Council upholds special‑use approval for townhomes at 4465 West Gandy after weeks of debate, adds garage‑size condition

Tampa City Council on Thursday voted to uphold the zoning administrator's approval of a special‑use permit (SU12498) for single‑family attached townhomes at 4465 West Gandy Boulevard, rejecting a petition for review by neighborhood representatives and adding a condition that each garage parking space measure 19 feet 10 inches by 10 feet (two‑car garage of 19'10" x 20').

The appeal argued the petitioner failed to serve one of two recorded property owners within five days of filing, a requirement cited in Tampa City Code section 27‑61(e). Ben Dachapalli, attorney for one property owner, told council the service omission "violates the owner's due process rights and warrants a dismissal with prejudice of the petition for review." Kamaria Pettisnakal of the city's legal department told council she had included section 27‑61 in the packet and said the subsection requires notice but does not prescribe a statutory penalty or an explicit remedy of dismissal; the legal department advised the council it had discretion to proceed.

Staff and the applicant focused the hearing on the two objective criteria that govern SU‑1 reviews under city code: that the site have direct access to an arterial or collector as shown on the major street map, and that the site meet the dimensional standards applicable to the RM‑24 zone. Laura Marley of Development Coordination told council staff reviewed the application as a single‑family attached (townhouse) use and concluded the application met those two criteria. The applicant's attorney, Tyler Hudson, also told council staff had correctly determined that a recorded commercial plat and recorded easement provide "direct access" to Gandy Boulevard; he argued the proposal represented a lower‑trip, lower‑intensity alternative to reusing the site for large retail or for denser multifamily development under the Live Local Act.

Neighborhood representatives, led by Pete Trella of the Bayside West Neighborhood Association, urged council to overturn the approval. Trella said the project as submitted would increase impervious surface and flood risk, worsen on‑street parking, and allow four‑story buildings that, he said, "overlook single story homes" next door. He and other residents cited specific operational concerns in the site plan including short driveway lengths and the project's visitor parking layout; Trella said six visitor spaces depicted "are actually encroaching over the property line" and thus would not be usable. Resident and former county emergency manager Larry Gispert urged council to factor coastal high‑hazard area risks and local flooding history in its deliberations.

The applicant and project team defended the site plan and the review path. Developer and builder representatives said the project would add 127 townhouse units (as proposed) in a location designated UMU‑60 in the comprehensive plan, that the proposal falls well below the site's by‑right intensity in that land use category, and that the schematic would fill a sidewalk gap and include stormwater controls to meet permitting standards. The applicant's counsel also told council that if SU‑1 approval were overturned, the owner could pursue a Live Local Act application that would allow substantially greater density without a council hearing.

After extended questioning and public comment, Councilwoman Bill Henderson moved to "uphold the zoning administrator's approval of SU12498" on the basis that the record did not contain competent, substantial evidence that the application failed to meet the two SU‑1 criteria in city code; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote. Council attached a condition specifying garage parking spaces shall be 19 ft. 10 in. by 10 ft. (and thus two‑car garages 19'10" x 20'). The decision affirms staff's narrow, de novo review role on SU‑1 applications (access and dimensional compliance) while preserving future permitting and site‑plan review steps for technical items such as stormwater and transportation engineering.

Discussion versus decision: Council's action was limited to whether the SU‑1 review criteria were met (the narrow legal question). The council did not approve a final site plan or building permit; council members and staff emphasized that subsequent technical reviews and permitting remain required. The legal department and the applicant both preserved rights to pursue litigation on the notice arguments.

Agenda and next steps: The applicant will proceed to site‑plan and permitting review where transportation, stormwater and final engineering will be examined in detail. Neighborhood and developer representatives were encouraged to continue dialogue during the permitting stage.

Vote/Action: Motion to uphold zoning administrator approval of SU12498; motion passed on roll call (Councilman Carlson recorded as voting no); condition added requiring garage spaces 19 ft. 10 in. x 10 ft. (two‑car garages 19'10" x 20').