Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

St. Pete Beach group challenges new plan

They say changes to city redevelopment plans allow too much density and might overburden infrastructure.

By PAUL SWIDER
Published August 24, 2005

ST. PETE BEACH - Opponents of St. Pete Beach's redevelopment efforts on Friday challenged a state agency on the city's amendments to its comprehensive plan, arguing they will violate growth management law.

If the challenge succeeds, it will impede the city's program to boost tourism and mixed-use development, which is contingent on an updated comprehensive plan.

In a document sent to the Department of Community Affairs, the political group Citizens for Responsible Growth told DCA it should not approve amendments to the city's comprehensive plan because the changed plan would allow too much development. CRG says the city is increasing development density and that it has not shown it has the roads, water and sewer capacity to accommodate new population.

The document, filed by the law firm Bricklemyer, Smolker and Bolves of Tampa, says "The maximum development allowable . . . substantially exceeds that allowable under the existing comprehensive plan" and that the city has not provided analysis to show it has infrastructure capacity for new development. The filing provides no analysis demonstrating these claims.

The city says it has actually reduced potential density, in part because DCA does not allow increased density in the coastal high-hazard area that includes all of St. Pete Beach. DCA's acceptance of the plan is based on that reduction, so CRG's claim differs from what DCA has concluded after its own analysis.

Planning director Karl Holley said the city has 2,938 transient units, such as hotel rooms, and 1,548 residential units. The previous comprehensive plan allowed up to 6,699 transient units and 4,565 residential units, while the new plan allows 6,687 transient units and 4,476 residential units.

City officials also say the law will require the city to meet infrastructure needs as the city develops but that there is no meaningful way to predict those needs until there are development proposals to consider. They say the city cannot be expected to provide infrastructure plans for all possible development. DCA officials say the law does not require the city to provide analysis and, as long as the city remains within the density limits of its existing plan, it would not have to provide analysis to demonstrate capacity.

The city's redevelopment plan takes the ability to build a certain number of housing units from some areas of the city and moves it to others where it can be better used. It's this density swap, intended to make redevelopment more attractive, that CRG claims creates density because it ignores existing buildings in counting development potential.

CRG argues that using density from one property to expand another would increase the total number of living units in the city if the receiving property is redeveloped before the older property. For example, a small motel that has 10 units might have nine of those units swapped out to a resort property. When that resort is rebuilt with the additional units, the motel is still standing, meaning the city would have created new density.

Holley said that could happen in theory but is extremely unlikely to create a problem in reality.

"I would bet the mortgage that you would find the extent to which the city could theoretically exceed plan maximums is reduced by the adopted amendments," he said. "We will never have enough development to find out since, as the numbers demonstrate, we are a very long way from maximum densities under the old or new plan, and physical, financial and regulatory constraints will ensure that the city never gets anywhere near the actual maximums allowed under the plan."

CRG attorney Ken Weiss said he thinks calculating absolute maximums under a worst-case scenario is what the law requires.

Weiss also said the idea that the city need not provide infrastructure studies contradicts growth management law. DCA officials disagree, but Weiss says his group has no intention of fighting the agency. Because the city's amendments seem to make matters better, by DCA's standards, than the existing plan does, there is a question of whether CRG is challenging the amendments or the city's existing, approved plan.

CRG representatives have made the increased density argument to DCA in the past, but the agency has still indicated it intends to approve the city's comprehensive plan amendments.

If DCA accepts the objection now, there would be a hearing with an administrative law judge, who could find the city in error and require it to rewrite the plan amendments. DCA or the judge could also rule against the objection and let the city proceed with its plan. DCA officials say it is too early for the agency to have evaluated CRG's filing.

[Last modified August 24, 2005, 01:15:20]