>>CHARLIE MIRANDA: HERE. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>LYNN HURTAK: HERE. >> VIERA? CARLSON? >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HERE. >>THE CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: AS YOU PROBABLY NOTICE, WE HAVE ONE COUNCIL MEMBER MISSING. VIERA HAD SOMETHING PREVIOUSLY ARRANGED FOR THIS EVENING. THIS IS WHAT YOU GET TONIGHT. YOU WERE LOCKED AND LOADED. OKAY. VERY GOOD. WE HAVE SOME HOUSEKEEPING TO DO. 8 AND 9 HAVE BEEN MISNOTICED. MOTION TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE AGENDA? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>ALAN CLENDENIN: TAKE IT AWAY. LET'S DO THE WALK-ON FIRST. >>LYNN HURTAK: BEFORE GETTING RID OF THESE? OKAY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THAT'S NOT ON MY THING, BUT WE'LL GO WITH YOU. GO AHEAD. >> [INAUDIBLE] -- THAT I AM WALKING ON. YOU SHOULD HAVE PHYSICAL COPIES OF IT IN FRONT OF YOU. IT WAS ALSO ADDED AS AN ADDENDUM TO TONIGHT'S AGENDA. THIS WOULD SIMPLY SET FOR DISCUSSION TO COMPLY WITH FLORIDA LAW 16331801 FLORIDA STATUTES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A POSSIBLE INCREASE THE MULTIMODAL IMPACT FEE, IT WOULD SET THE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ON THE CITY'S REGULAR WORKSHOP AGENDA ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2025, AND OCTOBER 30, 2025. SO THAT IS WHAT THIS RESOLUTION WOULD DO. I'M HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: GIVEN THAT WE HAVE A VERY FULL AGENDA ON SEPTEMBER WORKSHOP, IT WOULD BE GREAT -- I WOULD LIKE A BRIEFING BEFORE AND MAYBE IF WE COULD EACH GET INDIVIDUAL BRIEFINGS AHEAD OF TIME SO WE ARE PREPARED. THAT WAY IT WILL SAVE US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >> I'LL SCHEDULE THOSE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN I GET A MOTION TO SET THE TWO WORKSHOPS? ATTORNEY SHELBY. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MARTIN SHELBY, CITY COUNCIL ATTORNEY. THESE ARE GOING TO BE -- THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY PUBLICLY NOTICED PER THE STATUTE REQUIREMENTS AND I UNDERSTAND IT WILL ALSO BE ADVERTISED OUTSIDE. BECAUSE OF THAT, IT IS SET FOR A TIME, I SUSPECT 9:00. >> 9:00 OR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THAT. >>MARTIN SHELBY: MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE BECAUSE ITS IMPORTANCE, WEIGHT AND THE WAY IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED THAT WE SET THESE FIRST ON THE AGENDA FOR BOTH WORKSHOPS PLEASE. >>LYNN HURTAK: I MOVE THE RESOLUTION TO SET THESE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE WORKSHOPS ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2025, AND OCTOBER 30th, 2025 AT 9 A.M. OR AS SOON THERE AFTER AS PRACTICAL IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, THIRD FLOOR, CITY HALL, 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD TAMPA FLORIDA 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: LOOK AT YOU WITH THE ADDRESS. >>LYNN HURTAK: ONLY BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>MARTIN SHELBY: IS IT COUNCIL'S PLEASURE TO HAVE THIS PLACED FIRST ON THE AGENDA FOR BOTH DAYS. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT'S WHAT I READ. LITERALLY SAID 9 A.M. OR FIRST THEREAFTER. >>MARTIN SHELBY: I THOUGHT YOU SAID AS SOON AS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: NOBODY IS GETTING HERE BEFORE 9 A.M. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH AND DO THE CLEANUP OR GOOD ENOUGH TO DO THE TWO ITEMS REMOVED. >>LYNN HURTAK: I THOUGHT ONE HAD TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE IT WAS THE SECOND MISNOTICE. >> CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE. ITEM 8 IS A MISNOTICE AND ALSO THE SECOND MISNOTICE FOR REZ-25-60. IT IS BEING WITHDRAWN. I HAVE THE LANGUAGE IF WE ARE READING IT IN WITH THE WITHDRAWAL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN I GET A MOTION PLEASE? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: MOTION -- >>LYNN HURTAK: MOTION TO WITHDRAW REZ 25-60. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. FOR 9, WE NEED TO -- MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO, SECOND FROM -- >>LYNN HURTAK: REZ-25 -- [INAUDIBLE] >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: ITEM 9, 25-95, THAT WAS THE OTHER MISNOTICE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THAT WE JUST REMOVED. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: THAT WAS IT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT. I'D LIKE A MOTION TO OPEN ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS, PLEASE. MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF YOU ARE HERE THIS EVENING TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY ON ANY CASE THAT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE US TONIGHT, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN BY OUR CLERK. [OATH ADMINISTERED] >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. IT'S GOING TO BE A NICE, QUICK, EASY NIGHT. NUMBER 1. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: AGAIN, CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 IS REZ-25-10. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 4202 NORTH SEMINOLE AVENUE FROM SEMINOLE HEIGHTS RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, SH-RS, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SH-PD. WE'LL START WITH AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THE SUBJECT SITE THAT IS PART OF THIS APPLICATION IS OUTLINED IN RED. IT HAS FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH SEMINOLE HEIGHTS AVENUE AND EAST GENESEE STREET. THROUGH THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS. THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS. ALL OF THEM ARE ZONED SH-RS. WE DO HAVE A SITE PLAN AS WELL. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS BOTH THE EXISTING -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY MOVE THE PAPER. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: THERE WE GO. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS BOTH THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE HAS FRONT DOOR ORIENTATION TOWARD NORTH SEMINOLE AVENUE. THERE IS ALSO A DRIVEWAY PROVIDING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SAME ROAD. THE PROPOSED TWO-STORY RESIDENCE HAS FRONT DOORS ORIENTED TOWARD EAST GENS ESSIE STREET. THERE IS AN ATTACHED CARPORT. I WILL NOTE REGARDING THE CARPORT THAT THE REVISED REVISION SHEET THAT I'LL GET TO YOU SHORTLY HAS THAT CARPORT BEING MOVED BACK 18 FEET FROM THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE. ADDITIONALLY, PARKING IS PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTH DRIVEWAY AISLE. INGRESS/EGRESS IS PROVIDED BY WAY OF THE 10-FOOT ALLEYWAY. THE APPLICANT IS PRESERVING THE 55-INCH GRAND OAK. THERE IS A 24-FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE THAT HELPS PRESERVE THAT TREE. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS FLEXI-PAVE THAT WILL BE INSTALLED WITHIN THE PROTECTIVE RADIUS OF THAT TREE, WITHIN A SECTION OF THE 10-FOOT ALLEY WAY. EACH OF THE UNITS WOULD BE LOCATED ON A SEPARATE LOT, TOTALING 4,455 SQUARE FEET. AND WE ALSO HAVE THE ELEVATION SHOWING -- ELEVATIONS OF THAT PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNIT. THE HEIGHT PROPOSED IS 28 FEET, 5 INCHES. OF COURSE, THEY SHOW ALL THE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS OF HOW THAT PARTICULAR UNIT WOULD LOOK. NEXT WE HAVE PHOTOS. THIS IS THE SUBJECT SITE. THE EXISTING HOME ON NORTH SEMINOLE AVENUE. THIS IS THE SAME HOME. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM EAST GENESE STREET. ONE ADDITIONAL VIEW SHOWING THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE AS WELL AS THE GRAND OAK THAT WILL BE PRESERVED. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM EAST GENESE STREET. WE HAVE THE ALLEYWAY THAT WOULD BE USED FOR INGRESS/EGRESS FOR THE PROPOSED UNIT. AND IT ALSO SHOWS YOU THAT GRAND TREE THAT WOULD BE PRESERVED. NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ON NORTH BRANCH. WE HAVE THE VIEW LOOKING NORTH ON NORTH SEMINOLE AVENUE. SOUTH ON SEMINOLE AVENUE. EAST ON EAST GENESE. AND LOOKING WEST ON EAST GENESE. I DO HAVE THE REVISION SHEET THAT I WOULD LIKE TO -- THERE ARE TWO WAIVERS REQUESTED. ONE OF THOSE WAIVERS DOES NEED TO BE CORRECTED ON THE RECORD THIS EVENING. IT PERTAINS TO THE SECOND WAIVER NOTED ON THE COVER SHEET OF THE STAFF REPORT. THIS IS THE REQUEST TO REDUCE PARCEL B FRONT BUILD-TO LINE FROM 20 FEET TO 10 FEET. THIS IS BEING CORRECTED TO REFLECT A REDUCTION FROM 20 FEET TO 18 FEET. AND, OF COURSE, WE WANTED TO GET THAT OUT THERE, AND THAT WAY IT'S NOTED ALONG WITH THE CARPORT ITEM THAT I ALSO HAVE MENTIONED IN THIS PRESENTATION. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF, WE'VE REVIEWED THIS PETITION. WE FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE APPLICATION, THE MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN ON THE SUBMITTED REVISION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READINGS, AND I'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT CHANGE FROM 10 TO 18 IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO COUNT THE FRONTAGE FOR A PORCH IN SEMINOLE HEIGHTS DUE TO THE OVERLAY CODE. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: WELL, IT RELATES TO -- YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE ONE REQUIRING A 20-FOOT SETBACK. THE WAIVER -- THAT ONE, IT IS -- >>LYNN HURTAK: I'M SORRY. FROM 10 TO 18. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: CORRECT. IT'S ACTUALLY BEING TRIGGERED BECAUSE THE HOME TO THE EAST FACES NORTH SEMINOLE. AND THE HOME TO THE WEST IS ON NORTH BRANCH STREET. SO THERE WASN'T ANOTHER HOME THAT THEY COULD USE TO HAVE AN AVERAGE FOR THAT BUILD-TO. SO IT ACTUALLY REVERTS TO A 20-FOOT BUILD-TO LINE. AND, OF COURSE, WITH THIS, THEY CAN'T QUITE MEET THAT 20-FOOT SETBACK, SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR THAT REDUCTION BY 2 FEET. >>LYNN HURTAK: SO THAT 18 GOES TO THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE? >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: IT ACTUALLY GOES TO THE BUILDING FRONT FACADE. WE DO HAVE A 10-FOOT SETBACK NOTED HERE FOR THE COVERED PORCH. THAT REVISED REVISION SHEET YOU HAVE DOES NOTE THAT THEY NEED TO NOTE AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK NOTING THAT 18-FOOT DISTANCE THERE. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU FIXING THE CARPORT TOO. THAT IS NOW UP TO CODE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. VERY GOOD. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >> THANK YOU. JENNIFER MALONE WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS IS IN THE EAST CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT AND SEMINOLE HEIGHTS URBAN VILLAGE. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE FOUND NO ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS WOULD ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED ZONING LOTS AND A DENSITY OF TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE. WE ALSO FOUND THAT IT WAS PROMOTING THE INTENT OF THE OVERLAY AND WE HAVE POLICIES THAT RELATE TO THAT AS WELL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DAVID WRIGHT, TSP COMPANIES. 20085 SABAL PALM COURT. I'M NOT GOING TO REGURGITATE ANY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO YOU BY STAFF. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH BOTH STAFF REPORTS AND THE FINDING OF CONSISTENT. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. SECOND FROM MIRANDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. COUNCILMAN CARLSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT. THERE IS A REVISION SHEET. REVISED REVISION SHEET WITH THE CHANGES FOR PARCEL B. >>BILL CARLSON: MOVE ITEM 1, REZ-25-10, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 4202 NORTH SEMINOLE AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION SH-RS (SEMINOLE HEIGHTS, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY) TO SH-PD (SEMINOLE HEIGHTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED) PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, INCLUDING THE REVISED REVISION SHEET. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. >>THE CLERK: SECOND HEARING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 2025 AT 10 A.M. AT 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA FLORIDA 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I SAID UNANIMOUSLY. THOSE OF YOU THAT JUST WALKED IN, ARE YOU PLANNING ON TESTIFYING THIS EVENING? I SEE NEW PEOPLE HAVE SHOWN UP, IF YOU PLAN TO SPEAK, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN IN BY OUR CLERK. [OATH ADMINISTERED] GENTLEMEN, THE APPLICANT FROM THE PREVIOUS, YOU ARE ALL SET UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE ARE ON ITEM 2. THANK YOU. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM 2 IS REZ 25-57. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 5101 NORTH 34th STREET AND 3404 EAST WILDER AVENUE FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RS 50 TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, CN. THE SUBJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED. IT IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH 34th STREET AND EAST WILDER AVENUE. THE SUBJECT SITE IS IMPROVED WITH A ONE STORY BUILDING. THE LOT TOTALS 10,918 SQUARE FEET. IT'S ALSO LOCATED IN THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY DISTRICT AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CONSISTS OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE THE FAIR OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. NEXT WE HAVE A SURVEY. SURVEY OUTLINED IN GREEN SHOWS THE SUBJECT SITE HAVING 106 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH 34th STREET AND 102 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG EAST WILDER AVENUE. GIVEN THE SURROUNDING USES, THE REQUESTED USE OF COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION AND IT PROVIDES FOR AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION WITHIN THE SURROUNDING PARCELS. SINCE THIS IS A EUCLIDEAN REZONING, WE DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN OR ELEVATIONS TO PROVIDE, BUT I DO HAVE PHOTOS SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREAS. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM NORTH 34th. THIS IS LOOKING EAST. THIS IS AT THE INTERSECTION LOOKING NORTHEAST AT THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH TO NORTH ON THE EAST WILDER. THESE ARE THE DETACHED UNITS I MENTIONED NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE WE HAVE THE FAIR OAKS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER. EAST IS THE RELIGIOUS -- IS THE CHURCH. AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE WE HAVE ANOTHER DETACHED UNIT. ONE ADDITIONAL PHOTO IS LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM THE SUBJECT SITE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS NEARBY TO THE SUBJECT SITE. AND OUR FINDING HERE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION. WE FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD PUT THAT INITIAL, LIKE, PICTURE -- YEAH, THAT. NO NO. THE NEXT ONE. SO THIS SHOWS PARKING TO THE STREET, ON THE STREET SIDE. THE FIRST IMAGE YOU SHOWED, SHOWED PARKING THAT WAS RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE BUILDING. WHICH IS IT? >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: LOOKING AT THE PHOTO WOULD BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING. >>LYNN HURTAK: YES, I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO ABIDE BY THIS NEW IMAGE THAT HAS THE PARKING. SO IT'S NOT A PD. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. I WAS JUST HOPING. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF? >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS IS RESIDENTIAL 10. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THERE IS A LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL USES CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE RESIDENTIAL 10 IF IT MEETS COMMERCIAL LOCATIONAL CRITERIA. THE SURROUNDING AREA IS RESIDENTIAL 10 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PARK TO THE SOUTH. THAT IS THE FAIR OAKS PARK. STAFF REVIEWED THIS CAREFULLY AND FOUND THAT WHILE IT DOES NOT MEET LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AS WRITTEN, BECAUSE 50% OF THE BLOCK FACE IS NOT ZONED COMMERCIAL, THIS HAS BEEN OPERATING AS A COMMERCIAL USE AND THE BUILDING HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1946. WE FOUND THAT SINCE IT IS ALSO INTERFACING NORTH 35th STREET, WHICH IS THE BORDER OF THE LEGACY OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO A COLLECTOR ROADWAY, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE EDGE OF A ROADWAY. DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE, THE CURRENT STATUS, ALONG WITH THE LOCATION CAUSING LITTLE ENCROACHMENT INTO RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, STAFF FINDS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL USES ARE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION IN THIS LAND USE CATEGORY. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT FOR THE RECORD. IT DOES NOT MEET IT, AGAIN, BUT DO THINK IT APPROPRIATE HERE AND FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? IS THERE AN APPLICANT? WERE YOU SWORN IN? DID YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN? WOULD YOU SWEAR HIM IN, PLEASE? [OATH ADMINISTERED] >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> SOME PICTURES FOR YOU. I'M JOSEPH. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SAY YOUR FIRST AND LAST NAME. >> JOSEPH LOUIS. 5101 BUILT IN 1946 -- NO, 1956, AFTER THE WAR. THIS IS -- IN THE ZONING, PUT IN FOR -- THIS IS A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. I BUY THE BUILDING TWO YEARS AGO. ANYTHING WE TRY TO DO FOR RENOVATION, ROOFING, STUCCO IT, WE CAN GET THE PERMIT BECAUSE IT IS WRONG ZONING. WE TRY TONIGHT. WE SEE IF WE CAN PUT IN THE CURRENT ZONING. THIS IS CN. NOW WE TRY PUTTING THEM TOGETHER, SAME BEFORE, SOMEONE ASKED FOR THE PARKING, WE USE A LOT BEHIND FOR PUT MORE PARKING, FOR MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER -- THIS IS WHERE WE COME IN TO DO IT. BECAUSE WE GOT STUFF TO DO RENOVATION, BUT WE CAN'T NOT GET PERMIT BECAUSE THE BUILDING, BUILT IN 1946 IS IN THE WRONG ZONING. WE TRIED PUT ZONING B AND THEN CN, SO WE CAN OPERATE THE BUILDING CORRECTLY. THIS IS WHAT WE COME. WE SEE THE BUILDING. THIS IS LIKE A FULL -- WE KNOW 34 -- NEXT DOOR, BUILD TWO-STORY BUILDING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT MEAN THIS BUILDING CAN BE A PLUS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE NOT IN THE CORRECT ZONE. ERROR FROM 1942. TODAY WE ARE IN 2020. WE MUST PUT THIS IN THE CORRECT ZONING SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE UNDERSTAND THAT PART. ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, IS THERE A -- ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, CAN WE GET A MOTION TO CLOSE? MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. >>LYNN HURTAK: FILE REZ 25-57, AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 5101 NORTH 34th STREET AND 3404 EAST WILDER AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS-50 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, TO CN, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. >>THE CLERK: SECOND HEARING AND ADOPTION -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HOLD ON ONE SECOND. LISTEN FOR THE DATE. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT. SECOND HEARING AND ADOPTION HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 2025 AT 10 A.M. AT 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. DID YOU COPY THAT? >>LYNN HURTAK: OCTOBER 9, 10 A.M. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THINGS HAVE TO BE HEARD TWO TIMES. SO THAT WILL BE THE SECOND TIME. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 3. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR THE RECORD, CHRISTOPHER DEMAMPLEG DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM 3 IS REZ-25-59. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 6600 6602 6604 6606 6610 6612, 6614, 6616, AND 6618 SOUTH STERLING AVENUE AND 6713, 6715, AND 6717 SOUTH HIMES AVENUE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES. I'LL START WITH AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE. IT IS OUTLINED IN RED. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST EVERETT AVENUE. IT IS NORTH OF WEST BURIEN DRIVE. IT IS LOCATED EAST OF SOUTH STERLING AVENUE AND ALSO LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH HIMES AVENUE. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO THE NORTH FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND SEMI DETACHED USES. TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, WE HAVE RS 60 ZONING AND THE PARCELS THERE ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES, AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE A VACANT PARCEL ZONED COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE AND A PARCEL IMPROVED WITH A WAREHOUSE ZONED INDUSTRIAL GENERAL. THE CURRENT PD ZONING FOR THIS SITE IS APPROVED FOR TEN RESIDENTIAL DETACHED UNITS. THE APPLICANT THROUGH THE REQUESTED PD REZONING PROPOSES THE SAME NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS. THE ONLY CHANGE IS FROM THE CURRENT PD IS THE PROPOSED SETBACKS. WE DO HAVE THE SITE PLAN WE CAN GO OVER HERE. LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, PARCELS A THROUGH H ARE PROPOSED EAST OF SOUTH STERLING AVENUE, WHICH WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED THROUGH THIS APPLICATION. BOTH THE FRONT DOORS AS WELL AS THE VEHICULAR ACCESS THROUGH THE DRIVEWAYS ARE ALL ORIENTED TOWARD SOUTH STERLING AVENUE. PARCEL K, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SUBJECT SITE WOULD HAVE LOT FRONTAGE ON BOTH SOUTH STERLING AVENUE AND SOUTH HIMES AVENUE, AND IT HAS A STORMWATER POND PROPOSED AND PARCELS I THROUGH J WOULD HAVE DETACHED UNITS WITH FRONT DOORS ORIENTED TOWARD SOUTH HIMES AVENUE, ALONG WITH THEIR PROPOSED DRIVEWAYS. THE SITE TOTALS 2.2 ACRES. IT IS VACANT. ONE ADDITIONAL THING TO NOTE IS THAT THERE ARE FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALKS PROPOSED ALONG PORTIONS OF EACH OF THE MENTIONED RIGHT-OF-WAYS. WE ALSO HAVE -- THERE ARE TWO SETS OF ELEVATIONS THAT I CAN SHOW. EACH SET SHOWS AN EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNIT WITH A MAX HEIGHT OF 35 FEET. THE FIRST SET OF ELEVATIONS AND THE SECOND SET OF ELEVATIONS. I CAN ZOOM IN A LITTLE CLOSER IF NEED BE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IF I CAN SEE IT, I KNOW EVERYBODY ELSE CAN. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: VERY GOOD. NEXT WE HAVE, AFTER THAT, JUMP IN HERE, WE HAVE TWO WAIVERS, WHICH WERE ALSO REQUESTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. THEY WERE ACTUALLY APPROVED WITH THE PRIOR PD, SO THEY ARE MORE OR LESS CARRY-OVERS. LOOKING AT PHOTOS OF THE SITE, THIS IS A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOOKING SOUTH FROM WEST EVERETT. THIS IS A PHOTO INTERNALLY OF THE SITE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE RIGHT HERE WHERE SOUTH STERLING AVENUE WOULD LIKELY BE CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS LOOKING EAST OR LOOKING WEST, ACTUALLY, FROM SOUTH HIMES AVENUE. NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, THESE ARE THE SEMI DETACHED UNITS -- I'M SORRY. THESE ARE ACTUALLY THE ATTACHED UNITS THAT ARE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE ALONG WEST BURIEN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DETACHED UNITS WHICH YOU FIND ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH HIMES AVENUE. AND LOOKING WEST, YOU'VE GOT LARGELY TREES AND SWAMP. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. WE FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FURTHER MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN MUST BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE AS STATED ON THE REVISION SHEET. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY. BASICALLY, THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HERE, WE ALREADY APPROVED THIS BECAUSE I REMEMBER THIS ONE. ALL WE'RE DOING IS CHANGING THE SETBACKS. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: CORRECT. >>LYNN HURTAK: IT'S LIKE A LARGE SCRIVENER'S ERROR. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: I ACTUALLY HAVE A COMPARISON HERE BETWEEN THE CURRENT REQUEST AND THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED REQUEST OF THE SETBACKS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE WITH YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS WILL BE EXTREMELY BRIEF. THIS IS RELATIVELY RECENT AND IT WAS JUST A CHANGE OF THE SETBACKS. FOR THE RECORD, THIS IS RESIDENTIAL 10. WE HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NEARBY AS WELL AS SOME RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE. THE ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT WITH THE SITE IS IT IS WITHIN THE MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE FLIGHT PATH. THAT IS A DESIGNATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT JUST LIMITS ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THAT FLIGHT PATH TO 10 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. HERE IT IS OUTLINED IN RED. THIS IS THE CLEAR ZONE AND THEN THE FLIGHT PATH. NOW, THE SITE IS RESIDENTIAL TEN, SO IT'S NOT -- THIS DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT THE SITE BUT I NEED TO MENTION IT FOR THE RECORD THAT IT IS WITHIN THAT DESIGNATION. WE FOUND IT CONSISTENT AGAIN. THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE DEVELOPED OUT AT ABOUT 4.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS BELOW THE DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL 10. IT FOLLOWS ALL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND NO CONCERNS WITH IT. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU, JENNIFER. APPLICANT? GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. CAMI CORBETT WITH THE LAW FIRM OF HILL WARD HENDERSON REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I THINK A GIANT SCRIVENER'S ERROR IS A GOOD WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS. OUR ENGINEER OF RECORD DECIDED HE WOULD APPLY ECLECTIC SETBACKS TO THE LOTS. WE WENT TO DEVELOP AND REALIZED WE WERE REALLY SEEKING RS 50 SETBACKS. ONLY TWO LOTS THAT DON'T MEET THE STANDARDS. THEY EXCEED THE STANDARDS BECAUSE WE'RE PROTECTING TREES. THERE IS ANOTHER SCRIVENER'S ERROR, TRUE SCRIVENER'S ERROR ON THE REQUEST FOR THE WAIVERS. THE WAIVER FOR THE TREES WAS 29 AND 53, SORRY, CHRIS, I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU BEFORE. I REALIZED THIS AS WE WERE COMING OVER. THE WAIVER IS FOR 29 AND 53. IT IS THE SAME TREES, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN RELABELED AS 52 AND 64. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CONFIRM WITH ERIN MAEHR BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING THAT WE HAVE THE CORRECT TREES LABELED FOR THE WAIVERS. TREES 29 AND 53 DON'T ACTUALLY REQUIRE WAIVERS UNDER THE ARBORIST REPORT OF RECORD. WE WANT TO CORRECT THAT BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. OTHERWISE WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCIL HAVE QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THE ITEM. MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. SECOND FROM MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE? AYES HAVE IT. COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO WITH THE FIRST AND SECOND READING CHANGES. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU. ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 6600, 6602 6604 6606 6610 6612 6614, 6616 AND 6618 SOUTH STERLING AVENUE AND 6713, 6715, 6717 SOUTH HIMES AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND THE CHANGES AS MENTIONED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE BETWEEN NOW AND SECOND READING. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. I KNOW COUNCILMAN MIRANDA WAS JEALOUS BECAUSE HE LIKES TO READ ALL THE NUMBERS. HE LIKES THE MOTIONS WITH ALL THE NUMBERS. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT. SECOND HEARING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 2025, AT 10 A.M. AT 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 4. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. AGENDA ITEM 4 IS REZ 25-70. REQUEST TO REZONE 703 EAST FLORIBRASKA AVENUE FROM RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY RM 24 TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CN. THE SUBJECT SITE AS SHOWN ON THE AERIAL IS OUTLINED IN RED. IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST FLORIBRASKA AVENUE. ALSO HAS STREET FRONTAGE WHERE EAST FLORIBRASKA AVENUE INTERSECTS WITH NORTH TAL FIERO AVENUE. THE SUBJECT SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY 7,098 SQUARE FEET IN AREA. THE SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE CG ZONING TO THE NORTH, CONSISTING OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ALONG WITH RS 50 ZONING TO THE SOUTH WHICH HAS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS. WE HAVE A VACANT PARCEL IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT SITE TO THE EAST ZONED RM 20 AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE I-275 AND RS 50 ZONING CONTINUES WESTERLY. THE APPLICANT, OF COURSE, IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW THE SITE TO BE DEVELOPED WITH COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD USES. THIS IS A SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN GREEN. THE SUBJECT SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE LONG EAST FLORIBRASKA AVENUE AND 118 FEET OF FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH TAL I CAN'T FIERO AVENUE. GIVING THE SURROUNDED USES, REQUESTED USE OF COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION AND ALSO PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION WITH SURROUNDING PARCELS. SINCE THIS IS EUCLIDEAN REZONING, WE DO NOT HAVE A SITE PLAN TO PROVIDE OR ELEVATIONS TO SHOW AS WELL. I DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH ON FLORIBRASKA AVENUE LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT SITE. >> THIS IS LOOKING TO THE EAST FROM NORTH TALIAFERRO AVENUE. LOOKING NORTH. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE LOT TO THE IMMEDIATE EAST AND, OF COURSE, LOOKING WEST, YOU HAVE THE INTERSTATE THERE. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION. WE FIND THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, PLANNING COMMISSION. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE SUBJECT SITE IS WITHIN THE EAST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE. IT IS DESIGNATED COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35. THAT IS THE PINK COLOR ON THE MAP. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL 20, AND THEN TO THE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS RESIDENTIAL 10, BUT IT ALSO BORDERS INTERSTATE 275. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING IS A VERY NEIGHBORHOOD FRIENDLY, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL USES AND THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 DESIGNATION COULD CONSIDER MUCH GREATER MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE WERE NO CONCERNS WITH THIS. THIS WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THE ONLY THING I NEED TO MENTION FOR THE RECORD IS IT IS IN A MIXED USE CENTER AND CORRIDOR AND AN URBAN VILLAGE. WE JUST MADE A NOTE IN OUR STAFF REPORT THAT WE WOULD HOPE THAT THOSE POLICIES ARE ADDRESSED AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING RELATED TO WALKABILITY, FRONT DOOR ORIENTATION, ET CETERA. BUT THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. I THOUGHT YOU WOULD TEACH US HOW TO SAY THE STREET NAME. >>LYNN HURTAK: TALIAFERRO. >> GOOD EVENING. AILEEN ROSARIO. MY CLIENT, SHE JUST PURCHASED THE LOT AND SHE WANTS TO PUT A COMMUNITY STORE THERE. THERE'S REALLY NO GOOD STORES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SHE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO PUT A T-SHIRT SHOP, SHE'S THINKING. NEXT DOOR IS THE OTHER PIECE OF LAND SHE BOUGHT AND WANTS TO PUT A HOUSE THERE. SHE WANTS TO KEEP EVERYTHING IN THE COMMUNITY. LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER 35 YEARS. SHE LIVES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. SHE'S BEEN MAINTAINING IT FROM YEARS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER PREVIOUSLY. SHE WANTS TO OPEN HER OWN BUSINESS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? COME FORWARD, PLEASE. START WITH YOUR NAME. VERIFYING YOU WERE SWORN IN. >> YES, SIR. MY NAME IS KEVIN WELCH. I JUST BUILT A NEW HOUSE. I'LL GO RIGHT INTO IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, JUST ALMOST ACROSS THE STREET ON 709 EAST HUGH. BRAND-NEW HOUSE, DOMAIN HOUSE. I BUILT THE HOUSE UNDER THE CONCEPT THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE. I CAN SEE VISION BECAUSE I'VE HAD OTHER HOUSES AND I CAN SEE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE THE RIGHT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT. BASICALLY, THAT OLD STRIP IS BLIGHTED. HOPEFULLY WITH THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT THIS AREA WILL BLOOM. AS I SEE IT, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE AN ASSET TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S RESIDENTIAL ALONG THERE. ONLY OTHER PLACE THAT I CAN THINK THAT HAD SOME COMMERCIAL WAS KING STATE THAT SINCE WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND IS BOARDED UP AND FENCE AROUND IT. SO THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE ON NEBRASKA FOR ANY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. I APPLAUD THAT, BUT RIGHT THERE, THEY WERE ALL RESIDENTIAL, AND I THINK THEY SHOULD STAY THAT WAY. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING A NEW DEVELOPMENT MEANS IT'S A GOOD DEVELOPMENT AND I DON'T BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE A REBUTTAL? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE? MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT. COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: ITEM NUMBER 4, REZ-25-70, AN ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 703 EAST FLORIBRASKA AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RM 24, RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, TO CN, COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. SECOND FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I'LL SPEAK TO THIS JUST A LITTLE BIT AND WHY I SECONDED IT. FLORIBRASKA IS CURRENTLY A RESIDENTIAL, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE, IT WON'T BE EITHER LIKE SINGLE-FAMILY WE'RE LOOKING AT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IT COULD HAVE SOME POTENTIAL FURTHER ALONG, AND THAT IS WHY I SECONDED IT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. CLERK. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 2025, AT 10 A.M. AT 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 5. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: CLINCH DEMANCHE -- CHRISTOPHER DEBENCH, DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. REQUEST TO REZONE 1318 WEST ARCH STREET FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY RS 50 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY SEMI DETACHED USES. LOOKING AT THE AERIAL MAP, BEFORE I JUMP INTO DETAILS, YOU MAY RECOGNIZE THIS SITE OR THE SURROUNDING AREA AS LAST MONTH THE APPLICANT BROUGHT AN APPLICATION IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE FOR PRETTY MUCH THE SAME PROPOSAL THAT I'M ABOUT TO GO INTO HERE. LOOKING AT THE SUBJECT SITE OUTLINED IN RED, IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST ARCH STREET. IT IS SURROUNDED TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, EAST AND WEST BY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES, ALL ZONED RS-50. I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT THERE ARE WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, WE DO HAVE AN RM 18 AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST ARCH STREET, WE DO HAVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED WITH TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES. WE NEXT HAVE OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STRUCTURE CONTAINING TWO SEMI DETACHED USES. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONCRETE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST ARCH STREET. THE FRONT DOORS ARE ORIENTED TOWARDS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE SITE PROVIDES REAR ENTRY VEHICULAR ACCESS OFF THE 14-FOOT ALLEYWAY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CAN YOU PUSH IT UP AND ZOOM IN ON THE GARAGE AND THE DRIVEWAY SECTION? MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE. THANK YOU. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: EACH UNIT IS PROPOSED WITH A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 2,350 SQUARE FEET. NEXT I HAVE ELEVATIONS. THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. THE PROPOSED HEIGHT IS 31 FEET, 9 INCHES. THERE IS A WAIVER REQUESTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. IT RELATES TO A REDUCTION OF THE BACKUP DISTANCE FOR THE ALLEYWAY FROM 24 FEET TO 14 FEET. NEXT I HAVE SOME PHOTOS SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA. THIS IS THE PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS LOOKING NORTH ACROSS WEST ARCH STREET. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED ON WEST NASSAU. EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS WAS THE SITE OF THE APPLICATION HEARD LAST MONTH FOR 1320 WEST ARCH STREET. LOOKING EAST DOWN WEST ARCH STREET AND LASTLY, LOOKING WEST DOWN WEST ARCH STREET. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION. WE FIND THE REQUEST TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. SHOULD IT BE THE PLEASURE OF CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION, A MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN AS SHOWN ON THE SUBMITTED REVISION SHEET MUST BE COMPLETED BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND READING. THESE REVISIONS WILL NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUES OF TRANSPORTATION'S INCONSISTENT FINDING. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, PLANNING COMMISSION. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL 20, AND IT IS LOCATED IN THE WEST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE. AS IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF A THEME TONIGHT, AS MR. DEMANCHE MENTIONED, THE STREET MIGHT HAVE A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL TYPES ON IT, BUT THE RESIDENTIAL 20 WOULD KIND OF ENVISION RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED USES, MULTIFAMILY TYPES OF USES OVER TIME, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PLAN. WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE DID FIND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS SOMETHING IN IT CALLED THE COMPACT CITY FORM STRATEGY. AND THAT IS ENCOURAGING OUR GROWTH IN OUR DENSITY NEAR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, NEAR TRANSIT AND WITHIN OUR URBAN VILLAGES, AND THIS IS MEETING ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA. IT'S GOING TO BRING UP THE DENSITY OF THE STREET IN AN AREA OF THE CITY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS SEEN THAT VISION. I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA. AGAIN, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE FOUND THAT THE DESIGN IN THE COMP PLAN ALSO PROMOTES UTILIZING THE ALLEY AS WELL FOR ACCESS. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. APPLICANT. >> JAMES LA SCARA, I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. AS CHRISTOPHER MENTIONED, THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SITE PLAN, CARBON COPY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT RECEIVED UNANIMOUS CONSENT AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL. WE'LL HAVE THE SECOND READING FOR THAT IN ONE WEEK. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT WE'RE REPORTED CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD EXCEPT FOR TRANSPORTATION. THE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE REDUCED PARKING SETBACK DISTANCE SO WE CAN DO A SINGLE CAR GARAGE. I WANT TO SHOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE TWO BLOCKS AWAY. WE LOVE DOING PROJECTS IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. SO LAST YEAR, WE REZONED 1505 ARCH TO SINGLE-FAMILY SEMI ATTACHED AND THAT'S BEING BUILT NOW. LAST MONTH, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING REZONING FOR 1320 ARCH. IN BLUE IS THE SUBJECT SITE WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT. IN ORANGE YOU'LL SEE OUR CURRENT USE PROPERTIES THAT ARE TWO UNITS. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? I SEE NONE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMAN CARLSON. DID I SKIP YOU ON ONE? 5. >>BILL CARLSON: ITEM NUMBER 5, FILE REZ-25-74, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 1318 WEST ARCH STREET IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1 FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION RS 50, RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, SEMI DETACHED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. INCLUDING THE REVISION SHEET. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMAN CARLSON. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. CLERK. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH VIERA ABSENT. SECOND HEARING AND ADOPTION OCTOBER 9, 2025 AT 10 A.M. AT 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA, 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 6. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ITEM NUMBER 6 IS REZ-25-78. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 801 EAST 26th AVENUE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL CG. WE'LL START WITH AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE. SUBJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED ON THE AERIAL HERE. IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST 26th AVENUE. THE SITE TOTALS 1.83 ACRES IN AREA. SURROUNDING USES INCLUDE BORRELL PARK TO THE NORTH, ZONED CG, AS WELL AS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS ZONED RS 50. EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE A SCHOOL, A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USE, A VACANT LOT, AND A PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY OR A FORMER PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE ALONG NORTH NEBRASKA AVENUE ZONED CG. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES ZONED RS 50 ALONG WITH A VERY SMALL PORTION OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING THAT'S PART OF THAT PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY SITE. AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USES ALONG WITH SOME VACANT PARCELS AS WELL. THE SITE IS ALSO LOCATED IN THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO IT MUST COMPLY WITH THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. THE CURRENT PD APPROVED FOR THE SITE IS FOR MULTIFAMILY. IT ALLOWS A TOTAL OF 32 UNITS WITH A BONUS PROVISION AGREEMENT. THE PD DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL GENERAL USES. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THIS REZONING TO ALLOW FOR THOSE CG USES TO BE ON THIS SITE. THIS IS A SURVEY FOR THE SUBJECT SITE. WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 212 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST 26th AVENUE AND 330 FEET OF DEPTH ON THE SUBJECT SITE. GIVEN THE SURROUNDING USES, THE REQUESTED USE OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING, ACCORDING TO STAFF IS APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION AND PROVIDES FOR AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION WITH THE SURROUNDING PARCELS. I DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS TO SHOW YOU, AS THIS IS A EUCLIDEAN REZONING, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY SITE PLAN OR ELEVATIONS TO SHOW YOU. FIRST, WE HAVE THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH FROM EAST 26th AVENUE. THIS IS LOOKING IN ON THE INTERNAL TO THE SITE. ONE ADDITIONAL PHOTO SHOWING THE SITE. LOOKING NORTH TOWARDS BORRELL PARK, ONE ADDITIONAL FROM THE SUBJECT SITE LOOKING NORTH. ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED UNITS AND, OF COURSE, WE ALSO HAVE THE CG PORTION TO THE SOUTH. ALONG THE EAST, WE HAVE A PREPARATORY SCHOOL. WE ALSO HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AND VACANT PARCEL. AND THEN WE START TO GET INTO THE SITE SHOWING THE PLACE OF RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY. AND THAT WRAPS UP OUR PHOTOS. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION. WE FIND THE REQUEST TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, PLANNING COMMISSION. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35. IT IS BORDERED -- WELL, THIS IS NORTH NEBRASKA AVENUE, A TRANSIT EMPHASIS CORRIDOR. AND WE SEE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 ALONG NORTH NEBRASKA. THERE IS A PARK TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE AND THEN RESIDENTIAL 20 TO THE WEST. THE SITE MIGHT LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU ALL. IT CAME BEFORE YOU. IT WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ABOUT FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS AGO, AND NOW THEY ARE HERE FOR A ZONING. THE COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35 CATEGORY DOES SUPPORT THE ZONING OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL. I JUST NEED TO ADD FOR THE RECORD IT IS ALSO WITHIN THE EAST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE. SINCE IT IS WITHIN A MIXED USE CORRIDOR AND AN URBAN VILLAGE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES PROMOTE WALKABILITY, WIDE SIDEWALKS, SPECIAL DESIGN FOR PEDESTRIANS, COMFORT AND SAFETY, SO WE WOULD ASK THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT POLICY DIRECTION AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD PROMOTE A MIXTURE OF USES IN CONTEXT WITH THE COMMUNITY, ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE. AGAIN, THE SITE IS ADJACENT TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, A LONG TRANSIT CORRIDOR, NORTH NEBRASKA AVENUE, PROPOSED CG ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE AND ANY NOT POTENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENCES ABUTTING THE SITE, BUT HAVING EUCLIDEAN, IF THEY MEET THE CODE, WE DO BELIEVE THAT WOULD OCCUR. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION? APPLICANT? >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. RYAN MANASSE, JOHNSON POPE, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, 400 NORTH ASHLEY DRIVE, SUITE 3100. IF CTTV COULD BRING UP MY PowerPoint, I HAVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION FOR YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: IT'S UP. >> GREAT. JUST TO GO OVER A FEW ITEMS. AGAIN, SOUTH SIDE OF EAST 26th AVENUE BETWEEN TALIAFERRO AVENUE AND NEBRASKA AVENUE, ROUGHLY 1.83 ACRES. AS CHRIS MENTIONED, IT IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS REZONED A FEW TIMES, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN FOR THE 32 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. OUR REQUEST IS OBVIOUSLY STATED THE CG, COMMERCIAL GENERAL ZONING DISTRICT. EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY IS VACANT. JUST TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT JENNIFER ALLUDED TO, ON THE FLU HISTORY, IT WAS APPROVED TO GO FROM R-20 TO CMU 35, THROUGH ORDINANCE 2025-18 OR TA/CPA 24-12. THAT WAS BEFORE YOU EARLIER THIS YEAR IN FEBRUARY. SO THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF IT. WE WANTED TO BRING THE REZONING IN FRONT OF YOU TO COME IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR NEW FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. THE ZONING MAP, CURRENTLY ZONED PD. CG DISTRICT ABUTS PROPERTY ON EAST AND PORTIONS OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH. SUBJECT SITES OUTLINED IN GREEN. CG IS PREDOMINANTLY ON BOTH SIDES OF NEBRASKA GOING NORTH AND SOUTH. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. SORRY, I HAVE TO LOOK UP. IT'S NOT ON MY SCREEN. CITY STAFF FINDINGS, REQUESTED CG DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA. IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES IN THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY DESIGN STANDARDS AND REVIEWING DEPARTMENTS FOUND OUR REQUEST CONSISTENT. SOME FINDINGS FROM THE PC, IT SUPPORTS INFILL DEVELOPMENT ON VACANT LAND. IT ALIGNS THE CENTRAL TAMPA PLANNING DISTRICT GOAL OF VIBRANT MIXED USE URBAN LIFESTYLE. AGAIN, LOCATED IN THE EAST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE, PROMOTING PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED COMMUNITY SERVING USES. AND IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH NEARBY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG NEBRASKA AVENUE, WHILE AS JENNIFER MENTIONED WE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUFFER APPROPRIATELY AND SCREEN AGAINST ANY TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL USE. AGAIN, THE REZONING IN OUR OPINION, AND IT APPEARS FROM STAFF IS COMPARABLE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING USES, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN ANTICIPATED UNDER THE CMU 35 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. IN CONCLUSION, CITY OF TAMPA AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FOUND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT. AGAIN, WE ALIGN WITH THE CMU 35 FLU CATEGORY. ANY DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN PD, WE MUST COMPLY WITH ALL CG STANDARDS, ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES, EAST TAMPA DESIGN STANDARDS. WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST. >>LYNN HURTAK: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FROM FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS AGO, YOUR CLIENT HAS ADDITIONAL CONNECTING PARCELS TO NEBRASKA. >> THEY HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH SOME OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO THIS WOULD BE IN LINE WITH THAT AND SETTING EVERYTHING UP, CG HELPS POSSIBLY PROMOTE. MORE OF A CONSOLIDATION. MY CLIENT DOES NOT OWN PROPERTY ON NEBRASKA. >>LYNN HURTAK: OKAY. I REMEMBER THAT FROM THE CMU. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILMAN MIRANDA. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: FILE REZ 25-78, ORDINANCE BEING PRESENTED FOR FIRST READING CONSIDERATION, AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF 801 EAST 26th AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1, FROM ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, TO CG, COMMERCIAL GENERAL, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. >>THE CLERK: MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH VIERA ABSENT. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION WILL BE HELD OCTOBER 9, 2025 AT 10 A.M. AT 315 EAST KENNEDY BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. LAST ITEM OF THE NIGHT. ITEM 7. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION. NEXT WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM 7, REZ-25-80, THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE 801 EAST SAINT CLAIR STREET FROM RS 50, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, TO RM 18, RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY. WE'LL START WITH AN AERIAL. THE SUBJECT SITE IS OUTLINED IN RED. IT IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST ST. CLAIR STREET AND NORTH MITCHELL AVENUE. THE SUBJECT BLOCK THAT THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON IS LOCATED BETWEEN NORTH MITCHELL AVENUE AND NORTH NEBRASKA AVENUE. SURROUNDING ZONING INCLUDES RS 50 TO THE NORTH, CONSISTING OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED USE. TO THE EAST, WE HAVE RS 50 AS WELL AS THERE IS YC 5 ADJACENT TO NORTH NEBRASKA. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, WE HAVE YC 5 AS WELL AS RS 50, AND TO THE EAST, WE HAVE CITY OF TAMPA PROPERTY THAT IS ALSO ZONED RS 50 THERE. THE SITE IS ALSO IN THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY DISTRICT, SO IT MUST MEET THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING. THE SITE BASED ON THE RM 18 ZONING THEY ARE REQUESTING, ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM OF FOUR DWELLING UNITS FOR THE SITE ITSELF. NEXT WE HAVE AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT SITE. OUTLINED IN GREEN, SUBJECT SITE HAS APPROXIMATELY 88 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE ALONG EAST SAINT CLAIR AS WELL AS 118 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE ALONG NORTH MITCHELL AND 88 FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE ALONG EAST ROBLES STREET. GIVEN THE SURROUNDING USES, AND THE SURROUNDING ZONING DISCUSSED WITH THE AERIAL MAP, WE BELIEVE RM 18 ZONING IS APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION AND ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION WITH THE SURROUNDING PARCELS. WE DO HAVE SOME PHOTOS SHOWING THE SUBJECT SITE. THIS IS A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT SITE FROM EAST SAINT CLAIR. LOOKING FROM THE WEST EASTERLY FROM NORTH MITCHELL, FROM THE SOUTH LOOKING NORTH FROM EAST ROBLES STREET. SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT SITE, AND THIS IS A PORTION OF ONE OF THE OTHER SITES TO THE SOUTH SHOWING SOME DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND WEST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. AND I DON'T BELIEVE I SHOWED NORTH. SO THERE WE GO. THERE IS NORTH WITH ANOTHER DETACHED UNIT THERE. IF THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO VEST THE EXISTING USES THROUGH THIS REZONING, A DESIGN EXCEPTION WILL BE REQUIRED. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATION AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. WE DO FIND THE REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF TAMPA LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: WE RECEIVED SOME E-MAILS ABOUT CODE ISSUES. CAN YOU SPEAK AT ALL TO THAT? >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: THERE IS AN OPEN CODE VIOLATION FOR THE SITE RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE SITE AS IT IS ZONED CURRENTLY RS 50. SO WHEN WE WENT OUT THERE, I DID A SITE VISIT. I DID NOTICE THAT THERE WERE THREE UNITS BASED ON THE MAILBOXES ALONG EAST SAINT CLAIR. >>LYNN HURTAK: IS THERE ANYBODY FROM CODE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT? NO. OKAY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: MAYBE I'M WRONG, THIS LOOKS VERY FAMILIAR. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAME BEFORE US YEARS AGO? OKAY. I REMEMBER DURING COVID SOMETIME, MAYBE 2020, 2021, SOMETHING, MAYBE THIS IS IT. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT WAS FOR A LESSER DENSITY OR DIFFERENT CATEGORY, AND IT WAS TURNED DOWN, AND NOW IT'S COMING BACK FOR MORE. I DON'T KNOW. CAN YOU CLARIFY, MS. WELLS. >>CATE WELLS: FOR THE RECORD, CATE WELLS WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. THE STAFF REPORT HAD NOTED THAT THERE WAS A REZONING. I THINK IT'S REZ 19 -- I DON'T HAVE THE REST OF THE NUMBER -- BUT IT WAS CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL BACK IN FEBRUARY 13 OF 2020. AT THE TIME, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO THREE UNITS. SO I BELIEVE BASED ON THE SITE PLAN WE SAW THIS EVENING AND THE PICTURES -- NOT THE SITE PLAN, BECAUSE THIS IS A EUCLIDEAN ZONING, BUT THE PICTURES WE SAW, THEY ARE SEEKING ONCE AGAIN TO GET AN APPROVAL -- AND THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIRM THIS. I'M ASSUMING THEY ARE SEEKING APPROVAL TO VEST THE EXISTING STRUCTURES. THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED BACK IN 2020 WAS TO VEST THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THAT WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL. SINCE THEN, THERE HAD BEEN ANOTHER CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT THAT WAS INITIATED IN JANUARY OF 2024. IT WENT TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN MAY OF 2024. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOUND THAT THERE WERE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE STANDARDS THAT HAD BEEN VIOLATED. ACCUMULATIONS WERE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT ALSO FOUND A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING AND THAT MORE THAN ONE UNIT WAS OPERATING FROM THOSE STRUCTURES. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I'VE GOT A COPY OF THE ORDER, THAT A $500 DAILY FINE IS BEING ASSESSED SINCE THIS WAS HEARD A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THIS APPLICATION IS HERE TO WHAT, CURE THE ZONING VIOLATION, ESSENTIALLY. >>CATE WELLS: THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE TO TESTIFY TO THAT. BUT WHAT CHRIS DID CONFIRM IS, EVEN IF CITY COUNCIL APPROVES THE RM 18 ZONING, IF THE INTENT IS VEST THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, THAT WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DESIGN EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THE LOCATION, AND YOU CAN GET -- CHRIS CAN EXPLAIN -- >> I'LL BE REALLY SHORT. EVERYBODY HAS A BETTER MEMORY THAN ME BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THIS, BUT I WAS WORKING IN 2020. A LONG FIVE YEARS. JENNIFER MALONE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY. IT IS IN THE EAST TAMPA URBAN VILLAGE. AND TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE IS COMMUNITY MIXED USE 35. WE DID FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS REVIEWING IT AS A EUCLIDEAN REQUEST. THE RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY 18 IS SUPPORTED BY THE RESIDENTIAL 20 FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THOSE USES WITHIN IT. LOOKING AT IT AS EUCLIDEAN REQUEST, WE DETERMINED THAT THIS WOULD PROVIDE MORE HOUSING WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AGAIN FURTHERING THAT COMPACT CITY FORM STRATEGY, PROVIDING MORE HOUSING IN OUR URBAN VILLAGES, IN THE AREAS OF THE CITY THAT HAVE PROXIMITY TO TRANSIT AND SERVICES. AGAIN, THE URBAN VILLAGE SEEKS -- THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SEEKS TO -- TO THE URBAN VILLAGES AND THAT IS WHERE THIS LIES. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANY QUESTIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION? APPLICANT? >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. AILEEN ROSARIO. SO MY CLIENT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. OF COURSE, THERE IS SOME CODE VIOLATION CASES. THE CODE VIOLATION, ONE OF THE ONES HE'S TRYING TO RESOLVE RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE OF THE CODE, RS 50. WHEN HE PURCHASED IT, THREE APARTMENTS WERE ALREADY THERE. WE THEN WANT TO MAKE IT LEGAL. NOT TRYING TO ADD NOTHING ELSE. NOT TRYING TO DO NOTHING ELSE. SO THAT ZONING, THAT CODE VIOLATION FOR THE ZONING WILL GO AWAY, BECAUSE HE KEEPS GETTING VIOLATIONS BECAUSE IT IS RS 50. BUT IF WE MAKE IT RM 18 AND LEAVE IT WITH THE THREE UNITS THAT'S ALREADY THERE, JUST DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE BUILDING PERMITS, THAT'S ALL WE WANT TO DO. WE DON'T WANT TO ADD ANYTHING. DON'T WANT TO TAKE NOTHING AWAY. JUST MAKE IT LEGAL, CORRECT ZONING AS TO WHAT IT IS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: IS THE INTENT TO VEST THE TWO STRUCTURES? >> YES, I WILL DO A FORMAL DECISION TO VEST -- GET THE PROPERTY VESTED AS IS. >>LYNN HURTAK: NOW, DO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AS LOCATED, DO THEY COMPLY WITH RM 18 SETBACKS? >> YES. >>LYNN HURTAK: OR STANDARDS. SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS. >> YES, AS OF RIGHT NOW, YES. >>LYNN HURTAK: THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE'LL GET -- I'LL GET CLARIFICATION FOR THAT IN ONE MOMENT. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. >> NO, THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: FOR OUR CITY STAFF, CAN YOU COME UP AND ADDRESS THE SETBACK ISSUE, PLEASE? >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: FOR THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY, FOR THE FRONT SETBACKS, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT BETWEEN 15 AND 25 FEET. WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITE, I'M GOING TO BRING UP THE OLD SITE PLAN THAT WE USED BACK IN 2020 JUST AS A REFERENCE. WHEN THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET BETWEEN 15 TO 25 ALONG THE ROADWAY, BOTH ALONG SAINT CLAIR STREET AND EAST ROBLES STREET. THERE'S ALSO EAST TAMPA REQUIRES FIVE FOOT SETBACKS ALONG THE SIDES, FIVE FOOT SETBACKS FOR CORNER SITES, WHICH WOULD BE ALONG NORTH MITCHELL, WHICH THEY MORE THAN MEET, AND THERE IS A 15-FOOT REAR SETBACK THAT IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE EAST TAMPA OVERLAY. LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A DESIGN EXCEPTION, SPECIFYING THEIR DISTANCES, BUT STAFF TAKING A LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S CURRENTLY A 7-FOOT, ALMOST 3-INCH SETBACK FOR THAT PORCH BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THAT PORCH AND EAST SAINT CLAIR STREET. AND ESTIMATED SETBACK BETWEEN THE DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND EAST ROBLES STREET OF SEVEN FEET, SIX INCHES. SO THEY WOULD NEED TO GET THOSE DECREASED SETBACKS THAT EXIST ON THE SITE, THEY WOULD NEED TO BRING THOSE IN FOR DESIGN EXCEPTION. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THOSE DESIGN EXCEPTIONS COULD BE DONE WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL. COULD BE DONE WITH STAFF IF THIS ACTION WAS APPROVED THIS EVENING. >>CHRISTOPHER DEMANCHE: CORRECT. THEY WOULD BRING IT UNDER ONE REQUEST. THEY COULD DO BOTH THE SETBACKS UNDER ONE DESIGN EXCEPTION SUBMITTAL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MS. WELLS, I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LEGAL STANDARD OF USING THIS EUCLIDEAN REZONING AND THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. WOULD THIS BE A PROPER WAY TO CURE ZONING ISSUES? AND WOULD IT ELIMINATE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER FOR ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN ACCUMULATED TO DATE? >>CATE WELLS: CATE WELLS, FOR THE RECORD. SO THE REQUESTED RM 18 ZONING, STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT THAT ALLOWS UP TO FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON THE PARCEL. WHAT I'VE HEARD THE APPLICANT TESTIFY TO IS THAT THEY ARE OPERATING THREE UNITS FROM THE TWO STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON THE SITE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE NO MORE THAN THE THREE THAT ARE BEING OPERATED OR THE FOUR THAT YOU COULD IF THE REZONING IS APPROVED, THEN THE ZONING ITSELF WOULD RESOLVE THAT PORTION OF IT. HOWEVER, CHRIS HAS TESTIFIED THAT TO VEST THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, THERE ARE STILL ADDITIONAL STEPS BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: I'M CURIOUS, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, THE APPLICANT ALSO TESTIFIED THEY ARE GETTING $500 PER DAY FINES FOR CODE VIOLATIONS. WITH COUNCIL'S ACTION TODAY, WOULD THAT NEGATE PREVIOUSLY ACCUMULATED FINES? >>CATE WELLS: IT DOESN'T NEGATE WHAT IS ACCUMULATED TO DATE. THE REZONING IS APPROVED, THEY WOULD THEN HAVE TO GO BACK BEFORE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO CONFIRM THAT THEY HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AT THAT POINT, THE FINE WOULD STOP, AND IT WOULD THEN BE DETERMINED WHAT THAT TOTAL FINE IS. AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENT OF WHICH THAT FINE COULD POTENTIALLY BE SETTLED. I'M NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH WITH THAT PROCESS. THE REZONING ITSELF WOULD ALLOW, IF IT'S APPROVED, WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE NOW IN COMPLIANCE. BUT IT WOULD NOT NEGATE THE FINES THAT HAVE ACCUMULATED SINCE MAY OF 2024. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANOTHER QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. SO THIS APPLICATION HAD BEEN HEARD IN A DIFFERENT WAY FROM RS 50 TO PD IS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> CORRECT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE CASE, ARE THEY ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS DENIAL WHEN IT WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL? IS WHAT IS HAPPENING -- WHAT HAS CHANGED FROM THE FIRST HEARING -- >>CATE WELLS: IF I MAY SUGGEST, THAT WOULD BE A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE BETWEEN 2025 AND NOW THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE REQUEST. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. I WILL FOLLOW THAT LEGAL ADVICE. APPLICANT. COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY WE'RE HERE AGAIN. >> AT THAT POINT, BACK IN 2024, IT WAS A DIFFERENT OWNER. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHAT'S DIFFERENT -- REGARDLESS OF THE OWNERSHIP, THE PROPERTY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY, NOT OWNERSHIP. WITH THE APPLICATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IF YOUR REQUEST FOR THE REZONING FROM THE PREVIOUS TIME COUNCIL HEARD THIS CASE TO TODAY, WHAT FACTS HAVE CHANGED THAT WOULD DEMAND COMING TO COUNCIL ASKING FOR ANOTHER APPROVAL? >> THE REASON WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO DO PD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER PERSON WANTED TO DO, WHY THEY REQUESTED A PD. DID THEY NOT REALIZE THE FUTURE LAND USE? WHAT WAS IT THEY WANTED TO DO? MY PROPERTY OWNER BOUGHT THE LAND. HE WENT TO THE HEARING OR HE HEARD ABOUT THE HEARING. HE WENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. HE FOUND OUT THERE IS A FINE GOING ON. HE'S NOW TRYING TO SAY, OKAY, I CAN'T -- THIS IS HOW IT'S BEEN RUNNING. THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING HERE ALREADY. I NEED TO TRY TO GET THIS LEGAL. IF I CHANGE THE ZONING BACK TO SOMETHING MULTI, WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE R-20, THEN I CAN GO BACK TO CODE, FIX THAT, THAT PART OF IT GETS FIXED. THEN WE CAN GO TO BUILDING PERMIT AND DO DESIGN EXCEPTIONS OR PUT IN A FENCE, WHATEVER THE NEXT STEPS NEED TO BE TO FINISH WITH THE COMPLIANCE. IT'S GOT TO GET STARTED IN ONE PLACE. THE FIRST THING THAT HAS TO GET DONE, GOT TO HAVE THE CORRECT ZONING. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CORRECT ZONING, CAN'T MOVE FORWARD WITH ANYTHING ELSE. THAT'S ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS. THAT'S THE REASON FOR ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS BECAUSE THE ZONING IS NOT CORRECT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: THAT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHAT HAS CHANGED ON -- WHAT HAS CHANGED FROM THE DESIRE FOR THE REZONING FOR THAT REASON TO MAKE IT MULTIFAMILY? WHAT HAS CHANGED? >> WE HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN THERE. THERE ARE A LOT OF RESIDENTS THAT NEED HOMES. THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN THERE. AND THIS IS GIVING -- IT'S GIVING THE PROPERTY TO BECOME LEGAL AND ALSO GIVING PEOPLE SOMEPLACE TO LIVE. UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THE NEW LANDLORD, THE NEW OWNER, HE'S A LITTLE BIT ON THE WOO-WOO SIDE. I'M TRYING TO PULL HIM IN, GOT TO DO THIS LEGAL. GOT TO GET IT TO THE LEGAL SIDE SO WE CAN COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. AFTER THIS, WE'LL APPLY FOR THE D.E. APPLY FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE SETBACKS. I WILL THEN DO A FORMAL DECISION. BUT IT HAS TO BE ONE STEP AT A TIME. I CAN'T SUBMIT REZONING FOR DECISION DE-1 TO KNOW WHERE I'M GOING TO BE. I HAVE TO TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME. >>LYNN HURTAK: WHY ARE YOU ASKING FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS? >> NO ONLY GOING TO SAY STAY AT 3. IT CAN GO UP TO FOUR. IT'S STAYING JUST THE WAY IT IS. 3. NOTHING ELSE. NOTHING MORE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. JUST THE ONE OR BOTH OF YOU GOING TO SPEAK? IF YOU WOULD STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN, STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND TO BE SWORN IN. [OATH ADMINISTERED] PLEASE APPROACH THE PODIUM AND START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> KIM HEADLAND. 1023 EAST 17th AVENUE. I AM HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE VM NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, I CURRENTLY SERVE AS PRESIDENT. OUR ASSOCIATION HAS VOTED TO OPPOSE THIS REQUEST AND RESPECTFULLY URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE PROPOSED REZONING. THIS REQUEST, QUITE HONESTLY, IS INCONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF VM YBOR'S HISTORIC FABRIC AND THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, SPECIFICALLY OUTSIDE OF THOSE MAJOR CORRIDORS. AND, QUITE HONESTLY, THIS APPLICATION IS HERE AS WE ALREADY HEARD, BECAUSE IT WAS CITED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT. APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WOULD CONTRADICT ZONING INTENT IN THE RS 50 DESIGNATION, AND THE RS 50 DESIGNATION CURRENTLY REFLECTS THE PREVAILING PATTERN OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA, SET BACK IN MORE THAN A BLOCK OF NEBRASKA AVENUE. FOUR DWELLING UNITS ON THIS LOT, WHICH NO MATTER WHAT THE OWNER SAYS THEY WANT TO DO, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED AT THIS POINT TO HAVE FOUR DWELLING UNITS IF APPROVED. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF 9, I BELIEVE, OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, WHICH CAN'T BE ACCOMMODATED WITHOUT A SIGNIFICANT DISRUPTION TO OUR KIND OF URBAN PATTERN, OUR URBAN FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S NINE PARKING SPACES ON A 118 BY 88-FOOT LOT. THAT IS A BIG DEVIATION. THE EXISTING SECONDARY STRUCTURE ALSO FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIRED SETBACKS AND BUFFERS. THE OWNER OR THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN REPEATED NONCOMPLIANCE FOR AT LEAST A DECADE. I'VE LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR JUST ABOUT 25 YEARS NOW. I CAN SAY IT'S BEEN A CONSTANT KIND OF PROBLEM AREA OR PROBLEM PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN SAID ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS FOR BEING USED AS AN UNPERMITTED ROOMING HOUSE FOR THIS BEING SUBDIVIDED WITHOUT PERMIT INTO MULTIPLE UNITS. AND MOST RECENTLY, BOTH IN 2023 AND IN 2024, IT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND FINED FOR VIOLATIONS. THERE'S BEEN A CLEAR PATTERN OF DISREGARD FOR ZONING AND CODE REQUIREMENTS, QUITE HONESTLY. APPROVAL OF THIS TODAY WOULD NOT ONLY REWARD PERSISTENT NONCOMPLIANCE, BUT ALSO SET AN UNFORTUNATE PRECEDENT, I THINK, FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. NEXT. START WITH YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> KELLY GRIMSDALE, 2701 NORTH 9th STREET. HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT 801 EAST SAINT CLAIR. THIS PROPERTY HAS A LONG STORIED HISTORY INCLUDING BEING LEFT OPEN AND VACANT FIVE YEARS, ATTRACTING HOMELESS, SQUATTING AND OTHER SUNDRY ACTIVITIES. WHEN THE PREVIOUS OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2018, HE LEASED IT TO HOMELESS HELPING HOMELESS WHO BASICALLY USED THE PROPERTY AS ILLEGAL ROOMING HOUSE. MULTIPLE CODE CASES ABOUT THE ILLEGAL USE OVER THE YEARS. IN 2020, THAT PARTICULAR OWNER REQUESTED THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED TO MULTIFAMILY. I GUESS IT WAS IN A PD AS HE WANTED TO USE THE OUT BUILDING AS A LEGAL THIRD UNIT. BECAUSE HE COULDN'T PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING AND DUE TO OTHER ISSUES I DON'T RECALL, CITY COUNCIL REJECTED HIS REQUEST AND THE CITY ATTORNEY CONFIRMED, I THINK IT WAS THE CITY ATTORNEY OR ONE OF THE PLANNING PEOPLE, SOMEONE SITTING OVER HERE GOT UP AND SAID THEY CONFIRMED AT THAT TIME THAT THE ONLY LEGAL USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS SINGLE-FAMILY. FAST-FORWARD TO JUNE 2023 WHEN THE CURRENT OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND CONTINUED TO USE THE MAIN STRUCTURE AS AN ILLEGAL DUPLEX AND ALSO RENTED OUT THE OUT BUILDING AS A THIRD UNIT. THEY WENT BEFORE A CODE MAGISTRATE IN MAY OF 2024 WHICH KIM AND I WERE THERE. THERE WAS NO OWNER REPRESENTATIVE THERE, AND SO THAT IS A LIE. AND THE OWNER WAS FOUND GUILTY FOR BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT ZONING AND THEY WERE ORDERED TO PAY A FINE PER DAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS A THOUSAND DOLLARS, BUT APPARENTLY 500. OWNER CONTINUED TO OPERATE THE PROPERTY AS THREE UNITS SINCE THEN, TOTALLY DISMISSING THE MAGISTRATE'S JUDGMENT. THE PROPERTY IS ALSO KEPT IN A LESS THAN DESIRABLE CONDITION. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. NOT MUCH BETTER THAN WHEN IT WAS HOMELESS HELPING HOMELESS. NOW THE OWNER IS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF USE FROM THREE, AND THERE'S SOME COLLECTION OF DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY. THE OWNER IS REQUESTING A CHANGE OF USE FROM THREE TO FOUR UNITS. THAT'S WHAT IS ON THE APPLICATION WITH REDUCED PARKING, EVEN THOUGH ANY MORE THAN ONE UNIT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE. IF APPROVED, IT WILL ONLY PROVIDE A GREEN LIGHT FOR INVESTORS TO FLOUT THE CITY CODES KNOWING THEY CAN STILL BE REWARDED AT THE END OF THE DAY. IT'S INTERESTING THAT NONE OF THE UNSCRUPULOUS OWNERS OF THE DERELICT PROPERTIES ACTUALLY LIVES THERE. AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES AND INVESTS IN VM YBOR AND DONE NOTHING BUT IMPROVE MY PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, THINK OF US, THE RESIDENTS. I'M ASKING YOU TO REJECT THIS REQUEST. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE -- WE HAVE ONE MORE. >> THEY SAID IT WELL. WHAT CAN I SAY MORE? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN. >> KEVIN WELCH. 709 EAST HUGH, WHICH IS ABOUT TWO BLOCKS FROM THIS PROPERTY. I WOULD WALK MY DOG BY THERE. ACTUALLY, TWO YEARS AGO, WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE, THAT PLACE WAS BOARDED UP. I THOUGHT IT WAS A TEARDOWN. THEN ONE DAY TAKING THE BOARDS OUT AND CLEANING IT UP A LITTLE BIT, BY THE WAY, WHOEVER TOOK THOSE PICTURES, I GIVE THEM KUDOS BECAUSE IT IS VERY WELL PHOTO SHOPPED. THE BEST I'VE EVER SEEN WALKING MY DOG. IT'S PRETTY TRAGIC MOST OF THE TIME. WHAT I'M SAYING HERE IS, I THOUGHT IT WAS A TEARDOWN. IT'S BEEN NOTHING BUT PROBLEM, CARS, PEOPLE, THIS, THAT AND THE OTHER. I TRY TO KEEP WITH MYSELF WITH MY DOG. I DON'T WANT TO START ANY TROUBLE. I AGREE WITH THE LADIES. 100% BEHIND THEM. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. TRUST ME. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. APPLICANT, WOULD YOU LIKE REBUTTAL? >> I CAN RELATE TO WHAT THE LADIES ARE SAYING. I UNDERSTAND. THEY LIVE IN THIS AREA AND THEY WANT EVERYTHING TO BE NICE AND NEAT. BUT I ALSO DROVE UP AND DOWN THAT AREA, IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I UNDERSTAND THE HOUSE DOESN'T LOOK 100%. IT IS MOTT THE MOST PRETTIEST HOUSE ON THE BLOCK. I HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THEM. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THIS GENTLEMAN PURCHASED THIS. HE WANTS TO MAKE IT RIGHT. HE'S TRYING TO FIX THE PROBLEM. IF WE CAN'T FIX THE PROBLEM IF WE DON'T GET APPROVAL. YOU CAN'T FIX THE CODE VIOLATION, YOU CAN'T FIX THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN'T FIX WHO YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO RENT TO BECAUSE YOU GOT TO START FROM SOMEWHERE. STARTING FROM SOMEWHERE IS TRYING TO FIX THIS ZONING. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN THERE SINCE 1925. THE SECOND WAS THERE SINCE 1965. HE DIDN'T MAKE THESE SETBACKS. HE DIDN'T JUST PLACE THEM THERE. THEY HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE THE CODE WAS EVEN IN EFFECT. ALL WE CAN DO IS TRY TO FIX IT SO WE CAN COMPLY SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. IF WE DON'T GIVE EACH OTHER A CHANCE, THERE'S NO WAY IT WILL EVER GET FIXED. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: OKAY. VERY GOOD. CAN I GET A MOTION TO CLOSE? MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN MANISCALCO. DO YOU MIND IF I START ON THIS ONE? AS CHAIR, I DON'T SPEAK FIRST, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE ARGUMENTS THAT THEY CAN'T BE IN COMPLIANCE ARE SO DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE THERE IS AN EXISTING STANDARD FOR COMPLIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT THE OWNER APPEARS TO HAVE COMPLETELY IGNORED FROM THE TIME HE'S HAD -- I WON'T SPEAK TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS. BUT SINCE THIS PERSON HAD OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY HE'S HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TONIGHT, MAGISTRATE BASICALLY INSTRUCTED HIM ON WHAT TO DO TO BE IN COMPLIANCE AND GIVEN A FINE AS INCENTIVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. IT'S NOT THAT HE CAN'T. CHOSEN NOT TO. HE CHOSE TO CONTINUE TO UTILIZE THIS PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT'S NOT ACCOMMODATED BY CURRENT LAW. THAT IS THE STATE OF THE FACT OF WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT WHEN EVALUATING THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED IS THE APPLICANT COULD HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND THEN COME INTO THIS COUNCIL AND REQUESTED AFTER IT BEING IN COMPLIANCE, AN APPROPRIATE, EITHER ADAPTIVE REUSE OR AN APPLICATION FOR REPURPOSING THIS PROPERTY AND STARTING WITH THE CLEAN SLATE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY CHOSE TO DO. REPEATED VIOLATIONS. IT'S COME BEFORE COUNCIL ALREADY ONCE BEFORE. BEEN GIVEN AN ANSWER OF NO. HASN'T APPRECIABLY CHANGED. WENT TO DAD ONCE, GOING TO MOM ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT ANSWER. THAT SEEMS OUTRAGEOUS TO ME. I COULD NOT SEE IN A MILLION YEARS WHY EVEN A SHRED OF COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT I WOULD CHANGE A PREVIOUS DECISION FROM COUNCIL OR BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT, NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT I WOULD MAKE A DECISION TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN DENY THIS REQUEST. COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I AGREE. I'LL BE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC. THE APPLICANT HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT COMPLIANT AND COMPLIANCE WITH SINGLE-FAMILY. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY CHOSE NO TO DO. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. I THINK, AGAIN -- YEAH, I . >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: THE APPLICANT HAD A CHANCE WHEN HE POUT THE UNITS. HE UNDERSTOOD WHAT WAS THERE AND HE DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF IT. NOTHING HAD CHANGED. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: AND IN LINE WITH WHAT MY COLLEAGUES SAID, WE HAVE A -- WE HAVE AN ONGOING SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE DO THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T DO WITH THE ZONING THAT THEY HAVE. AND THEN EITHER THEY OR THE OWNERS COME BACK TO ASK FOR IT TO BE CHANGED. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER FOLKS SIGNED UP FOR. WE SHOULDN'T REWARD PEOPLE CHANGING THING THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE CHANGING. THANK YOU. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHO WANTS TO TAKE A STAB AT THIS. GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY. OKAY, COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. I AM GOING TO TAG YOU. YOU WANT TO TAKE TWO OR THREE MEN TO GO THROUGH -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: COUNCIL, I WILL RECOMMEND THAT IF YOU DO DENY IT, THAT YOU STATE -- IF THERE IS ANY ADDITIONAL FACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU WANT IN THE RECORD, YOU BASE IT ON THE DISCUSSION, IF YOU CAN INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF WHATEVER MOTION YOU WANT -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AND TALK WITH ATTORNEY SHELBY. FIVE-MINUTE BREAK AND RECONVENE AT 6:36. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CALL IT BACK TO ORDER. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: HERE. >>LYNN HURTAK: HERE. >>BILL CARLSON: HERE. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: HERE. >>CLERK: WE HAVE A PHYSICAL QUORUM. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: LEFT OFF WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY REZ 25-80 BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN AN AREA THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MISUSED AS A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND SHOULD BE. AND HAS BEEN USED -- USED IN THAT FASHION FOR A WHILE. SO THAT IS MY BASIS FOR DENIAL. IS THAT SUFFICIENT, MR. SHELBY? I DON'T HAVE TO CITE ANY SPECIFIC BECAUSE -- >>MARTIN SHELBY: EUCLIDIAN REZONING UNLESS ANYTHING ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADD, THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: A MOTION TO FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. DOES THAT REQUIRE ROLL CALL? >>MARTIN SHELBY: NO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED? THE AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY. CLERK, WILL YOU READ THAT FOR ME. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIES -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: FAILS SORRY, IT DID CARRY BECAUSE A MOTION TO DENY. >>CLERK: MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY WITH VIERA BEING ABSENT. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT CONCLUDES THE LAST ITEM.BUSINESS. IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS? COUNCIL MEMBER CARLSON, COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. >>LYNN HURTAK: I MOTION TO HAVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENT TO TAMPA CITY COUNCIL ABOUT THE CITY OF TAMPA 2026 REDISTRICTING AT THE NOVEMBER 20, 2025 COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING. CLENDENIN KWLEVENZ A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >>LYNN HURTAK: VERY SORRY ABOUT FEEDBACK. >>MARTIN SHELBY: QUESTION ON THAT, IF I CAN. IS THAT UNDER STAFF REPORTS OR COMMENDATIONS OR PRESENTATIONS. >>LYNN HURTAK: I HAVE NO IDEA. I AM JUST HANDING THESE THINGS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I READ THEM. >>MARTIN SHELBY: DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL RUN. >>LYNN HURTAK: THERE YOU GO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ASK AND SHE SHALL APPEAR. >>JENNIFER MALONE: JENNIFER MALONE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. PLANNING COMMISSION WAS HOPING TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE REDISTRICTING EFFORTS. UNDER THE STAFF REPORTS TO BE HERE TO PRESENT. WHATEVER THE PLEASURE OF THE COUNCIL IS. >>LYNN HURTAK: ACTUALLY, IT MIGHT BE NICE TO DO IT DURING PRESENTATIONS JUST SO THAT IT IS DONE AND THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR ABOUT IT. AND THEY HAVE A TIME CERTAIN. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: BETTER FOR YOU. >>MARTIN SHELBY: NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN, THAT'S CORRECT. >>BILL CARLSON: I THINK THE MIKE IS PICKING UP -- YOU HEAR HER, SHE IS LOUDER THAN NORMAL. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: CCTV, DEFINITELY SOMETHING WITH THE PODIUM MIKE. NOT THAT IT MATTERS TONIGHT BECAUSE WE ARE ALMOST DONE. HERE WE GO. >>LYNN HURTAK: I WILL ASK THAT THAT BE -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS ROOM IN CEREMONIALS. >>MARTIN SHELBY: THERE IS, COMMENDATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS. >>LYNN HURTAK: I ASK THAT IT IS DURING THE CEREMONIALS WHICH WILL BE BEFORE PUBLIC COMMENT. SO -- >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WHO IS THE SECOND? >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: SECOND. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED, THE AYES HAVE IT UNANIMOUSLY, THANK YOU. >>LYNN HURTAK: A REQUEST FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REMOVE TA-CPA 24-04 A 24-05 AND 24-06 FROM OCTOBER 30, 2025 5:01 ADOPTION PUBLIC HEARING. >>CHARLIE MIRANDA: SECOND. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN HURTAK. SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. ALL THAT FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. >>LYNN HURTAK: THE PLANNING COMMISSION SENT US AN EMAIL THAT THE STATE DID NOT AGREE WITH. WE GOT IT YESTERDAY. READ IT. >>BILL CARLSON: DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION ON THAT WELL. >>JENNIFER MALONE: ONE AT ME TO DO. JENNIFER MALONE, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF. THAT WAS IN REGARD TO A PRIVATELY INITIATED TEXT AMENDMENT THAT CAME BEFORE YOU ON JULY 31. SO IT IS SCHEDULED FOR ADOPTION ON SEPTEMBER 25. AND WE WILL BE PRESENTING THE LETTER FROM THE STATE, BUT IT IS ALL INCLUDED. YOU ALL HAVE IT. AND WE HAVE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO PREPARE A RESPONSE FOR CITY COUNCIL. >>BILL CARLSON: DO YOU THINK, THOUGH, IT HAS BROADER IMPLICATIONS THAT WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ESPECIALLY BEFORE WE GET INTO WHATEVER THE NEXT ADDITION IS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: TAKE AN IOU. >>JENNIFER MALONE: I MEAN, IT'S THE PLEASURE OF COUNCIL -- I -- I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SCHEDULE A BRIEFING. MAYBE THIS -- MAYBE NEXT WEEK. >>BILL CARLSON: MORE FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE. THINK ABOUT IT AND LET US KNOW. >>LYNN HURTAK: IF WE TALK ABOUT IT. IF WE EACH GET SOME BRIEFINGS, MAYBE NEXT WEEK, BY THE TIME IT ROLLS AROUND ON SEPTEMBER 25, WE WILL BE ABLE TO BE PREPARED TO TALK TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. >>JENNIFER MALONE: YES, MA'AM. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS ALREADY BEEN COORDINATING WITH SUSAN JOHNSON-VELEZ'S DEPARTMENT TO BE BRIEFING YOU BEFORE SEPTEMBER 25. >>LYNN HURTAK: WONDERFUL. IF THERE IS ONE THING SO THE PUBLIC KNOW WHAT IS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. CAN YOU JUST MENTION WHAT THIS IS SO WE ARE NOT -- WHAT IS IT -- WHAT DO THE KIDS SAY TODAY, SUB- SKEETING? >>ALAN CLENDENIN: YOU LOOKED AT ME? HONESTLY, FEEL FREE TO TAKE AN IOU TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING PREPARED -- UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO ANSWER IT -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. >> I AM PREPARED. >>LYNN HURTAK: JUST WHAT ITEM IT IS. THE 30,000-FOOT VIEW. >>JENNIFER MALONE: I DON'T REMEMBER THE CASE NUMBER, BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT IS RELATED TO THE CHANNEL DISTRICT BONUS FEE -- THE SPECIAL BONUS TO ALLOW GREATER INCREASE IN THE -- IN THE CDB PERIPHERY. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: VERY GOOD. COUNCILMAN CARLSON. >>BILL CARLSON: HAS YOUR BOARD DISCUSSED IT YET? JENNIFER YEN IT IS NOT -- >>JENNIFER MALONE: IT IS NOT -- SO IT IS NOT GOING BACK TO OUR BOARD. ONCE THE BOARD TAKES ACTION ON IT, IT IS TRANSMITTED KOOAND CO BEFORE YOU. >>BILL CARLSON: I HEAD IT YESTERDAY. LEAVE IT TO YOU, MELISSA AND YOUR TEAM, IF YOUR BOARD DISCOVERS THE RAMIFICATION AND ANYTHING THAT YOU NEED FOR US TO KNOW. J ENCORE LOT 12 SDWRENZ MAY HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN ALL HONESTLY ON MONDAY NIGHT. I WILL HAVE TO WATCH THAT MEETING TO SEE IF IT WAS BROUGHT UP, BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT HAVEN'T BEEN DISCUSSED. >>BILL CARLSON: JUST LIKE ANY OTHER RULINGS FROM THE STATE, IN IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HIT, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE PART OF A NEW PRECEDENT, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. DO YOU HAVE ANY NEW BUSINESS. >>GUIDO MANISCALCO: I WOULD LIKE TO WISH MAYOR DICK GRECO A HAPPY BIRTHDAY. HE TURNS 92 YEARS OLD THIS SUNDAY. HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MR. GRECO. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: COUNCIL MEMBER CARLSON. OH, MY GOSH -- >>BILL CARLSON: YOU GOT UPGRADED TONIGHT. YOU GOT CALLED CARSON. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: SHOTS FIRED. COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. SECONDED FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. >>BILL CARLSON: CAN I ASK ONE THING? THE EXPRESSWAY AUTHORITY IS TRYING TO SET UP A MEETING WITH US. >>ALAN CLENDENIN: WE ARE WORKING ON IT. TENTATIVELY IN DECEMBER. WILL COME BEFORE OUR NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECEIVE AND FILE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MANISCALCO. SECONDED FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MIRANDA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED. THE AYES HAVE IT. WE ARE ADJOURNED. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT, EVERYBODY.