This week’s post will be abbreviated as I’m catching up after a much needed weekend away unplugging but that doesn’t mean there aren’t important votes before Council and the CRA this week. Votes that are very much speak now or forever hold your peace votes in a lot of ways.

Leading off the CRA votes are 2 items for to purchase property in the East Tampa district. One at 2209. E Lake for $415,000 and one at 3620 N. 23rd St for $210,000. The E. Lake property is to expand the footprint of previously acquired land; its final use yet to be determined. The 23rd St purchase is to expand “will assist in providing additional parking, commercial/retail space, and other possible amenities on the current site”. I’m not exactly sure what’s on the current site.

Item 12 is a “West Tampa Program Change Request” for the West Riverwalk funding the Board previously approved. Which buckets of money within the West Tampa bucket are they pulling it from. However it’s another opportunity to rehash the vote to approve this project.

Item 13 is a big one, which was previewed a few weeks back when some in the public as well as the applicant spoke at public comment. The request is titled “Sanchez Y Haya Building Restoration Special Funding Request (East Tampa CRA) — 1601 E. Columbus Drive”. It’s a request for the CRA to fund $5 million to help them restore a historic Ybor Cigar factory including building a new restaurant that will serve alcohol. The Ybor/East Tampa CRA crossover happens because of the boundaries of the districts. While the company and factory is part of the historic Ybor fabric, the CRA districts do not follow the same lines.

In addition to the $5 million request to the CRA, they have secured over $3 million in state grant funding. They estimate the total cost of the project to be $18 million. The $10 million difference is privately funded. The biggest issue I see with this is that a project of this size requires a Community Benefits Agreement. If you look at the slides from their presentation, it’s suggesting it will create 78 jobs and draw tourists. I don’t know how a CRA Board can vote for a $5 million project without the language of the CBA. I’m not sure how the CRA Board votes to fund a private business to the tune of $5 million of East Tampa CRA funds when there’s still so much to do in the largest CRA district in the city. Just today it was reported that the federal government cut a $1.6 million tree grant to the city earmarked for underserved/low income neighborhoods. Like East Tampa.

Compare that with a agenda item 14, a request for $5 million in downtown CRA funding for 30 affordable units—16 units (16 studios/1BRs) for 80% AMI, 7 units (6 studios/1BRs, 1 2BR) for 120% AMI and 7 units (4 studios/1BRs, 3 2BR) for 140% AMI for 50 years. This would be for another phase of the Encore development that will include 360 units (so less than 10% will be affordable) and 32,000 square feet of retail. The developers initially requested $14 million, 50% in the form of TIF (future tax rebates). It would have included 40 units, but only for 20 years. From what I can tell, that was rejected by the Downtown Citizen Advisor Council. I’m not sure if the CAC approved (non-binding) this modified proposal or not.

Finally, the last approval needed for the interlocal agreement between the Gas Worx CDD, the city and the CRA board will be voted on. It passed Council unanimously and was 100% TIF.

Hopefully there will also be some clarity on the search for a permanent CRA Director. The last one stepped down in June. The city doesn’t allow an interim administrator to serve in the role longer than 6 months. Good thing for the CRA it’s not a city position, but highlights the need for the CRA Board to get this one right and cross their fingers they or a new board won’t be in this same situation in 2 years.

For the evening land use hearing, the agenda will be dominated by item 3, REZ-23-99. The rezoning of 319 Bayshore Boulevard. This was an application that started in 2023, was continued twice in 2024 (August 8 and November 14) which may have been hurricane related. The gist is this property was part of a PD-A (multi-part development) that was approved for 11 dwelling units with a height of 98 feet in 2010. In that plan, the full project was approved for 753 units or 753,198 SF to be constructed in three phases.
with Phases 2 and 3 at a maximum building height of 98’. The property owner petitioned the city through the non-substantial change process to allocate all. Meaning, what wasn’t built in other phases to all be used on the single parcel. Thus they are proposing a development that includes one building 330 feet tall. Three times the size.

For the initial public hearing there was a large contingent of people opposed to the application based on reviewing the backup materials. (Emails/letters are bundled so one document “1-WRITTEN COMMENTS -REZ-23-99” contains dozens of correspondence, not “one” written comment.)

I’ll note one major difference between this project and 2713 Bayshore Blvd. The future land use designation. This property currently has a FLU designation of R-83 which is a much higher density than R-35 on the 2713 Bayshore Blvd property. I’m not sure it’s 30 stories tall density but it’s a significant difference. The adjacent property which borders Platt before it meets Bayshore has a FLU designation of R-100, even more dense and intense of a use. I’m not sure how you take a PD with phased development and clearly a stepped down design and turn it on its side to take advantage of unused “entitlements” but the applicant is “entitled” to ask. Staff has found the application inconsistent.

I hope to have some time this week to get caught up on the end of last week’s meeting and write a catch-up post on the budget discussions. They are important and will shape the discussions in four or five months when the mayor presents her budget to Council. In the meantime, I can’t recommend enough slipping away from the news and spending some time outdoors. There’s a reason we call this place home.