my finger. This entire area is RMU 100. And it's a completely different plat. The point being, we are not in Beach Park. And here's from the tax collector. We're paying fees because we're in the West Shore Business District. I just want to talk about the waivers and have Randy Cohen do his planning analysis. There's three waivers associated with the loading dock. If we were in the West Shore overlay, we wouldn't need three loading docks. Apartments don't need three loading docks. So we want to go from three to one. a parking reduction of 8%. We all know that your parking code was developed in 1989, it's antiquated, it never contemplated rideshare or Lyft or anything like that. We also could get a 10% reduction administratively if we wanted to. Plus there are 10 spaces potentially on Mariner that we can develop subject to Transportation Department approval. So parking is not an issue. I know Ms. Hertak is always really big on secured bike storage. We have that. It's all fully enclosed for 30 bicycles. So there's plenty of justification for that and also for the loading docks. So right now I'm going to present Randy Cohen. He's going to talk to you about some of the planning issues associated with the project and site plan.

Good evening, Randy Cohen, 4121 West Cypress street. I have been sworn. Um, want to talk a little bit about where we're at from a planning standpoint, but first I'd like to make one note. I think I heard. in the description of the waivers that the waiver for eliminating the six foot masonry wall and 15 foot buffer was on the west side of the site. It is not. It is on the east side of the site. It is between the property and the marina. We want to have a view of the marina. So that's where the waiver actually is. Let's talk about planning for a minute. And I'm not gonna give you a whole lot of planning literature here. I'm simply going to quote from the Planning Commission's report, and the City of Tampa's report. We are consistent with the comprehensive plan. We are located in the West Shore Business District. The project as proposed is comparable to the existing development pattern. We'll talk about that a little bit more in just a minute. The building height is consistent with and comparable with the surrounding development. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and aligns with the city code. City staff report on zoning. Approxima scale, the development is appropriate in scale and size. That means it's square footage, that means it's height, that means it's amount of dwelling units, et cetera. And it is complimentary to the surrounding community. Well, how do we really get to that? Words sound really good, but let's take a look. at the development in the area. Starting to the west, this is the Mosaic Apartments that was built 15, 18 years ago. It's six stories, has 210 units in it. The Mariner Apartments that are under construction right now, have seven stories, 107 feet, 277 units, more than what we have in this particular proposed project. The Novell, which finished construction in 2024 is 138 feet, one foot taller than what we proposed in the rezoning. As Mr. Bentley's indicated, we're now down to 129, So we're much shorter. Our site is here. The Novell's 300 feet to the north of us. Mariner is 600 feet to the northeast of us. Mosaic is 900 feet to the east of us. These are the two Mariner buildings, which are 80 feet, which Mark has already discussed. So we are certainly compatible, consistent, not the tallest building in the area, not the highest density in the area as well.

I want to ask a question. A few minutes ago you showed the picture of the live local option and then you said it didn't work because the FAA rules. Could you just show us what you think you could build under live local? I don't know if you have one without the FAA providing a variance.

Okay, Councilman Carlson. This is the scenario with Live Local. And as you know, everything in that area is subject to Tampa International analysis where you file an application and you go through the FAA process to determine height.

So what do you think the FAA would have, what is the FAA?

Well, we know for a fact, because Randy just mentioned Novell was approved at 138. And Novell is about 200 feet from our property. So we know for a fact, we don't know anything for a fact, but a strong likelihood it's going to be approved at least at 138 feet. We did not reduce our height because of FAA. We started when we filed the application at 150 and we just did that in response to some of the concerns to try and get the building down. We could, like I said, under the existing zoning, go up to 200 feet, so could Mariner South, and then the 200 feet under live local, that's subject to FAA. But the density, you know, the height's determined within a mile radius, and we found some pretty tall buildings in West Shore that we could emulate, subject to FAA, once again. Taller than 150 feet. Okay, thank you.

So the Nouveau property is 300 feet closer to Tampa International at 138, is that correct?

Well, they're approved at 138, and I don't know what the approval was from FAA, Mr. Chair.

Have they been approved by FAA at 138?

Yeah. Either they're built or under construction.

Here comes our subject matter expert. Randy? Can you show that map with where the novella is? Sure.

Let's pull it out of here. Too many papers. This is our site. This is Novell. It was approved by FAA and the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority at 138 feet. We're 300 or more feet to the south.

So the supposition it would be at least, they would approve at least 138? At least, probably. It's further back on the flight path?

Yeah, somewhat more because of the glide slopes involved.

And that's the condition that Chris had mentioned earlier. adding on subject to FAA approval because that note wasn't on there. Okay. Councilman Carlson.

Yeah, just to explain my question in case probably most people in the public understand, but it used to be that if we, on big projects, if we turned them down, there was a chance that a developer would sue. Now, because the state has created Live Local, instead of suing us, they're going back and just doing whatever the state allows, and we have no say in it, and that's why I think it's important just to know what they could do, although it sounds like the height would end up being less than this, but it's just important to know.

And again, remind me what the height that you're proposing in this project? It's 129 feet. We start off at 150 and 11 stories.

So the supposition with Live Local is that you could go back to your original 13-story plan and still fall within that. Okay. Very good.

Could you show that 138 rendering again? This is...

The one I went over with, it's 129 is our height now. That's our building. And then Mariner South's about 80, 81 feet. And then the single family house is

I think the councilman was asking your 138-foot depiction. Is that the 138-foot depiction? Yeah.

What we did is because it was a recent change, we didn't file another plan. I just told the staff that when I got to the hearing, we're going to reduce it another nine feet. Gotcha. Okay.

And I believe we have staff behind to provide some clarification. Chris. Go ahead.

For the record, Christopher DeMache, Family Coordination. Yes, the site plan of record notes 137 feet. We were notified today by the applicant's agent that they're down to 129. If they don't have a problem with changing the height, if approved this evening, between first and second reading to reflect 129 feet, we could certainly add that to the revision sheet. It would just be up to the applicant just to agree to that.

Okay, and since you're standing there, there was a discrepancy about where this waiver is, east or west side. Is the documents at all showing this on the east side? So are we consistent with the waiver being for that wall on the east side?

The water's on the east side.

The six foot masonry wall. Anyhow, on the east side is the water and then the west side, obviously,

I don't know if you picked up on that, Councilman. Early on I said as a result of discussions we've agreed to build a six-foot wall.

I did. That's why I want this to make sure we're clear. Everybody has a meeting of the minds. We're clear and the record is clear and the documents are clear.

Joseph Cermak, Forrester Examiner. Okay, on the plan here, stating that a buffer reduction would be needed to the east side, it wouldn't be. This site would be considered use group C, mixed use, because it does have a commercial component to it. The marina to the east is also a C use requiring zero buffer. On the west side, This is where I'm presuming they need to reduce the buffer. That would be from 15 foot to 10 foot. That's going from a CUs to commercial where a 15 foot buffer would have been required.

So just for information, where, what we're, what staff would require and what the applicant is consenting is to build a six foot masonry wall between Mariner two or Mariner one. Is that the east and west building between the two Mariner projects? Is that correct?

I'm sorry. I couldn't catch all of that.

So, so Mr. Bentley is the representative. Yeah. Randy is going to address Randy. Would you like to, would you like to, what is, what is what's what's here? What's what's okay.

Um, Since the city believes there would be a waiver on the west side, that's fine. Our building is actually 50 feet away.

I mean, it doesn't make sense to build a waiver from the fish. Right. Or build a wall from the fish.

And we are on the site plan showing a six-foot masonry wall on the west side. On the west side. So there is no waiver from that west side.

So we have an agreement that the applicant is actually requesting that

buffer reduction and a six-foot masonry wall between the west property and and the properties you're proposing and the city i believe is correctly indicating we do not we need the waiver at all on the east side okay very good no waiver on the east side from the fish excuse me is that consistent with what the present site plan is mr dimash the revision sheet i mean yes that would be fine what's on it is consistent what we would do is simply go from the zero buffer to a 10 foot and we would strike the six feet masonry wall because we're in fact providing that masonry wall on the west side.

So this will be a revised revision sheet between first and second? Or is this accommodating in the first one?

Yeah.

It stays. Yeah, it stays. That'd be waiver number four stays as?

Well, the only thing is it says with no wall, we're providing the wall. I want to make certain everyone's happy with that. So the only revision is to strike the no wall.

So we will have a revised revision sheet with the wall? Okay, very good.

You know, five to ten foot will be over with a six foot masonry wall or a six foot wall.

Is there any further questions of the applicant?

OK, just for Christopher to monitor development coordination, just to note with our discussion here. So waiver number four would be the section 27 to 84. It would say request to reduce the prior 15 foot used to use buffer with a six foot masonry wall to a ten foot used to use buffer with a six-foot masonry wall along the western property. Okay, very good.

And that will be noted between first and second on the revised revision sheet. Thank you very much.

Correct, along with the height that we adjusted from 137 to 129.

Okay, revised revision sheet will capture that as well. Very good.

Thank you very much for the additional time.

Appreciate it. Okay, so we are now going to our public comment. This is your opportunity to speak to this issue and this issue alone. um because there's so many people standing you know we will not close public comment if you're here to speak to this item you will have an opportunity to do that once again you're speaking to council once again this is the person who's speaking his opportunity to speak no audience participation start always start with your name You'll have three minutes. When the yellow light comes on, you have 30 seconds. When the red light comes on, you're done. You have to just stop wherever you're at in your presentation. We're going to start with this gentleman that's here in the blue shirt. Sir, start with your name. You'll have three minutes.

Council, thank you for having me. I'm Ryan Whittemore. I live at 4804 West Deziel Street. I was sworn in. This is my son.

Everybody be quiet. Start the time. Hold on.

My son joined me tonight, so I appreciate everyone letting me go first to get him out of here. And so thank you for the time. We bought our house on a zeal in 2015. We've watched the neighborhood. We've raised a family there. And with all due respect to Mr. Bentley, there's two things that he said. And I'm going to kind of go off the cuff here from what I've prepared. But he said there's no way this would affect the residents. And I live near wherever this entity was formed. He also said that it

I have to pause right now because we've got to get this under control before it goes much longer. If you're in this audience, there's no talking back there. When you guys talk, even if you think you're whispering, it amplifies the acoustics in this room. The right, Carol Ann, everybody else, everybody quiet because I cannot hear the speaker. We can't hear the speaker and this is their time to talk. When you're up there, it's your time to talk as well. So if you're in this audience and you're not standing at that podium, you cannot talk. If you need to speak, please go outside beyond the glass doors, okay? Okay. Thank you. Okay, and has everybody here been sworn in? If you have not been sworn in, please raise your right hand. Have you been sworn in? Please raise your right hand and be sworn in by our clerk. Okay, very good. Okay, we're going to start your time over because of that disruption. Sorry about that.

Thank you. Thank you. As I was saying, with all due respect to Mr. Bentley, there's two things I would take issue with. One is there's no way that anyone would be affected down at Zeal. And the second one is that tech the technicality of where this building is being proposed is not in beach barge beach park that may be true honestly i don't know but but i'll assume that's true the fact is the majority of the traffic will have to go through there to get to get to this building and i think i can't speak for everyone here but my primary concerns is the traffic levels that have come through beach park and i appreciate their willingness to lower the the height a little bit at the end of the day It probably makes sense to be a little bit higher and consistent with the other buildings. I do believe it's too high. Um, but having lived there, my primary issue is that, uh, in 2019, I submitted an application surrounded by all of our adjacent neighbors, according to the city's requirements to get a sidewalk put in because I, I want the safety for our family and all the other families and the city. Uh, I, I kept calling, kept calling and nothing happened. And finally, they said, it's just not in the budget. It's not going to happen. And then I've talked twice to police officers nearby that are radaring on West Shore. And I said, would you mind radaring on our neighborhood? Because people drive too fast. There's so much traffic now cutting through there. And we all know what's happening on West Shore. We all know what's going to be happening. And I understand development needs to happen. I understand that. Um, again, the police officer stated, we don't have the budget to sit there and radar inside the neighborhood. So what I, my problem is, is that, um, our children, our families are not being protected. And I'd like to see the council take note of that and, and look to ways that can improve the neighborhood while we try to also offer development and have it be consistent. This does not feel like it's consistent with the neighborhood. Uh, according to the height and the size and the density is, is becoming a problem, but obviously there has to be some compromise. So my, my proposal to council and to the developers, uh, I would love it if there was some way to contribute funds to getting sidewalks put in at least up and down a zeal all the way to West shore and put in over there in Mariner. Um, I feel like that would be a fair compromise for everyone. So thank you for your time, everyone.

Thank you very much. Hello, young man. Welcome to Tampa City Council. It's boring, isn't it? Okay, start with your name, please. You have three minutes.

If I might, I'd like to just present the order of the people who are speaking on behalf of tonight, officially on behalf of Beach Park, Homeless Association, as well as Mariners South and Mariners World Condominiums.

Can I just ask you to step to the podium and just state your name and what you're offering here?

Mark Miller, and I'm just handing you a presentation so you have all the information on who's speaking in what order tonight. These are the people that are specifically speaking on behalf of Beach Park Homeless Association, the Women's Club, Beach Park Women's Club, as well as the Mariner South condominiums and Mariner North condominiums. And then I might add the umbrella organization that the applicant spoke of, being the Preservation Society, is simply an umbrella for all those to help coordinate the efforts.

So each person is going to speak independently. Each person will get three minutes, but you just are proposing an order they speak? That's correct. Would you like me to call them up in that order, or are you already staggered in that order?

We should be, but if you don't mind, I would love that. Thank you.

Does Council have any objection to me calling them up in this order? I will do that. Okay. Hold on one second. Let me take a peek here. Okay, yeah, we'll do it. Okay, so you must be Michelle Fleeter? Yes. Okay, Michelle Fleeter, please, even though I just said your name, if you would state your name, please.

My name is Michelle Fleeter, and I live at 5218 West Neptune Way in Tampa. I am the vice president of Beach Park's Homeowners Association. We have approximately 1,300 homes in Beach Park. And I would like to read into the record that the following resolutions of our association passed unanimously. It also shall be noted that the address 5600 Mariner Street is part of Beach Park. Whereas the Beach Park Homeowners Association represents the Beach Park neighborhood and advocates on matters affecting zoning, transportation, infrastructure, and neighborhood character. Whereas the proposed rezoning of 5600 Mariners Street, city file number resolution 26000062, would permit multifamily commercial development of a scale Beach Park HOA believes is not compatible with the surrounding residential area and existing infrastructure. Whereas Beach Park already faces significant traffic, limited access, incomplete sidewalks, and growing development pressure in the West Shore corridor. And whereas the beach park HOA membership voted unanimously on. April 28th, 2026 to oppose the proposed rezoning now, therefore be it resolved, resolved at beach park HOA formally opposes resolution 26 0 0 0 0 6 2 as presently proposed and respectfully requests that the city deny the application. Further resolved that Beach Park HOA remains willing to engage constructively regarding an approximately scaled alternative. And further resolved that the secretary is authorized to transmit this resolution to the appropriate city officials, the applicant, the property owner, and the Beach Park HOA membership. Signed, Abby Grimaldi, President of the Beach Park Homeowners Association. Thank you.

Can you submit that to our attorney, please? Does that complete your presentation? Yes. Thank you, Michelle. Paula Perry. Start with your name, please.

Yes.

Hi. I'm Paula Perry. I'm also a resident at Beach Park. I've been a resident for nearly 30 years. I'm a member and a past president of the Beach Park Women's Club, which was founded in 1930. We're dedicated to promoting education, philanthropy, preservation, and community betterment. And I'm presenting a resolution on behalf of the Women's Club opposing this that was unanimously approved by a board and all of our general membership. Beach Park, I'm gonna summarize this for you. You each have a copy in your packet. It's one of the oldest and most treasured residential communities founded more than a century ago. Located within coastal high hazard area, CHAA, the neighborhood including residents along Mariner Street suffered significant damage from Hurricanes Helene and Milton with many families still rebuilding their homes and recovering. at this time. 5600 Mariner Street is in a CHAA and FEMA flood zones, VE and AE. And according to FEMA's coastal hazards and flood mapping, a visual guide 2021 designates V zones as coastal areas subject to high velocity wave action during a base flood event with wave heights larger than three feet. I'm sure some of the residents can speak to larger waves than that. Structures located within zone VE are subject to more stringent building requirements due to an increased risk from coastal flooding and wave action. REC 2662-5600 Mariner requested a rezone from office professional, commercial, to planned development, which would permit 262 multifamily residential units into a coastal high hazard area. The future land use designation of RMU 100 does not by itself entitle or require residential development at the maximum density potentially contemplated by that designation. The City of Tampa's own comprehensive plan must be considered in its entirety, including specific policies regarding population concentration. in a coastal high hazard. Objective 1.1, direct future population concentrations away from coastal high hazard area so as to achieve a no-nut increase in overall residential density within the CHAA. Policy 1.1.6, limit new development in the coastal high hazard area to uses that are vested or shown on the future land use map and defined in the urban design and land use elements. The proposed structure would introduce 262 residential units increasing the concentration of population in an area where the comprehensive plan expressly directs future population concentrations away from the CHAA. The proposed structure is inconsistent with the existing scale mass character surrounding residential neighborhood by noticing all the waivers from the reduced parking from 484 to 445 with 65% of those reduced to compact dimensions, the reduced loading berth, the reduced loading berth dimensions, et cetera. The Beach Park Women's Club stands in opposition to this rezoning, but the property finds that it presents substantial concerns regarding compatibility, residential density, public safety, infrastructure, traffic, storm and flood hazards, and the character. Thank you, Paula.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

Please deny this request. Thank you.

Deb Zanove, followed by Mark Miller.

Pardon me?

No, I'm calling the next speakers.

Okay. Let me turn this in.

Deb? Deb? »» Deb, start with your name, please. You have three minutes.

»» Actually, she has three names. Stan Fields. Are you standing to speak, sir? No? »» Pardon? »» I'm asking Mr. Fields if he's standing. He's shaking his head no. Todd Schnitt. Thank you. And Michelle Schnitt. Thank you. Three additional minutes for a total of six.

»» Okay. Start with your name. You have six minutes.

My name is Deb Zinnivoy. I'm on the board of directors for Mariner North and here representing the 44 residents of that community which is located directly across the street from the proposed building. I respectfully ask that you withhold approval of this project as it is inconsistent with the surroundings. The applicant has not met the burden of proof regarding the impacts on the traffic, emergency access, hurricane evacuation, parking drainage, flooding water pressure, water waste management, pedestrian safety, and neighborhood character. I want to be very clear from the beginning, this is not about being against development it is about being about responsible development that is appropriate for the road the neighborhood and the infrastructure that already exists this proposed construction as is creates numerous issues for quality of life standard of living for those in the area wildlife and residents in the beach park community i believe these need to be addressed before being approved. First, traffic and congestion. We're talking about 262 additional units and potentially 500 additional vehicles being added to a road that already has significant development underway. There have been an additional 555 units and potential 1,100 vehicles and 4,000 trips per day added already in just the past 24 months. Adding another 262 units and corresponding vehicles would put an enormous burden on Mariner Street. All of that traffic ultimately has to leave this area via one road. There's one road in, one road out, and it empties into a three-way stop at which we already have accidents occurring. This is not downtown environment designed for the level of density and traffic. If we wanted to live in congestion, we would live downtown or in the West shore overlay district or midtown. We chose to live in beach park because it's primarily a single family residential neighborhood with light traffic. We should not be turning the residential street into a high density traffic corridor. simply because the developer wants to squeeze more units on the property. Second, parking. Where will all of these vehicles go? The developer is already proposing parking waivers for their residents to park on the street if there is not enough on-site parking. The overflow of residents and guest parking will flood the street. Street parking cannot become the overflow situation. And we have to think beyond the ordinary day. What happens during a hurricane or an emergency evacuation and everyone is trying to get out at the same time. Third, emergency access, waste management, service vehicles. We have serious concerns about whether emergency vehicles, waste management, et cetera, will be able to adequately access the proposed building. This is not a theoretical concern. The city should reject this rezoning. There simply has not has to be enough infrastructure to accommodate all of these uses. Fourth, drainage stormwater runoff and flooding. Beach Park is not immune to flooding and adding a large amount of impervious surface can change how water moves through an area. We need clear answers about where the stormwater will go, how the runoff will be managed, and what protections will be in place for the surrounding properties. We should not approve a project and then discover after the next major storm that neighboring homes are experiencing increased flooding or drainage issues. Fifth, water pressure and infrastructure capacity. The applicant has not proven that the infrastructure can actually support this development. What will the additional demand due to the current water pressure? Will the surrounding systems have adequate capacity for the additional residents and building, including the two that are under construction that are not yet occupied? And perhaps most importantly, will there be sufficient water pressure and capacity for fire suppression systems and emergency needs? These questions need to be answered with engineering data, not assumptions. Sixth, pedestrians, bicyclists, and people walking their dogs. This is a pedestrian neighborhood, yet we are concerned that there are no adequate easements or dedicated space for pedestrian cyclists or dog walkers and no continuous sidewalk system. Seventh, road improvements. If this development requires significant road improvements and five waivers to make it work, then we need to ask the very basic question, is this project appropriate for this location in the first place? We should not have to fundamentally change the character and function of a residential neighborhood to accommodate a development that is simply too large for the existing infrastructure. Finally, there is an issue of scale and character at each park. The proposed building is more than twice the size of the building next door and across the street. It will significantly change the visual character of the street and absolutely obstruct existing views of those who have already paid for and enjoy the right of those views, not to mention the damage to the existing property values. At some point, Beach Park stops being a neighborhood that residents choose to live in. We are asking the city to look at this cumulative impact of development, not just this one project in isolation. All of these issues are connected. We are not asking the city to stop growth. We are asking the city to require growth that is responsible, safe, and appropriate for the neighborhood. Beach Park has a character that cannot simply be recreated once it's gone. We ask you to protect the safety, accessibility, infrastructure, and residential character of this community. Please do not approve this project of this size. Please help us to preserve Beach Park, not by preventing responsible development, but by preventing development that overwhelms the infrastructure and character of the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you, Deb. Mark Miller, followed by Carol Ann Bennett.

Council, while they're confirming that, I do want to clarify a couple of things. One, I would welcome questions at the end from Council.

How this works is that you'll have, if you don't have a speaker waiver form.

You have two.

You have two, okay. So once he confirms that, you'll end up getting five minutes total, and that's all you'll have. I have ten minutes. We don't do, well, I guess we could do, but you'll have five minutes. You said you had two speaker waiver forms?

I have two speaker waiver forms, and it looks like there are 11 names on them. Oh.

Yes, just in case anyone's not here. We were very cautious. Okay.

So I'm going to call them in order, and when we get to the first seven, then you'll have a total of ten minutes. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? If you have seven plus three, yes. From the previous one, could you just make sure that when documents are passed around,

Councilman Carlson, I've been watching Councilman Carlson. He's been providing them.

But providing them to the clerk?

Clerk, yes. Once we finish with him, he's been given to the clerk. Okay, good. Thank you.

The last name is Agarwal. Thank you. Jamie Zingaretti. Thank you. Willie McMillan. Willie McMillan.

He's standing in the back wall.

Mr. McMillan, you're standing, but you're not talking. Is that correct?

No.

Okay. Xavier Jones. Thank you. Kenneth Jones. Thank you. John Rick Delary. Thank you. And Salima Phillips. Thank you. That's seven names. And, Mr. Miller, I'm going to return the sheet to you. This one will suffice.

So with seven names, that will give you ten minutes of time to speak. Once you state your name, you'll have the ten minutes. Thank you.

Is it conceivable, since I am the attorney for the group, Since the applicant was given an extra five minutes, I might be able to get that, especially with a couple of inconsistencies that were reported in their opening.

I don't believe that would be appropriate because the group is with, this is a public comment for public hearing, but I will defer that to our attorney to make the question. I'm sorry. He says, because he's representing this, this group, he wants an additional time on additional time. Uh, that's, that's a different, my position is that's a different request and not appropriate for this hearing.

Okay. Let me just deal with this issue. I, if I can hear council, I've been provided with two piles of paper, one pile for the clerk. I don't know whether this is identical to which of these two things that I have in front of me, but this one looks substantially thicker.

For the clerk, it's presentation materials, so she has them for her benefit, clipped, not stapled, as she likes.

And then there are two piles here of different materials.

Those are the submissions that were made online last week prior to the deadline, and we just wanted in case the...

So that's just a receiving file because we've already received them. That's already been filed with you.

This is the receiving file. These are going to be distributed to council.

But he said they've already submitted those to OnBase. Did he submit this?

They have not. No. But the package that you have there, yes. It has been.

Or council quasi-submission. But these have been reproduced for council to have in front of them. Is that what your intention is?

Yes, if they care. If they do not need them, then that's fine, too. Sir, distribute the documents. That would be preferred. Thank you. Thank you.

Council, thank you for your indulgence on this. My goal here is to make sure that the record is accurate and complete.

And Mr. Chairman. Hold on one second. Sure. We're done with this. I'm going to make sure Mr. Shelby can chime in. Okay. Once he is not discombobulated. Or distracted.

Or distracted.

That's a better way to put it. Mr. Shelby. Yes. The gentleman at the podium is representing the, I'm assuming the homeowners.

He's representing seven people. That's why he gave me the speaker waiver form.

Right.

Those seven people are not speaking. That's correct. You have a maximum of ten minutes.

Okay. I was requesting if I could have the same courtesy as was granted to the applicant for their extra time.

And what is your standing in this case, sir?

I am the attorney for the umbrella organization that covers Beach Park Women's Club, Beach Park Homeless Association, Mariner South condominiums, and Mariner North condominiums. And I don't think I'll need all five minutes, but there were some clarifications that were made and statements made by the other side that I think need addressing that are not part of my formal presentation.

MR. Okay. So you're requesting a total of 15 minutes?

MR. Yes.

And I would MR. Let me ask you this. MR. Please. MR. The umbrella, so your client is the umbrella organization?

MR. That's correct, which represents the, which is, yes, that's a correct statement.

MR. Hold on just a minute. I believe that was Ms. Perry's documents.

Yes.

Okay. Now, Mr. Bentley, it looks like you want to have a sidebar with me. Do you want to have that discussion at the, at the lectern?

Mr. Bentley, Mark Bentley, 400 North Ashley, the purported, um, Umbrella Organization is actually Beach Park Preservation Society. They have no relationship to any of these other entities. They're an independent corporation. Actually, you received a letter from their lawyer last week, a young lady named Miss Berkey, who said that she was representing all these different entities. And to be an umbrella organization, okay, you have to have some kind of relationship, legal relationship. There's absolutely no relationship between the Beach Park Preservation Society and any of these entities at all. So it's not the umbrella for anything. It's an independent corporation. Now, if he wants to represent them, they don't have any members. They don't have any assets in Beach Park. That's fine with me, all right? So they wouldn't have any standing if this goes anywhere. Thank you.

So Mr. Shelby, my position is that he gets Mr. Shelton. So my position is that he gets this three minutes plus the seven for 10. And in accordance with our hearing rules that he gets the total of 10 minutes, not extra unless you give me for a different guidance.

Can I make this easy for you? And simply, if the council would ask me some questions about Live Local at the end of everyone's presentation, I would be satisfied with it.

MR. That would be up to the council members.

MR. I understand. And then I'd be satisfied with the original 10 minutes. I'll make it very easy on the council.

And me as well. Thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you, Michael. Okay. Then let's go with that. Perfect. And if Council has questions, I'm not mandating they ask me questions. Understood. If Council has questions, they are within their rights to ask you those questions. That's fantastic. Thank you. Okay. Start with your name, please, and you'll have ten minutes.

Absolutely. Once again, my name is Mark Miller, and I live at 5218 West Neptune Way. I've been practicing real estate law and transactional law, and I'm also a commercial developer for the past 42 years here in Tampa. So I think it is fair to say I am pro-development. More importantly, the residents of Beach Park and the Mariner condominiums are pro-development. We understand that there is going to be residential development on this site. And therefore, we proposed compromises to the developer over the past two years. More on that later. But any compromise on the part of Beach Park is with the qualification that such development be context sensitive, appropriate development. In other words, reasonable and compatible with the surroundings and consistent with the intent of the Tampa's land use policies. I'm here to demonstrate tonight why the applicant's proposal of 11 stories, 262 apartments, and formally for the record 137, now 129, and necessitating five waivers to even fit on the lot is neither reasonable, compatible with the surroundings, or compliant with the city Tampa land use policies. Please judge for yourselves if what I'm about to show you is either reasonable or compatible. Here is a picture on the front there of the single family homes just across the canal, just across the canal from the subject site. Look how close they are to 5600 Mariner, as shown in the bottom panel on the screen. And here is a picture of the current two story building on the subject site with those same homes and many more single family homes dressed across the canal. And here is a transparent outline of the size of the proposed 11 story. I'm sorry, transparent. of the proposed 11-story, 137, 129, 260-unit apartment complex requiring five waivers. And here, finally, this photo will give you a sense of the massive wall of concrete and glass that all those single-family homes on Sandpiper and beyond will be looking at day in and day out. And please keep in mind that all the residents of those 262 units will be staring down into the backyards of those single-family homes. And to stuff this oversized complex on the site, the developer is requesting, I'm sorry, requiring five waivers. So let me say that just to deal with one of those, and that is the parking. Developer is requiring 8% reduction of parking spaces. Follow the math, please. Parking for 262 units by code for this project is 484 parking spaces. The 8% reduction from code therefore puts the proposed project 39 parking spaces short. And that is just for the residents of the apartment building. Let's be ultra conservative and say that on a given Friday or Saturday night, 1%, just 1% of the apartments have a dinner party for 10 guests. And another 1% have a party with 15 guests. That is a total of 104 possible cars on a typical weekend night. And that is assuming only five apartments out of 262 have guests over. Let's do some more math together. 104 cars on the street bumper to bumper without accounting for driveways and fire hydrants would stretch the entire length of Mariner Street twice over. It is no wonder the Mariner South and North condo owners are panicked, along with all the single family homeowners on Mariner. Simply put, this project is excessive, inconsistent, and inappropriate considering the site's location, which is internal to the Beach Park neighborhood. The two apartment buildings that this applicant is comparing their property to are not only shorter than the 11 stories proposed, they are both fronting the Interstate 275 off-ramp in Kennedy Boulevard, and they are both in the West Shore Overlay District, the two compared properties. As compared to the proposed 5600 Marin Apartments, that fronts Marin Street, a two-lane neighborhood street, and which is a full quarter mile into the neighborhood from Kennedy Boulevard. Here are the photos side by side. On the left is the apartment building under construction at the corner of Kennedy and Hoover on the outskirts of our neighborhood. And yet it is only seven stories compared to the applicant's 11. And on the right is the Novell apartments, which are seen here from the off ramp of 275. And it's only nine stories compared to the applicant's 11 stories. The applicant comparisons, these two properties is absurd. Given the two other properties, both have fewer floors are in the West shore overlay district are in the outskirts of the single family neighborhood of beach park and both front and interstate highway. and Kennedy Boulevard. While the applicants project stairs down into the backyards of a multitude of single-family homes across a narrow canal, as I showed you earlier, a full mile, a quarter mile into the neighborhood. It is common knowledge among land use practitioners that the height of buildings are supposed to cascade down as you move into the neighborhood. Why should we allow this applicant's project to be an exception to that well-established policy? Let me just say this about traffic. You either exit out of Beach Park neighborhood into West Shore Boulevard or Kennedy Boulevard. That's it. Now keep in mind that West Shore Boulevard and Kennedy Boulevard are all failing roads with an F grading because of chronic safety problems, drainage failures, and backed up traffic. Now if your child comes home from school with an F grade, we would take away their phone and TV privileges. But this applicant wants to be rewarded with a rezoning for an oversized development requiring five waivers, which will guarantee an F grade on our roadways out into the future. stress our infrastructure and environment, and jeopardize the safety of our school-bound children every weekday morning. Now let me get back to the neighborhood effort, compromise, and my summary. In meeting with the developer about two years ago, and since we suggested they match the height of Mariner South condominium at 73 feet, we even offered to appear before city council to support such a proposal. Now this developer will tell you they compromised from that first meeting two years ago when they indicated they might do as many as 300 units. They might as well have said 520 units and said they cut it in half. Keep in mind that they cannot even fit the 262 units on the proposed site without requiring five waivers. Our Beach Park neighborhood has banded together and compromised with developers in the recent past and several members of the council approved those compromises. We have been cooperative. With the apartments that are almost complete, we asked the developer to reduce it to seven stories. They agreed, even though they're on Kennedy Boulevard, and we came out in favor of them. With the soon to be completed 200 South Hoover, We not only came to an arrangement with them that shows a coming down, a cascading down the perfect fit. We actually came, I personally came before council and supported it and told you how proud Beach Park Homeless Association was of that development. In contrast, the 5600 Mariner applicant has ignored our compromise offered to match the height of the Mariner South condominiums. There has been no compromise by the current applicant, notwithstanding any claim to the contrary. Nothing meaningful whatsoever. I believe I have fairly demonstrated to you tonight, as I set out to do, the applicant's project is not context-sensitive appropriate development. Our next very qualified presenter is going to provide you with the legal ammunition to hang your hat on to deny this request for rezoning. I would like to ask all our distinguished council members to deny the applicant's request for rezoning and multiple waivers. I also share with you 974 petitions from the neighbors requesting that same rejection of this rezoning request. And I especially want to appeal to you, Councilman Miranda, as our Beach Park District 6 representative, and to you, Councilman Mascoppio, as our immediate past District 6 representative. You both have been such wonderful stewards of Beach Park, and we hope you carry out that tradition, especially in light of the fact that our neighborhood has repeatedly welcomed compatible multifamily development. Thank you very much.

One minute to spare. If you'd like to submit the petitions to the record. No, no, no, no, no, no. I told y'all I'm going to throw you out if you do it. No clapping, no whistling, nothing else, okay? That's not what we do here. And ask the lady in the back right. She'll tell you I throw people out. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir.

I just want to let council know and the public know that signed petitions in and of themselves are not competent substantial evidence. Correct. They are not relevant and material to your decision. And it would be inappropriate for you to consider them as part of this project.

Yes. Do you still put it in the record, though?

I had seen it attached to the councilor's letter, which was electronically provided. I don't think the clerk would appreciate 900 some odd Pieces of paper that are not relevant to your decision.

Okay, then we'll go with Mr. Shelby. You can keep your paper. Thank you. If you are done with those placards, I would appreciate if you take them down because we have security to our side and it restricts our visibility.

We can probably reduce it to one. That would be great because I've been having angst because of this.

It's okay. Okay, and as soon as you're finished with them, I would still appreciate bringing them down because they're quite large for line of sight with our security. Councilman Vieira. Yes, sir.

And Mr. Miller, if I may, first off, I salute the thud. That was great. So way to go. Way to go, attorney. That's great. But if I may ask you, sir, you had talked about the Live Local Act.

Yes.

And you wanted to speak to that. I'm just curious as to your position. You know, the the applicant is is I don't want to put words in her mouth, but there's the whole better the devil, you know, the devil you don't know. I guess we know the devil or the regard if it that if that's your position, I should say. So what's your position with any distinguishing points? I'm just curious.

Councilman, we deem the live local as a threat. that if we don't approve, if we don't allow you, as if we have that option, to approve, that they will shove live local down our throats. And we find that abhorrent and could not possibly be what was intended by our governor when they passed live local. And I find that truly obnoxious. I also have to say that there is a, you know, Mr. Bentley's characterization of the Beach Park Umbrella Organization Where does he come off telling us who represents who and who's under our umbrella? I find that to be also obnoxious. MR. Yes, sir.

No, and I just wanted to see if there were any – I understand your characterization. There's threats, then maybe there's statements of law that have basic foreseeable facts and so forth, but I just didn't know if there was some distinction from what was alleged.

MR. We are not here to object to live local. We are not here to object to live local in that location. live under the understanding that compatibility with single family homes that live right across the canal is what's important here. And the rest of Mariner Street that is single family. The condominiums, they were built many, many years ago, decades ago. To compare them to that, and that's why those are there next to the existing single-family homes, that's red herring. Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Thank you very much, Councilman.

Any other questions? No other questions. Carol Ann Bennett is next. Perfect. Thank you. Carol Ann, go for it. I know I don't have to school you. You've got the routine down.

I know. I know what to do.

They're just taken separately, but she has all of everything. She has a quick list of everything. They're just taken. Thank you.

Well, let's see what happens.

Ms. Bennett has several names. Let's see, when we get to seven, Sharon Albers, are you here? Yes, thank you. Keith Carinati, did I say that correctly? Thank you. Kelly Carinati, thank you. Deborah Sisco. Thank you. Ron Sparks. Ron Sparks. I see the hand. So you're not going to be talking, Mr. Sparks. Is that correct? I see you standing. You're not going to be talking. Okay. And Jennifer Sparks. Thank you. And then there's an additional name, David Ingram. I see that. That brings you to 7 plus 3 is 10. Would you like these other pages back? I would. Thank you. 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Okay, Ms. Bennett, start with your name. You have 10 minutes.

Okay. My mouth is very dry. Carol Ann Bennett. Professional planner Patricia Ortiz prepared a comprehensive report that has been submitted into the record. However, she cannot be here tonight, so I am presenting in her place. Beach Park supports reasonable development and feels RM75 zoning is appropriate. They do not support this project because it is not reasonable in its height, scale, mass, density, and compatibility. The City's adopted planning framework in the Comp Plan states that the Central Planning District, West Shore Planning District, and University Planning Districts are intended as centers of employment, commerce, and mixed use and have the greatest growth potential. Conversely, South Tampa and New Tampa have different characteristics and are not appropriate for great growth. The West Shore overlay is intended as a transition between the intense development of the West Shore Planning District and the lower density South Tampa District, including Beach Park, an established low density single family neighborhood. This project is outside both the high density West shore planning district and through transition area of the West shore overlay. Instead it's in the low density South Tampa district, making this project inappropriate for this location. Additionally, RMU 100 can only use FAR in South Tampa for mixed use projects. This project should be considered single use, not mixed use, because only 1.12% is non-residential. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate consistency with the comp plan, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, and compliance with the city code. The developer has not proved consistency with the comp plan, particularly the compact city growth strategy, which steers intense development to the West Shore, University, and central planning districts. A mixed use, a mixed use RMU 100 project allows FAR for determining density potential. But even then, the maximum is not automatic. It must be compatible. I quote, potential development shall be compatible in character and scale with the surrounding residential built environment. But this project should not be considered mixed use because only 1% of the building is non-residential. As a single use project, they are not allowed to use FAR. Is this true mixed use? This unspecified non-residential does not create a substantially mixed use development. The general rule of thumb for mixed use is 10% non-residential, 10 times more than this. And the status of this non-residential is unspecified, including whether it is for public or private use. A PD requires compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The burden of proof is on the applicant. Their proposal is unlike the development to the south and the west. Their development is not in the West Shore overlay, which is the transitional boundary between high intensity West Shore and low intensity South Tampa. A PD requires consistency with the land development code. The burden of proof is on the applicant and 27-226 and 27-136 say a PD should be approved when standard zoning cannot provide planned diversification and integration of use. But here, standard RM75 can easily provide that. The developer is misusing the PD as a means to achieve maximum development. Height and mass should transition rather than jump to the maximum and overwhelm the neighborhood, especially since this site is a quarter mile from Kennedy Boulevard down a winding two-lane road and is not in the West Shore Planning District or the West Shore Overlay. Here's the boundary of the overlay. Both the Mariner and Novell are in the overlay. This project is not. Yet it will be as tall, almost as tall, depending on, as Novell, and taller than the Mariner. Mariner North and South, next to it, are appropriate heights. This is the typical home in the neighborhood. The proposed building is five times that size. This is the abutting property next door at 80 feet tall, significantly smaller than the proposal. These two properties are both in the West Shore overlay and they are the same size approximately or smaller than what is being proposed outside the overlay. Therefore, this project is incompatible with the comp plan's intentions for the South Tampa Planning District. These five waivers, five, are only needed to allow a maximization of the land and would not be necessary if the intensity was appropriate. The consequences are severe and unreversible. It blurs the distinction between a high growth area and an area where established neighborhoods are supposed to be preserved and protected. It will create a precedent for taller, larger buildings outside the overlay where they don't belong. It will increase pressure on Mariner Street and shift the development pattern. It will affect views, privacy, shadows, and traffic. Denial will promote reasonable development. The standard RM75 zoning is viable and reasonable. It would allow 175 units on this site. RM75 also reinforces the relationship between building height and spatial separation. Beach Park does not oppose multifamily that is compatible in intensity, mass, and height. In fact, the current zoning of OP1 allows multifamily development. Beach Park does not oppose redevelopment of this site. It only opposes this inappropriate intensity that is inconsistent with the South Tampa planning context and the established character of the neighborhood. I am now speaking my own personal comments. In 2021, the mayor came to the Gandy Civic Association with a dozen staff members and department heads to discuss inappropriate growth in South Tampa. Planning Commission staff, city staff, the mayor, and city council all agreed growth was not occurring where it was most beneficial. Both the Planning Commission and Steven Benson from the city presented data to council showing that areas that should have the highest, most intense rate of growth had only grown 1% in 10 years. But South Tampa, which should have the lowest growth, had grown 13 times as fast and, in fact, had the highest growth rate in the city. There were parts of the city that were starving from a lack of financial investment, while South Tampa was gagging and choking on the financial investment that was being shoved down our throats. Some council members suggested a moratorium on growth in South Tampa, like Hillsborough County had at that time. But that was very scary. So the city advocated for something less impactful, the elimination of FAR as a tool for supersized growth in New Tampa and South Tampa. This change to the comp plan was initiated by you, city council. Four of you were on council then, I'm sure you remember that. You initiated this amendment to the comp plan and you approved it unanimously. Tampa City Council has initiated this policy change to better plan for areas of growth and mitigate the impacts of single-use multifamily residential developments. There was a great fear at the time that developers would try to circumvent the intent of your amendment with projects that had only token mixed use. This was discussed at great length for months by staff and council. Meeting to discuss modified moratorium from Randy Goers to Abby Feeley, Kate Wells, Steven Vincent require a mixed use. The second use must be at least 30% of the FAR. from Abby Feeley, 30%. When receiving the benefit of an FAR, the percentage should be meaningful. Then in July, it was changed. They proposed that 10% would be more reasonable. You can see here, this was submitted to council. And then again, it was submitted to council in October. 10% mixed use. Planning Commission did not think it was appropriate to put percentages in the comp plan. They thought it should be in the land development code. Because the LDC was going to be rewritten and because bureaucratic change proceeds at a snail's pace, this is still in process. But in the meantime, Council should not allow the circumvention of their own intentions by being tricked into approving a fake mixed use development. And I want to say that the people that I've spoken to here said that they never requested that the non-residential be reduced. Staff found this inconsistent. They need five waivers. It doesn't comply with the growth goals of the comp plan. It is not the only viable option. Therefore, it doesn't comply with criteria for PDs. It contradicts the purpose of the West Shore overlay. Please deny it for all of those reasons. Thank you.

No clapping. You caught yourself. Good. You wanted to, but you caught yourself. I heard that. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bentley.

Yeah. I'm just doing my job here, but what we just had was we think inappropriate. You had a non-expert testifying.

Hey, hey, hey. No, no, no. Lessons learned, remember. Okay, Mr. Bentley, state your objection.

I just got to get this on the record, thanks.

State your objection.

You had a non-expert testifying to an expert, purported expert's opinion, which is all hearsay, and we didn't have the opportunity to question the expert. So just for the record, I think that testimony should be stricken. Whatever she said about her personal experience, she's got a right to do that, but all the other analysis based on some expert's report should be stricken. Thank you.

Your objection is noted. Thank you. Okay. The next speaker is Goran Dumjek. I probably slaughtered that, didn't I?

Close enough.

Okay.

One additional name, Renee Ingram.

Thank you.

That's four minutes.

Okay. Start with your name. You have four minutes.

Good evening. My name is Goran Doniak. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of Florida with a bachelor's and a master's degree in civil engineering from UCF specializing in transportation systems engineering. I'm also an Envision sustainability professional and a smart cities practitioner. I want to briefly address the traffic engineering report before you as exhibit two, prepared by Drew Roark, who is a PTOE and a CTL. His independent review identified several significant issues with the transportation analysis submitted for 5600 Mariner. First, the trip generation appears to be underestimated. The analysis does not match the current site plan and an incorrect peak hour factor was used. As a result, potential commercial trip generation is underestimated by approximately 50%. Second, the trip assignments do not appear to follow the existing travel patterns, despite the methodology agreement stating that the existing traffic distribution would be used. At Mariner Street and Hoover Boulevard, for example, existing eastbound right turns represent approximately 27% of the approaching traffic, while the development analysis assigns only 14%, leaving 13% of traffic unaccounted for. Third, background traffic was not properly adjusted to the peak season conditions. As we all know, in Florida, seasonal adjustment factors are important because traffic fluctuates significantly throughout the year. Evaluating annual, average annual conditions rather than peak season conditions can understate the traffic conditions this network will actually experience. There's another unusual factor here. At least 69 nearby homes remain unoccupied following Hurricanes Helene and Milton. At approximately nine and a half daily trips per single family residence, that represents more than 650 daily trips currently absent from the surrounding network. Those trips will return once those homes are reoccupied. Taken together, these issues raise a fundamental engineering concern. Does the analysis before you accurately represent the traffic conditions that this development will create? The concern is amplified because this is also a high flood risk area within Hurricane Evacuation Zone A. Adding more than 260 residential units means potentially hundreds of additional residents relying on the same transportation network during an evacuation. Finally, When the development adds traffic to a constrained network, drivers seek alternate routes, naturally. As Mariner Street, Hoover Boulevard, and Kennedy Boulevard become more congested, cut-through traffic can migrate to residential streets such as West Cleveland and West Zeal, bringing additional volume, higher speeds, and potential safety concerns into already established neighborhoods. I myself am pro-development, but development must be context sensitive, supported by sound engineering analysis, and compatible with the infrastructure and the community surrounding it. Before approving this level of density, I respectfully ask the Council to ensure that the transportation analysis accurately reflects peak conditions, existing travel patterns, returning residential traffic, and cumulative impact on the community. And then we will really know what the impact of this development is. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

And if nobody's using the presentation, if we could remove the placard and put it down against the wall. Who's going to use it?

Is it the next speaker? Yes.

The next speaker is Deborah Kramer.

Excuse me, Council. Martin Shelby City Council Attorney. I just want to assure the public that the goal here is to have an accurate record. that would adequately and legally support whatever city council's decision is. If an attorney or somebody who has standing has the ability to make an objection, my recommendation would be they do so to preserve that objection for the record.

Thank you, Mr. Bentley.

State your objection. Mark Bentley, the problem you just heard is that this gentleman who holds himself out as a professional said that he testified to a Mr. Rourke's report that he did not author Okay, so I didn't have any opportunity to question Mr. Roark. Also, so the actually hearsay testimony, that doesn't rise to the level of substantial competent evidence under the law, which is, you know, in quasi-judicial proceedings is what you need to rely on. Therefore, we object to his testimony and request that it be stricken. I'm just getting that on the record. Thank you.

Mr. Bentley, your objection is noted, and you will have an opportunity during rebuttal to address the specifics of your objections. Okay. Next speaker, please. Start with your name.

Ms. Kramer has five names. Robert Kramer. Thank you. Judy Rorty. Judy Rorty. Rorty.

Is Judy Rorty here?

Yes, she's here.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

Jim Holloway.

No, he's not on there.

Oh, I was crossed out. Okay. Carmen Amaro. Did I say that correctly?

Thank you.

And Tara Curry, thank you. One, two, three, four names plus three equals seven.

Okay, start with your name, please. You have seven minutes.

My name is Deborah Kramer and I'm an owner and resident of 5700 Mariner, Mariner South condominiums, not Mariner West, directly west of this development. I'm also a member of our homeowners board at Mariner South. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of the rezoning for 5600 Mariner on behalf of the board and the ownership of Mariner South. Members of City Council, I appeal to you to represent us to hear our concerns of the 43 residents of Mariner South and the 44 residents of Mariner North, as well as those of our single family neighbors on Mariner and in Beach Park. These are our major concerns. The 262 units and the extra traffic on the already failing roads of Kennedy and West Shore, and the burden on the small roads being Mariner, Hoover, Azil, and Cleveland that our families use multiple times a day. The insufficient parking for the residents magnified by the parking waivers requested by the applicant for the proposed building will result in cars spilling over onto Mariner Street. The lack of parking for their number of guests will certainly pour onto Mariner in search of parking and likely take away the surface parking intended for our own residents and our guests. The back of house facilities, especially trash, that are to be placed on the project's west side, extremely close to our building. Please allow me to say a little more about parking. Where will these renters park? Where will their guests park? Where will retail customers park? And where will the large delivery moving trucks park? If done correctly, there would be no need for a waiver. But unfortunately, the developer is looking to maximize everything about this site except the essentials, like parking. Instead, the overflow of residents and their guests will park on our parking spots and on the street. This street has no sidewalks, so people who walk, run, bike, or take their babies out will have no safety. So this becomes a hardship not only for our owners, but a danger to all pedestrians. It will also cost us money to protect and secure our own parking lot. Why should the developer desire to maximize profit be allowed to burden us? Will they share in that tour and that cost for us? The current plan for 5600 Mariner calls for all back of house facilities to be on their west side next to our building. That includes trash, trash compactor, delivery vehicles, moving trucks, delivery vans, generators, trash and recycling trucks, as well as owners and renters own personal vehicles. This brings noise, pollution, dirt, and trash right to the edge of our property. We have asked on several occasions going back several years to have these functions move to the east side of the building where there are no neighbors. The applicant has said that due to the geometry of the lot configuration, it's too hard to get garbage trucks and fire equipment around the building and still maintain the turning radius needed. They would not be able to navigate the three-point turn. All these excuses from the developer and little to no compromise. despite the fact these conditions are based on the developer's own making. I've been involved with this project since the very beginning. I have gone to every single meeting, including a meeting held at Mariner South for Mariner North and our owners. The last time I spoke to the developer was on August 12th. At that conversation, he proposed two compromises. One was a fence, or a wall instead of a fence. Initially, the project on the border of our two properties was a fence. He said, I can put up a six foot wall. Okay, considering the height of their building compared to ours, six foot doesn't really cut it. And what I want is trees, lots of trees, tall trees. I want a buffer to protect us from the sound and noise and pollution that will come from what they are putting on the west side. The other compromise he offered was to come down in height. Okay, the trick about that is when you come down on height, you go wide. Wide means closer to our building, which goes against everything that we've been asking for. So that is not a fix. I think what's happening is they are overbuilding on an irregular, too small lot. So we are not against development of any kind, not this development, however. That is something that I cannot support the way it looks now. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Deborah. Stephanie Poynter, followed by Ravi Shari.

It's out of order that he's up in people's personal space when we're handing paperwork to Mr. Shelby as well.

I'm going to do my best here. Mark Sokolowski, are you here?

Mark Sokolowski, going once. I don't hear anybody.

Garrett Garcia, thank you. Lisa . OK, thank you. That's two. And Robert Singleton. That's three for a total of six minutes.

Okay, Stephanie, start with your name. You have six minutes.

My name is Stephanie Pointer. Mr. Bentley, in my opinion, has already used his five minutes of additional response, rebuttal time. He's been up here more than any other attorney I've ever seen at City Council in all the time that I've been here. I wish I may. I wish I might. I wish I could just move this site. Carol Ann, bring me my laptop, please. I'm accused of being anti-development. I'm not. I'm anti-stupid development. This one falls into that category. Eight meetings with the neighborhood means that they didn't listen to the neighborhood the first seven times they met with them because they're still here and they're still upset. This is not Beach Park's first rodeo. Their first rodeo was back in 2021, 22 timeframe. They got from this kind of process all the way to yes and supported that process. Why? Because the developer wanted to work with them, not try to intimidate and bully them, but to work with them. Who cares who takes the lead in the neighborhood? Sometimes it's somebody two streets over. You know why? Because there are people in this world who do not want to come down here and speak to city council. They care very much about their neighborhood, but they do not want to come down here and speak to city council. So other people, like yours truly here, show up and scream bloody murder. Why? Because other people don't always feel comfortable doing that. So questioning a neighbor for not being close enough is inappropriate. Mr. Bentley said that this project is not in Beach Park. That is absolutely untrue. It is part of Beach Park, and it has been since 2021 when we made it part of Beach Park because the last project was approved without any of the neighborhoods being notified, just like the Publix over across from Stewart. Just like there's some other projects that were outside of boundaries because the neighborhoods weren't notified because they weren't on the map properly. So that was changed. I was president at the end. The applicant put up the definition of RMU 100. I think this is wonderful that he did this. But he neglected to point out this part, and I'm sorry it's kind of blurry, but bottom line is it says that RMU 100, not for South Tampa and not for New Tampa, just like Carol Ann told you. This is not in the comp plan because it was put in there 30 years ago. It's in the comp plan because our community was raped, robbed, and pillaged with redevelopment. And then as part of this, they came back, the Beach Park community came back and in 2022 at some point, let me get this down here.

Bring it down.

beach park hired susan swift and they actually added in 2022 the rmu 100 which is what this probably could or should be but no they're coming for a pd because they want to skirt around the far requirement this isn't something this isn't something from long ago and far away this is our reality There's a reason why these rules are in place. I'm sorry, but a developer coming in here and saying, oh, wait a minute. And I'm sorry, I left my laptop back there. I got excited because I thought I was going to be last. And first of all, this is in Beach Park, number one. I'll be happy to show you the neighborhood maps. I'll bring them back up here if you like. This is also in the South Tampa Planning District. This is in the South Tampa Planning District. You cannot wish it where you want it to be. Nobody here can change that. Trust me. So why are we even talk about West Shore District? I don't know. The requirement in the comp plan is not random. The waivers It's not even just, it says, oh, we're reducing from four loading docks to one. No, it's reducing it from four loading docks to half a loading dock. Because if you look, it says, reducing the loading dock from 12 by 60 to 12 by 30. That's half of them. That's half. So we... This just blows my mind, and I don't even have to really try really hard to figure this stuff out. The note the applicant in here claims to reduce the project, you know, we came in here tonight with one set of expectations. We walked over to the planning department folks, to the land use department folks, and said, oh, we're going to reduce it by 10 feet. Oh, we're going to do this, and we're going to do that. We just now got around to it. Why? Because this entire gallery is full of people who object to this project because it's crap. If it was a great project, nobody would be here complaining. You guys approve 90 plus percent of what comes in front of you. Because 90 plus percent of what comes in front of you, either one works with the neighborhood and makes it a great project, or they bring you a great project to start with. This one's poop. If it was a great project, these folks have shown up in the past and said this is a good project and we can live with it. This is not an untested group of applicant or group of neighbors. This is a group of neighbors who has gotten to yes with an applicant before and tonight they're here going not know, but hell no. Why? Because cocky, arrogant people think that they don't have to communicate with our community. Mr. Bentley started out this evening letting us all know that they don't live here. They don't live here. All of these people and I do. You do. But these people get to come in here and say, I met with them eight times. And I don't really, they just, this is where we're at. But yet you got five waivers and a building that's too big for the damn space. Thank you very much. Well, that's why I'm trying to be last. Sorry.

Robbie. Yep. Start with your name, please. Robbie Chari, 30 West Spanish Main from Beach Park. You've heard from a lot of folks here tonight. Hold on a second.

Come on, everybody. Hold it down. This guy's speaking. Let's be respectful.

Okay. You've heard from a lot of folks on our team here, from our planners, our traffic engineer, condos, as well as Thanh. And there's one point I want to just reiterate. You've heard it several times, and it's that Beach Park does say yes to development. And it was pretty emphatically stated in the last speaker. We understand completely that the city needs housing. And thousands of apartments have gone up around us. And I have this, I don't know if this turns on, but if it turns on, if I can. Can we get the Wolf Hunt? There we go. I think it's, okay. You can see around us, there's been a lot of places that we've supported. The Novell Beach Park, the Mariner, which is under construction, Mark mentioned, the West Shore Plaza redevelopment, and 200 Hoover. The apartments at Kennedy and Hoover, Mr. Miller talked about those. They're going up right now. And that developer came to us, and we asked them to come down to seven stories. And guess what they did? And we backed that project wholeheartedly. And you also heard, and this is one, as you referenced that time back to early 2020, 2021, when we got active and worked on 200 South Hoover. And we helped that developer shape those steps and step it down from Kennedy into a single family neighborhood. context-sensitive, heard that word, appropriate development. And Mr. Miller, who was here and spoke for us this evening, was actually here, and I'll reiterate what he said. He didn't just say no objection. He applauded that effort, and a number of you here voted for it. So that's our record for Beach Park. That's what we do. And let's talk about their record, and you've heard that also. They told you tonight that they compromised, but ask them what they gave up. A lot of numbers were thrown out today, but at the end of the day, they say they're down to 300 units, but as Mark said, you could have started with 520 divided by two, and you'd get to 260. Changing the number is not a compromise. And the part that doesn't need anyone to have a word at all, depending on anybody's word, is it still doesn't fit, not on this lot, not under the zoning, because it takes five waivers. We've heard it all night, five waivers. as we said we have come forward and there's one specific number we put forward to them seventy three feet and by the way even if they drop into one twenty nine one twenty nine seventy three feet that's fifty six feet difference not forty five has been put up here and that's the height of mariner south it's context sensitive appropriate and responsible none of these are in their application there's been no compromise here you've heard that Councilmember, every developer, reiterate this, every developer who's come and worked with us has gotten to yes. In good faith, we get them to yes. And when they present a context-sensitive project down the road, we will support these developers as well. But so far, they haven't. That's their choice. And tonight, it's your choice. Please deny this petition.

Thank you, Robbie. How many more people want to speak tonight? And remember, if you signed a speaker waiver form, you can't speak, right? So if you signed one, you did. So we've got, I see one, two, three. Okay, if y'all three, if y'all would line up against the wall. And Sandy, go ahead, start with your name. You have three minutes.

My name is Sandy. Excuse me. My name is Sandy Sanchez. I came here to give a minute, but something caught my eye, and so I had to stay. But before I say that, I have a statement I'd like to make. About 15 years ago, when I got involved with getting my community, I talked to LaShawn. I talked to Abby Feely. I talked to Eric Cotton. David Hay, different people from the county, and they told me if I wanted to find information, I had to use either the comp plan or the land development code. When we private taxpaying citizens come up here and we quote from those two Bibles that we have been told to use, you should not dismiss what we had to say. That's the first thing I'd like to say. The other thing that caught my eye was the loading docks. This is something that's come up with all these monoliths that you're putting up. Let me remind you of something. We live in a world of delivery. Every day, Amazon, UPS, DHL, and a number of companies deliver packages all day long. And they are disorganized, especially Amazon. Sometime there are four Amazon trucks parked in two blocks. When they come to the address, they have to park the car, the truck. They have to get out of the truck, find the package, because they're not organized either, and then deliver it to the home. It takes time. If you don't have a loading dock, and you have a resident like this that's probably going to have 300, 350 people, you're going to get deliveries all the time. There are people that work at home, and they get deliveries. And let's not forget Uber Eats and DoorDash. Those run 24 hours a day. I have two gamers, adult gamers, that live in my block, and they get the delivery at 1 o'clock in the morning, 3 o'clock in the morning, whenever they feel. Where are these people, these trucks going to park if they don't have a place, a loading dock to load and unload? Not to mention, what about the 292 apartments that are going to be filled with people? They have to bring U-Hauls. SUVs, they need places to park those cars. What are they going to park on Mariner and walk and find at? Uber Eats has to go to every apartment. They can't leave the food downstairs like they can packages. It ties it up. I just want you to think about that because they're coming up. Every time we have the last four that I have watched, and I know Councilman Hertak, is passionate about the floating docks, but they are important. You cannot ignore them. It caused traffic on Mariner if they have to park there, and you're also adding 350 cars to Mariner. That's an evacuation route for those people. Please think about this. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker, please. Start with your name. You'll have three minutes.

Joan Wadler, thank you so much for taking the time to listen and allowing me to speak. I just want to make a couple of points. Um, but as a bit of history, first of all, I'm here as an owner. I have two units now at Mariner South. My parents lived there for almost 29 years. Um, and I have been there countless times through the years. Parking is already an issue and this monstrosity of a building, they want less parking than is required with that many apartment units. They're going to need, there's going to be four to 500 cars minimum. You there's just no way around it. Parking on the street. It's just not practical. Um, on Mariner street. And speaking of Mariner street, it's Mariner south is, and this whole area is in an evacuation evacuation zone a, if I'm not mistaken. And. Evacuation out of that street, off of Mariner, is very difficult when a storm comes, unless you are a week ahead of it. Right now, there's construction on the corner of, I believe it's Mariner and Hoover. It's an apartment building, and the traffic is horrendous. Just getting in and out of Mariner, it's terrible. And, I mean, other people have talked about, you know, Kennedy and those other areas. This is all going to be impacted if you permit such a huge complex. I have no issue with development. I think that the appropriate development is what is required and with the appropriate infrastructure in place. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Next speaker, start with your name. You have three minutes.

Mr. Hey, my name is Andrew Doyle. I live at 4501 West Rosemere Road, local, own the house. I have to say this is my first time being at City Hall or in the city meeting, so thank you. I appreciate what each of you do. I'm amazed I wouldn't want to do what each of you do, you know, to be here at this hour. Most of my life has been spent helping big companies on big projects, and I sense from a lot of this conversation that there is some concern around potential litigation from you know, the applicant, et cetera. And from that perspective, I appreciate what you're trying to do and not getting the city sued, because that's gonna come out of my pocket in taxes. But I have to think, you know, if you live in that area, you would see that there are real traffic issues and concerns and talked about safety. I'm concerned specifically in that hearing, I thought I heard earlier, traffic isn't a problem. We've looked at it and it's not a problem. I don't believe that. I thought I heard that earlier. I don't believe that. If anybody goes over there and they look at what happens at the base when the base goes out in that timeframe, it's a zoo already. And when there are problems, when 275 is a problem, that's a nightmare. There are not many corridors that come in in that section. It's a nightmare. And you add that kind of zoning, it's ridiculous. And I appreciate the fact that, you know, from a NIMBY perspective, right, nobody wants a big thing in their backyard. But I think as everybody here has said, you know, if it's a reasonable location and there's a reasonable size, I think everybody's open to that. But, you know, as we talked about in an earlier application, you know, We were talking about another piece of property. I don't quite remember where it was. Just listening in, there were concerns about parking on the street, right? We're going to have exactly the same thing. Hearing this, oh, well, the zoning codes for parking are 1963, that's ludicrous. I mean, come down to South Tampa and see what parking looks like. There are cars all over the place. I can barely get down my street with construction, things like that. It's only going to get worse. So I guess that's kind of my biggest concern is we don't, again, this is just my perception, it doesn't seem like we have to give in to these waivers and these waiver requests. So if there's a concern that somehow we're gonna get sued because we're not giving into the, zoning appropriately that shouldn't be a concern I can't imagine again I don't know the rules if you talk to me about accounting or things like that I could give you rules but I can't imagine that we're required to give exceptions because of this monstrosity that's coming in for parking that that just seems ridiculous so anyways I appreciate it thank you thank you very much and I believe is this the last public speaker is anybody else that wants to speak

OK, sir, bring it home. You're the last speaker. You have three minutes.

Tough act to follow. Michael Banks. I'm actually a resident, 46 Sandpiper Road. I don't have a picture, but it's the blue house that's directly across from this project. And the idea that this is not part of Beach Park is ludicrous. Our house is directly there. We're going to be affected by light pollution, noise pollution. everything else that goes on at this building were separated by less than 100 feet for the homes that are there at the end of sandpiper what i will say and just in conclusion i'm glad that we're here i'm glad this is a vote i stopped going to the meetings with this group after they said they had a 100 success rate pushing stuff through and i am so glad that you get to decide independently and make the decision about this and it's not based on the attorney do i have standing don't i have standing or the rest of this group here and you get to do that as an independent group and make the decision for our neighborhood that's going to impact it for the next 50 years This is not something that is going to happen and be done in a matter of a year or two. It is going to impact our street. And by the way, our street is still 25% empty from the hurricane. So again, there are not enough people to even come here tonight because of the houses that flooded during Helene. But again, I appreciate your attention to all of this. And I truly hope that you can make the correct decision and say this is not the right project for the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, I have a question for staff, please. There's been contradicting information about this parcel and where it lies. One, is it in the South Tampa Planning District? And two, is it in the West Shore Overlay District?

Megan McCarthy, Planning Commission staff. This is within the South Tampa Planning District, as well as, from what I can see, the Beach Park neighborhood, and is not within the West Shore Overlay.

Okay, so it is in the South Tampa Planning District. It is not in the West Shore Overlay District, and it is part, well, not that the neighborhoods are statutory, so that's not relevant to this discussion. Correct. But for planning purposes, this is within the South Tampa Planning District.

That is correct.

Thank you very much. Okay. Does council have any further questions before I go to rebuttal? Okay. Mr. Bentley? Five plus five. If he needs it. Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Start with your name, please.

Mark Bentley, once again. Thank you very much. I'll just go over a couple of the points. First of all, some of the testimony was inappropriate, and I don't need to go down that path again. I objected to it. People testifying in other people's opinion and hearsay, etc. So that wouldn't be substantial competent evidence. Luckily, this is not a referendum or popularity contest for this project, but It's a quasi-judicial proceeding, which your decision has to be based on substantial, competent evidence, just the facts and evidence that have been presented to you within the four corners of this room tonight. First thing I'd like to address is transportation. That issue came up a lot. And there's some mischaracterization of some of the facts. And also, I'd point out that the transportation department approved the methodology, and approved the report that was prepared by Mr. Cohen. Randy?

Good evening again. Randy Cohen. I have been sworn. Let's talk a little bit about traffic. I'll be as brief as I can. They made some allegations regarding trip generation relative to the office retail portion of this project. Well, unfortunately, in reading the experts' reports, they compared office from net external traffic to retail based upon gross traffic. When you apply the internalization rate that was approved as part of the methodology and passerby capture, that is a part of the methodology process in calculating trips, the numbers are exactly the same between retail and office in this particular case. That is because both of these are rather small elements, 4,000 square feet in maximum. Oh, and by the way, there was also, not listed, but the fact that we didn't revise the traffic study once we reduced the amount of dwelling units from 300 to 262 and the amount of the office from 6,000 to 4,000. We overestimated traffic by 16 trips in the morning and 29 trips in the afternoon. So the Tampa process is if you go down, you don't have to redo your traffic study distribution. It's great. When you decide to do a distribution based upon one intersection, this property is served by two intersections, Hoover and Mariner and Hoover and base center. When you look at both of those intersections together to get a true direction of approach and departure, our numbers are exactly consistent with the methodology, which is based on the turning movement volumes in the area. Those two intersections provide access to this property. Talk about peak season. I think the reviewer perhaps was confused. Hillsborough County requires a peak season traffic analysis. City of Tampa does not. Moreover, peak season was not a part of the methodology. Therefore, it is not appropriate. Fourth one, unoccupied homes. That's kind of a new one on me. But let's talk about it first. The quoting of 650 daily trips is totally irrelevant in a zoning process. We look at the morning peak hour and we look in the afternoon peak hour. It's not 650 trips. It's substantially less than 100 trips. This is an exhibit provided by their consultant of where these unoccupied homes are. This is Hoover. This is the project. There are 12 homes here, and if you come over to here, take a third, say 23 homes, you find out that the traffic that would be generated by those homes is virtually the same as what we overestimated project traffic because we brought down the development project from 300 to 262 units. So our total traffic that was assessed actually does, one could say, include these homes. Homes over on the west shore, et cetera, and way to the south would not be coming up here. Finally, want to talk about a couple of other things. Visitor parking. City requires us to have .25 parking spaces per unit. We've provided that in this particular project, so we have adequate visitor parking. Two other things just to bring to your attention. The first is project will provide the city with substantial amount of fees, over half a million dollars.

Bring it down if you want to see it. Bring the document down.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let's bring that down.

There you go. Just like that.

And the final item, since we've talked a lot about traffic in general, you could build the same size building on this property today under the OP1 zoning as an office building. Comparison. Office building in blue, multifamily proposed in green. Daily traffic more than double. AM peak hour traffic more than four times.

There's a wheel on top.

On the top of that unit, there's a wheel. If you spin it, you can zoom in to get the whole document. I'm assuming that you need additional time. How much time of your five do you want? Okay. Reset the timer to five minutes, please.

Okay. Now I got it. All right. Sorry about that. The blue represents the same size building as an office. The green is the multifamily that's proposed. If you look on a daily basis, an equivalent office building that could be built today under the existing zoning would be twice the amount of traffic for a whole day. AM, it would be four times the amount of traffic as the multifamily that's proposed. PM, it would be approximately three times the amount. So when we talk about development, we also need to talk about The use is on the property. If traffic's a concern, then certainly multifamily would be desirable over office that generates substantially more traffic. Thanks, Randy.

OK, I just want to address the FEMA. Start with your name again, please. Mark Bentley, sorry. The FEMA issue.

Benjamin Plant, 201 North Franklin Street. For the record, I have been sworn. The project is designed with a seawall and up the retaining walls. If approved by this council, we will apply for a conditional letter of map revision with FEMA that will move the limits of moderate wave action line towards the seawall and the waterward, so the project will be landward of that limits of moderate wave action and no longer within that area. As for stormwater, the project will be required to comply with the City of Tampa's stormwater technical manual for projects on new development.

well as the southwest florida water management district's erp applicant handbook for criteria of stormwater thank you very much i'd want some documents also before we're done to be received and filed primarily cvs and reports i just want to mention with respect to the parking waiver which is eight percent the council historically i think will consider like a 10% waiver. Actually, one of the petitions before us received a 16% reduction for parking tonight. With respect to the live local that it's a threat now. It's just a practical concern We were just waiting all our options and that's one of them and we didn't think that was the best option not necessarily for the client But consideration of the neighborhood they wouldn't have any input over live local at all whether it's architecturally Access things like that. So that's just a practical consideration by our client I'd also note once again both your staff reports under the law are considered considered substantial competent evidence and by professional planners. Both staffs have determined that the project is compatible and consistent with the comp plan, okay, and all associated policies. And with respect to the loading docks, here again, we're not in the West Shore overlay, but if we were, we would have met their requirements. We asked to go from three to one. That's typically granted, and we asked for a reduction from 60 feet in length to 30. And so that's pretty much it, and we sincerely appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Council, do I have any further questions?

One other thing is, you know, things didn't go what I would call smoothly by definition, obviously, but I want to point out that all the effort the client made in our last meeting where every association was invited was September 2nd, and one person attended out of this entire group here. And I don't know how good they are putting out the word, but we were just blown away like, hey, some of these changes had really made an impact on the community, okay? So I hear the catcalls and the unprofessionalism by some of these so-called professionals, and I'll just end it right there, thank you.

Okay, if you have documents you'd like, you can hand them to the attorney for, we received a file and added to the record. Thank you very much.

Take care. Okay, very good. Council, am I able to address the hearsay? No. Not even the hearsay accusations? No. No.

The time's up. Okay. Does anybody else have any concerns, questions? Council? If there's nothing else, I'd like a motion to close.

Is anyone else allowed to even speak?

No, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. Mr. Shelby?

You have no questions or anything further that it's appropriate for a motion to close. I just want to make a statement before you do, um, discuss it amongst yourselves.

Okay. We'll close it first and then get the attorney statement. I have a motion to close from council Maniscalco second from council Miranda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed the ayes have it. Mr. Shelby.

Thank you. Council, uh, as usual, as we do on Thursday nights, I have provided to you the plan development, the PD crow criteria. Section 27-136, the purpose, which is 1 through 9, and on the reverse page is the PD plan development code criteria for Section 27-139, sub 4, the waivers. Obviously, you do have the staff reports in front of you, and you do have the Planning Commission and Land Development staff reports for your use. My suggestion, council, is you are the finders of fact and you've heard and you know what is relevant material upon which you must base your decision that's competent and substantial evidence. And my suggestion would be that you look at the facts as you find them to be and you compare them to the code criteria in front of you And if there are land development sections that you wish to cite, do so. If there are code sections you wish to cite, I would recommend, I would suggest, please do cite the sections so that that is clear for the record and it complies with state law.

Okay, that being said, I think this is complicated. I'm going to give the Council a few minutes to read and review what Mr. Shelby just said and the documents that are provided to gather your thoughts.

I'm happy to make a start with a motion. Okay.

Councilwoman Herchak, I see you're first. I'm in for Councilman Carlson.

Well, if Councilman Carlson wants to make a motion, that's fine. I can add if necessary.

Okay. Are you ready to make a motion, Councilman Carlson?

Yeah. I, if she wants to make it, I can, we can just add, let's go. I just like to make a motion to deny the, the, um, the request. Um, and I'll cite, um, the, um, the staff's, um, report regarding rezoning, the, um, the waivers that were requested, um, the, um, the, the fact that it's not compatible with a character and scale with the surrounding residential built environment. Land use policy 1.2.28 that says limit the use of planned development district rezoning petitions to allow development consistent with the future land use designation but otherwise not permitted in the current standard zoning. So the idea being to limit that. Land use policy 8.14.3 planning development rezoning process is not to be used for the sole purpose of waiving established land use development regulations, land use policy 9.6.2, promote a residential development pattern consistent with compact city form strategy. Land use policy 9.6.4, balance the objective to increase opportunities for new housing development to ensure adequate housing for campus residents with the equally important objective of ensuring that new development is compatible with neighborhood character, Going to the PD criteria, just a couple examples. Number two is the PD code. It says allow the integration of different land uses and densities in one development that would not otherwise be provided for or allowed under general zoning districts. meaning that this is a monolithic thing that doesn't meet that. Number six, promote and encourage development where appropriate in location, character, and compatibility with the surrounding impacted neighborhood, built environment, existing geography, which this does not. I'll stop there and let anybody add. Councilman Hurtek, did you want to add anything?

Well, I was going to ask if you could add the actual section number for the PD and for the waivers, that would be helpful.

I don't have them on me at the moment.

Is that what you're asking, Councilman Hurtek, to add section 21, 136? Yes. 27, 136? Yes. Okay. Okay. So we take that as a friendly amendment? Yes.

Okay. And my suggestion is what you're saying now should be all considered part of the motion upon which you're basing your decision. Yes. And also with regard to Councilwoman Hurtak, I don't believe there was any reference to Section 27 or any of the criteria in 27-139 Sub 4.

Um, there was a discussion about waivers and by the way, I'm seconding this to have the conversation, but, um, yes, uh, uh, council member Carlson mentioned waivers. So I was hoping we could have the, just cite the section.

The question is for anyone on council, what is it about the waivers that make it an issue?

Oh, well for me, um, the waivers are, um, the waivers are too much. I mean, we talk about needing more parking, but really in the area for me, as someone in the public mentioned, I particularly am concerned about having enough delivery space. And so that's my issue with the waivers.

The case is closed now.

Okay.

After he's finished pontificating amongst himself.

Yeah, just going through the criteria section, this is the waiver criteria. And do I need to state the waivers? They're already on the record.

Well, the records, well, what, do you have issues with particular waivers?

Yeah, so of the criteria, number one is this is 27-139-4. Number one is the design of the proposed development is unique and therefore is in need of waivers. It's from the evidence presented and see it justification for reducing the parking or reducing the dock size, reducing the buffer, et cetera, or reducing the vehicle use area landscape that number to the The waiver, if allowed, will not substantially interfere with or injure the rights of others whose property would be affected by allowance of the waivers. We see clearly that the neighborhood is concerned about the parking and they feel that it's insufficient. They also have concerns about the deliveries which would be affected by the dock size. Number three, the waiver is in harmony with and serves the general intent and purpose of this chapter. Other, Outgold City of Tampa land development and the comprehensive plan, I went through some of that already. Four, allowing the waiver will result in substantial justice being done considering both the public benefits intended to be secured by this chapter. other applicable city of Tampa land development regulations, the Tampa comprehensive plan and the individual hardships that will be suffered by failure of city. The failure of city to grant the waiver. I don't see any hardships in here regarding why the waivers of parking, dock size reduction, et cetera, need to be waived. MR.

Going back to number three, Mr. Carlson, did you say by number three that the applicant met that criteria or did not meet that criteria?

MR. So you were both for clarification. Most of your statements was contrary.

Yeah, I said, it said that number three says the waiver is in harmony with and serves a general intent. And my comment was that I went through several other, um, citations of, um, zoning and comprehensive plan to state that it wasn't.

Okay. So that will be a, uh, uh, amendment to your initial motion, friendly amendment to your, your own motion and the other things that we're at. And I, and council her check already had a second from council and Miranda on this, I believe so.

oh okay we already had a second councilman beer you had a question yes sir i have a question so and and i'm what is that saying a match point or whatever it's sort of can go either way for me but just a question for council to consider that a lot of these waivers here of incompatibility that are asserted i i and tell me if you all agree or disagree with me but number one a lot of these waivers like the parking reduction here it's eight percent it's nothing some significant issue there are allegations of parking but eight percent i don't think rise to that level that that is being alleged so my question is how are these waivers related to the competent substantial evidence that has been asserted against this project and i ask that and if i may if i may um i ask that as a general curious question it's not a leading question i i ask that as a as a pilgrim in search of information to make my decision councilwoman hertech you're recognized

Well, I'm going to talk to you about the loading berths because that's my issue. The loading berths are a big deal for an apartment complex of this size and the deliveries that will come to them. So not only are they reducing it for four to one, But the one isn't even going to be a normal size. It's going to be half the normal size. And so to me, that's a significant waiver. Also, the distance separation is also an issue as you look at the mass and scale of what's next door.

Thank you, ma'am, very much. And Councilman Vieira, I just want to draw your attention to 27136. It's referenced for the planned development from the Euclidean zoning. And I believe that Councilman Carlson's motion encompassed quite a bit of 27136 comparing what's at Casco versus what's accommodated in there. Okay, thank you. Councilman Brandon, did you have something to add?

No, I just had to do what I had to do.

Okay, very good. Is there any further discussion? Is there any further discussion? Okay, hearing none. I'm going to close this and clerk, would you please call the roll? Call the vote.