Tyler Hudson, the attorney representing the property owners laid out the argument clearly—the owner had determined the only economically viable way to avoid demolishing the century old building and restore it was to return it to its intended use, a hotel. A majority of the surrounding home owners—enjoying the least dense future land use designation in the city—opposed the development for a multitude reasons. Opinions from the broader Davis Islands and Tampa residents were mixed. Ultimately Tampa City Council voted 5-2 in support of Council member Lynn Hurtak’s motion to deny the application with Council Chair Alan Clendenin and Council member Luis Viera voting against the denial.
The Mirasol opened as a grand hotel in 1926 on the newly created Davis Islands. And while its use as a hotel was relatively short lived due to the land bust and Great Depression, architecturally it didn’t. By the time future land use designations were assigned in 1980, the building had been converted to apartments so it received an R50 designation. A smaller hotel built around the same time as the Mirasol on Davis Islands was still operating in some fashion as a hotel (at least rented rooms by the night) and received the CMU35 designation.
In order to return the “hotel” to a hotel the future land use (FLU) designation needed to be changed from R50, 50 residential units per acre, to something that allowed hotel usage under the city’s zoning code. They applied for CMU35, 35 units per acre. Community mixed-use allows for more intense usage including some commercial activities. Hudson and the property owner made clear that economically the value was in the land, and a more dense designation like the existing R50 allowing 80 units on the property is more attractive for building luxury condominiums than the request for CMU35 which would have allowed fewer units. Bonus agreements and Floor/Area Ratio (FAR) are only useful to smaller apartment type developments he argued. Hudson proffered that if the FLU map amendment was approved but not the preceding rezoning, they would withdraw the amendment before second reading and retain the R50. In addition to restoring the original hotel, the owner was proposing a second, new building doubling the occupancy along with a third building with townhomes.
Hudson alluded to an issue with trust in the community. The community didn’t trust that the property owner would save the building after receiving the CMU35 designation, that the proposed hotel(s) wouldn’t be built and that a bait-and-switch of what would be built would happen. At the center was the issue of what is historic. In land use terms, historic districts and buildings are defined by designations that can protect them from demolition and what they look like. The building in question currently has no formal designation. And while Hudson tried to argue the nuances of when would be the appropriate time to apply for historic landmark designation—that the owner was committed to doing so—there was no guarantee at the time of voting. A lack of trust.
What’s next? That’s up to the property owner. They could start the historic preservation application process and exhibit more than words their commitment to restoring the building before re-applying. But based on their testimony and the comments from Hudson, a wrecking ball and a 12 story luxury residential tower like the Ritz Carlton on Bayshore Blvd is not out of the question. That project also has the R50 future land use designation and was extremely controversial at the time. A rezoning (not future land use change) may be required, but the neighbors are all on record they want residential not commercial. The entitlement is in place. Anyone who thought defeating the current proposal would maintain the status quo and the quaint apartment building would just remain will be in for a surprise. Change is going to happen.
