Maybe because I’ve skipped wrap-ups the last month or so, I found myself with a lot to say about last week. If you’re interested, read my March 27 review. Warning, it’s full of hot takes, handle with caution.

Council only has a 48 item agenda, with only 34 items requiring a vote. But a couple of the items might warrant a lot of discussion so I don’t know if the smaller agenda is because of that or if it was planned to keep this agenda small due to the NCAA Women’s Final Four starting Friday.

Leading off the votes are two seats for the Variance Review Board. Both are designated “neighborhood civc representative., one being an alternate. One candidate has been an alternate on the board, the other is a new applicant. I have been urging who and where I can to find more folks for this board as when I watch, there’s sometimes been only 4 members making decisions. I can’t speak to the qualifications of either applicant, but there really aren’t a lot of qualifications required beyond being able to understand the meaning of a hardship. Which has proven difficult for a lot of the VRB members. Often lately it seems they go into each hearing with a “yes” and the applicant has to work to not get a variance. But at some point we need folks to understand that just because they bought a home built to maximize indoor space that was designed setback to setback, it’s not a hardship they now want to have a pool and outdoor covered deck. However, I think until there’s more public scrutiny of the variance applications grand oaks will continue to be cut down for parking lots and our land use code will be exploited. Which is why one of my focuses this summer will be to better surface the VRB agendas and how to provide feedback in advance of the hearings. I suspect if more knew about grand tree removals there wouldn’t be applications with no public opposition.

Speaking of land use code, staff will be providing an update later in the agenda on the LDC rewrite. These updates have been pushed back several times (to be fair, there have been several public updates outside of Council) so there’s not been a lot of clarity what is being proposed. My understanding is that the goal is to simplify and provide more clarity for builders. I also understand it will give more latitude to the Zoning Administrator and staff. If that is the case, there absolutely needs to be a matrix provided to the public what exactly staff can waive, how that is noticed, and how it can be appealed. Not appealed for denial, appeal staff waivers. I also suspect this might put more emphasis on the VRB, which, see above.

Item 26 is a head scratcher. The city owns a lot on the corner of Cherry Street and Howard Ave. We have been leasing it a an AC company for parking since 2020 for $4,000 a year. This is a request to extend the lease agreement. This may spark a discussion about how to better use this land than charging $333 a month for private parking.

Item 27 looks like the final, final step for the GasWorx project. Approval of the Community Benefits Agreement. I’m confused by the process of that being the last thing approved versus the first, but I trust there’s a reason. This CBA has been reviewed by a public committee and comes with their recommendation to adopt.

Item 32 isn’t one we see often. A request to be removed from a historic preservation designation. Particularly the Tampa Heights historic district and the lot adjacent to the Pippen House at 202 E Columbus Blvd. Apparently Council approved a lot split in 2023 for the western portion of the property. The lot is not part of the contiguous historic district but the Pippen House and property are. So they are petitioning the city to be excluded so they don’t have to meet Architectural Review standards. Staff and the Historic Preservation Board didn’t object. There were never any buildings of historic nature on this portion of the property so there’s not a lot preserve. I suspect they are still subject to overlay guidelines but there’s a mix of home styles along Columbus east of the river.

Item 34 is the return of the UNITE: Ashley Drive project. I flagged it when it originally appeared on the February 20th agenda under consent items. Council pulled it for discussion and it was confirmed this project started out much smaller with a Federal grant secured by Representative Castor. Council continued the item to give staff an opportunity to explain how it has more than doubled in size with an expectation the downtown CRA and bonding would fund it. Statements from Council members at the time were almost universal they wouldn’t support this project with the facts presented. What seems to be the issue is that the USDOT grant was about the Ashley Drive off ramp/north bound flyover as part of work US/FL DOT is doing with I-275 and this project is a larger, more ambitious project for Ashley Dr. The question isn’t does the project sound good, it is how to pay for it and priorities.

Item 36 is approving the $21 million from the County as part of the All for Transportation “settlement”. This is the last chance for the public or Council to have a say in how these funds are spent (caveat that the state has mostly dictated it can only be spent on roads), the projects are earmarked as part of the terms. All roads are classified tier 1 priorities in the master plan. Anecdotally, I took Yukon from Nebraska Ave to Florida Ave this weekend which is on the list. The condition of the road east of the interstate as you near Nebraska Ave I would definitely rate as one of the poorer surfaces I’ve seen. HART has a transfer station on Yukon west of the interstate and it would be nice if there was a planned project to turn that into less of giant piece of asphalt in conjunction with any resurfacing/road work being done on that stretch.

Beyond that there will be staff reports on other resurfacing efforts, stormwater maintenance and the bi-annual PIPES update. There is also an item related to Harbor Island/Convention Center light debate. The request was for a written report detailing options for hiring an outside consultant to do a new study. That item is missing the report at the time of review but staff has time to submit.