ARC backs alley vacate but recommends council deny Magnolia Court Hotel rezoning; asks council to allow ARC 10% flexibility if PD approved

The City of Tampa Architectural Review Commission on Sept. 17 recommended that City Council approve vacating a remaining piece of alley that sits inside a multi‑parcel redevelopment site but recommended that council deny a request to rezone the block to a Planned Development (PD) for the proposed Magnolia Court Hotel. The commission also voted unanimously to ask the council that, if it approves the PD, the PD include a note allowing the ARC limited (up to 10%) flexibility to adjust building setbacks and heights during ARC review of a future certificate of appropriateness.

Two linked applications — a vacating request for a small remainder of an alley and a rezoning request from R O‑1 (residential/office) to PD — were opened together and heard by the commission. Ron Viela of historic preservation staff explained that the remainder of the alley requested for vacating is the last fragment of an alley otherwise vacated in 1925; staff circulated the application to city departments and reported no objections to vacating the remnant. “While staff typically objects to vacating requests because of historic grid impacts, the remainder was vacated in 1925, and staff does not object to vacating the remaining portion,” Viela said.

The rezoning drew substantially more public comment and scrutiny from staff. Dennis Fernandez, Architectural and Historic Preservation manager, reviewed the Hyde Park design guideline criteria the commission uses — including scale, massing, setbacks and rhythm — and told the commission staff found the PD plan inconsistent with several guidelines in the form presented. Fernandez said staff considered the project’s height and width, the long mass that would extend across the block, and the need for greater horizontal and vertical modulation to make the bulk compatible with the district.

Applicant team and project design

Truett Gardner, attorney/agent for the owner, presented the redevelopment as a single, coordinated block redevelopment that would replace multiple surface lots and non‑contributing buildings with a mixed hotel/residential project the team calls the Magnolia Court Hotel. The team described the project as 151 units in total: 122 hotel rooms and 29 condominium units (applicant numbers). The developer proposed internal parking (271 spaces), two loading bays and a partially buried stormwater vault to control runoff on‑site. Gardner said the design had been reduced in intensity since earlier concept phases: a planned second full‑size restaurant was replaced with a smaller grab‑and‑go and event space was reduced to about 4,000 square feet.

Architect Stephen Smith described the project’s massing strategy: taller elements would sit closest to Bayshore and adjacent commercial buildings (Bank of Tampa), with stepped down massing toward residential blocks to the west. Smith and the team emphasized porch and terrace elements, two‑story base cornices and landscaped terraces intended to soften the perception of height. The team said it moved curb cuts, eliminated a Swan Avenue driveway that neighbors had opposed, contained loading and waste inside the site and had proposals to use off‑site parking (an 84‑space lot one block away) for nights/weekend events.

Stormwater and floodplain considerations

The team said the site lies partly in FEMA AE flood zones and showed the application would build to the required Design Flood Elevation; the applicant reported proposing DFE and building elevations consistent with FEMA rules, using breakaway walls for the lowest level and locating parking and vaulting accordingly. Addie Clark, on the applicant team, said the development will include an underground stormwater vault “which is a significant improvement” over the existing collection of non‑vaulted surface parking lots.

Public comment and concerns

Public comment was lengthy and mixed. Supporters cited careful architectural response, new publicly accessible bayshore‑facing terraces and stormwater improvements. Opponents raised consistent concerns: traffic and parking impacts on narrow brick streets, the potential for event traffic to spill into nearby residential streets, proximity to Gorey Elementary and Wilson Middle School, and the project’s scale relative to the historic district. Representative comments included:

- Charles Michaels (neighbor): urged restrictions on non‑resident parking near homes and recommended residential permit parking for a multi‑block radius. - Susan Turner (resident of decades): said the density and elevation were “much too high” and raised public‑safety concerns for children and school traffic. - Cathy Durden (Hyde Park Regional Artists/old Hyde Park Arts Center): said the arts center relies on street parking and warned disruption during construction would be severe.

Applicant response and staff circulation

The applicant acknowledged concerns and documented outreach to neighborhood groups and HPPI (Hyde Park Preservation, Inc.), told the commission outdoor operations would close at 10 p.m. nightly per a zoning note agreed with HPPI and described management plans to channel rideshare and event traffic onto Magnolia and Bay streets rather than neighborhood streets. On loading and waste the applicant said all delivery and trash movement would be contained inside the garage/loading bay and that box trucks (not tractor‑trailers) would serve the site.

Commission actions and outcomes

Vacating: ARC recommended City Council approve vacating the remaining 3,000‑square‑foot fragment of the alley. The motion to recommend approval of the vacate passed by voice vote; commissioners recorded a 5‑1 recommendation in favor.

Rezoning (PD): After extended discussion and public comment, a commissioner moved that ARC recommend City Council deny the rezoning request to PD. The commission approved a motion recommending denial (voice vote) and the decision will go to City Council as a recommendation opposing approval of the PD as presented.

Contingency note for City Council: Commissioners also voted unanimously (6‑0) on a separate recommendation that, if City Council approves the PD, City Council add a note to the PD to permit the ARC to adjust setbacks and heights up to 10% at the time of ARC certificate‑of‑appropriateness review to allow limited design refinement consistent with Hyde Park design guidelines.

Why it matters: The block borders the Hyde Park Historic District and Bayshore Boulevard and includes multiple parcels with one contributing structure the applicant proposes to retain. ARC staff framed the decision as balancing the benefits of a single‑parcel redevelopment (stormwater vaults, consolidated loading, removal of non‑conforming surface lots) against Hyde Park guidelines that emphasize scale, setbacks and rhythm. The ARC’s split recommendation means the vacate is likely to reach City Council with ARC support while the rezoning recommendation opposes the PD in its present form; Council action will be determinative.

What’s next: Both items will appear before City Council. The applicant told the commission it intends to take the package to Council on Nov. 13; if Council approves the PD, ARC’s recommendation on the 10% adjustment would invite ARC to use limited flexibility while reviewing final appropriateness and material details.